Scoring quickly isn't all it is cracked up to be, though.
For all that is made of sending a bowler around the park to destroy morale, there is an equal case for grinding the bowlers into ground not only mentally by physically as well, by building long partnerships, wearing out all the bowlers and sending them mad trying to think of how the hell they are going to get a wicket. I'd be much more demoralised as a bowler if I failed to take a wicket for two sessions than if a batsman got hold of me a bit, hit a few boundries and managed to get a score quickly. Long periods with a wicket, IMO, is a lot more damaging to a bowler's confidence than a few quick runs - or at least it should be to test bowlers.
I guess you can make that argument, but we're talking of batsmen who score similar rates but just do it differently. And in that context, scoring quicker is not only harder to do, it is much better for the team - unless you are actually planning for a draw.
Another argument often made is the fact that quick scoring promotes victories which slow scoring can cost them. Well that's all well and good if you play for Australia, I suppose, but what if you aren't the better team in the test? All of a sudden that run-a-ball 90 from your opener in the first innings and then his 10 off 12 in the second dig doesn't look so good when you end up losing the game in the last hour with the tail failing their desperate attempts to block out a draw. For all that quick scoring can gain a team in the cause of winning, it can cost a team if they find themselves in a situation where they need to save the match.
Again, essentially, unless you're actually setting out to tie the match, scoring quickly is the way to go. You save balls and you give the rest of the team a go. Whilst scoring slowly not only does not save balls for other batsmen, you risk taking too much time in scoring the same amount of runs someone else may score, in the opposition, in a quicker time, and eventually drawing or even losing a match you could have won. Whilst scoring quickly will never cost you a game, scoring slowly actually might.
I'm not, in any way, saying that slow scoring > fast scoring. But as far as test matches go, it actually isn't the other way either, contrary to popular belief. Different situations require different approaches and simply crease occupation can be more appropriate than quick scoring depending on how the game is traveling. Mental deterioration can be achieved through smashing bowlers around, but it can also be achieved through long unbroken partnerships - and the latter aids in physically tiring the bowlers as well.
True, it may not matter in some games whether a batsman scores at an SR of 40 compared to one of 60-65, but it is still better to get that same score faster. Again, unless your batsmen are falling like flies and you need to go for the tie, scoring faster is better.
You'll never see me hold scoring quickly against a batsman as it can obviously be advantageous, but it certainly doesn't make one batsman better than another who scores the same amount of runs as scoring slowly can turn out advantageous as well.
Just because it can, doesn't mean it is equal though. If batsmen X and Y average 55 each and one strikes even 10 balls faster, that one is the better batsman for your team. Also in terms of skill, it is harder to score faster. If you try to bat faster and score the same amount of runs, you're basically vulnerable in taking up shots that are best left alone, and if you are scoring off those balls it demonstrates a higher skill.
I couldn't disagree more. As an opener, ensuring you spend time at the crease is more important than in any other position. Tiring the new ball bowlers and seeing the shine off the ball to protect the middle order is an opener's first job. Dominating is not at all important, especially as an opener.
The new ball is not going to remain new having it's shine knocked off. Nor are captains likely to keep bowlers that are getting hammered on. This is a case where it's much better for your own team. If you score faster, it means the batsmen below you not only have winded bowlers to face, but have much more time doing it.
