Hayden the best bat since this century?

[Ikki]

No, not really. Scoring at 33 can be just as useful as scoring at 100. Regularly.

Exactly, it can be. Whilst scoring those runs faster is always good. Unless, as I said, of course you are purposely looking for a draw.

Nah, you're missing the point of a draw here, slightly. If you need to bat out a session to win the game, scoring 20 off 150 is going to be much more beneficial than scoring 20 off 20. Same score; slower one is better. The same applies to all previous batting efforts in the game - as soon as you are trying to save a match, scoring the same amount of runs at a slower rate helps. A first innings effort of 1 (100) is all of a sudden more useful to your cause than 200 (99). Obviously these are absolute extremes, but it shows that having a high strike rate doesn't mean you are neccessarily more use to your team.

How are you going to win a game by doing that? The only way the above scenario works for a win is if you need 20 to win, and then it makes no difference whether you score it in 20 balls or 150 balls. And unless you mean save a match by drawing it, then no, you're reasoning is still flawed to me.

Test bowlers shouldn't be all that concerned about getting hit for a few. It happens. The inability to take any wickets would really cast doubt into their minds, though.

Why? Someone who leaves half your balls and scores a single here and there isn't going to destroy your confidence in the course of an inning.

 

[Ikki]

And draw > loss.

But that's only if you set out for a win, then a draw is better than a loss. If you set out for a draw then you will neither win nor lose.

 

[Prince EWS]

9 times out of 10 the victory should be sought rather than the draw

Obviously, you should never go out to a match with intentions of drawing it. I don't think one should play anything other than the game he is likely to score the most runs with in the first innings, though. The first innings is where the path of the game is generally decided; both teams bat and the foundations are laid. The second innings is where you do your playing around - if you're still in the game, you should push for the win, else you should play for the draw.

In no way am I saying I'd pick someone simply because they scored slower. No way in the world. But I'd never rate someone higher just because they scored quicker. IMO the situations where each style is required even out over time; those who score at 33 are just as useful as those who score at 100 and vice-versa. He who scores the most runs is the better batsman.

 

[silentstriker]

Scoring slow in Tests also has the benefit of allowing others to build the partnership around you. Cricket is a game of partnerships, and the longer you stick around, the better you are, provided you are not ludicrously slow (like an S/R of 15 or something).

It is very rare that slow batting is what causes you to lose the game, and if that is true, then why does it matter how fast you score?

 

[Mister Wright]

It doesn't matter what Hayden does there will be many who will never consider him to be as great as he is. If he's not Australia's best ever opener he should be at the other end. He's also becoming one of our better ODI batsmen, simply amazing record. His consistency has been amazing. Might not be the best bat this century, but certainly the best opener this century. That is without question.

 

[Prince EWS]

Exactly, it can be. Whilst scoring those runs faster is always good.

No, it isn't, for several reasons I have outlined above.

How are you going to win a game by doing that?

It's not about what is good at the time, but what is good at the end of the game. Obviously you aren't going to be trying to win if you need 500 to win with 5 wickets in hand on the last day, either.

And unless you mean save a match by drawing it

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Typically what is meant by the phrase.

Why? Someone who leaves half your balls and scores a single here and there isn't going to destroy your confidence in the course of an inning.

He is if you don't take a wicket all day. IMO, someone who hammers you around but takes more risks than a member of the Deadly Demons isn't going to shatter your confidence - you know you're always in the game as a bowler.

 

[silentstriker]

Might not be the best bat this century, but certainly the best opener this century. That is without question.

Well, considering Sehwag is probably his closest competitor, I am not sure it's all that much of a compliment.

 

[Mister Wright]

If you're scoring runs fast, it is obviously better than scoring runs slowly. That's plainly obvious. The problem comes when you score runs quickly, but don't get many. The same can be said for scoring slowly, but not scoring many. There's no point saying that scoring slowly is better than scoring quickly if you get out for 13 off 163, unless you're batting out the last session of the day, can't see how that benefits the team.

 

[Mister Wright]

Well, considering Sehwag is probably his closest competitor, I am not sure it's all that much of a compliment.

It is a compliment. Hayden has set such high standards as an opener it would be hard for anyone to get close.

 

[Athlai]

Obviously, you should never go out to a match with intentions of drawing it. I don't think one should play anything other than the game he is likely to score the most runs with in the first innings, though. The first innings is where the path of the game is generally decided; both teams bat and the foundations are laid. The second innings is where you do your playing around - if you're still in the game, you should push for the win, else you should play for the draw.

In no way am I saying I'd pick someone simply because they scored slower. No way in the world. But I'd never rate someone higher just because they scored quicker. IMO the situations where each style is required even out over time; those who score at 33 are just as useful as those who score at 100 and vice-versa. He who scores the most runs is the better batsman.

A very good point and I agree with you regarding 1st innings at least.

But if you score 33 in a 2nd innings situation your just not doing your job. A batsman who can score slow but has the ability to score quickly is the best kind IMO.

 

[Ikki]

No, it isn't, for several reasons I have outlined above.

Yes, as I had guessed: Exactly, it can be. Whilst scoring those runs faster is always good. Unless, as I said, of course you are purposely looking for a draw.

If you want a draw it isn't good.

It's not about what is good at the time, but what is good at the end of the game. Obviously you aren't going to be trying to win if you need 500 to win with 5 wickets in hand on the last day, either.

So you aren't going to win at all by doing that. Which is what you said would happen.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Typically what is meant by the phrase.

But you said: If you need to bat out a session to win the game... You're not going to win by doing that.

He is if you don't take a wicket all day. IMO, someone who hammers you around but takes more risks than a member of the Deadly Demons isn't going to shatter your confidence - you know you're always in the game as a bowler.

Er? What? Listen, this is getting too confusing. If you are going for a DRAW, yes. If you are NOT, then no. Not only is the total going to be small but you're not going to be worrying anyone.

 

[Ikki]

Obviously, you should never go out to a match with intentions of drawing it. I don't think one should play anything other than the game he is likely to score the most runs with in the first innings, though. The first innings is where the path of the game is generally decided; both teams bat and the foundations are laid. The second innings is where you do your playing around - if you're still in the game, you should push for the win, else you should play for the draw.

In no way am I saying I'd pick someone simply because they scored slower. No way in the world. But I'd never rate someone higher just because they scored quicker. IMO the situations where each style is required even out over time; those who score at 33 are just as useful as those who score at 100 and vice-versa. He who scores the most runs is the better batsman.

But you can say one is better and rate them higher because of it. How often does a tie come about? Not very much, the innings you mention just doesn't happen enough for one batsman to then give him equal footing because of his inferior SR.

And as said before, it is skillfully much more difficult batting faster, as it requires you to not get out, scoring the same amount of runs, in less balls. UNLESS, you are going for that draw of course.

EDIT: Actually, I was wrong about ties not happening much. It depends really on the team. Australia, for example, I guess not as much as India. For some reason I keep thinking of Hayden or Australian players. I guess what I mean is that there aren't that many matches that teams GO for ties from the outset.

 

[Prince EWS]

But you can say one is better and rate them higher because of it.

I disagree entirely.

How often does a tie come about? Not very much

That argument can be used both ways though. By "tie" I'm sure you mean "draw" - in which case, slow scoring doesn't hamper your team's chances any more than slow scoring can help them. If there are few draws as you suggest, slow scoring isn't going to be much of a problem anyway, is it?

And as said before, it is skillfully much more difficult batting faster, as it requires you to not get out, scoring the same amount of runs, in less balls.

It really isn't, though. It requires just as much skill to not get out - as long as you are scoring the same amount of runs, the skill level required is equal. The above sort of thinking is what ODIs have done to people.

Regardless of which, the skill level involved doesn't always translate to your usefulness - playing a shot with one leg in the air and your finger on your nose would require some skill, too, but it wouldn't make you a better batsman because it wouldn't be very useful.

 

[Goughy]

As good as Hayden is (and he is without doubt good), it has to be Ponting.

 

[Mister Wright]

Anyone who thinks batting slower frustrates the bowlers/captain anymore than a batting quicker needs to have a rethink. The things that frustrate you more are partnerships. If batsmen are pelting you all around the park at 100 or more and doing it consistently in partnerships that's much more hurtful than players batting slowly, but not batting in partnerships. However, if batsmen are scoring at 30 but batting for a long time, it's also hurtful. However, as a captain I'd rather a team scoring at 30 that if finding hard to get out, than a team scoring at 100 and finding hard to get out.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes, as I had guessed: Exactly, it can be. Whilst scoring those runs faster is always good. Unless, as I said, of course you are purposely looking for a draw.

If you want a draw it isn't good.






So you aren't going to win at all by doing that. Which is what you said would happen.




But you said: If you need to bat out a session to win the game... You're not going to win by doing that.



Er? What? Listen, this is getting too confusing. If you are going for a DRAW, yes. If you are NOT, then no. Not only is the total going to be small but you're not going to be worrying anyone.

I meant to type "save" instead of "win." Which negates all the rebuttals in that post, pretty much. I never meant to suggest scoring slowly would aid in winning (other than my points re: demoralising the attack which you simply flat-out disagreed with. SS alluded to it again with his post about partnerships.)

My point was that scoring slowly can prevent defeat. If you're going to argue that draws are rare (which IMO they aren't), scoring slowly or quickly for that matter is of no consequence either way, as draws are rare on both sides of the coin.

 

[Prince EWS]

Anyone who thinks batting slower frustrates the bowlers/captain anymore than a batting quicker needs to have a rethink. The things that frustrate you more are partnerships. If batsmen are pelting you all around the park at 100 or more and doing it consistently in partnerships that's much more hurtful than players batting slowly, but not batting in partnerships. However, if batsmen are scoring at 30 but batting for a long time, it's also hurtful. However, as a captain I'd rather a team scoring at 30 that if finding hard to get out, than a team scoring at 100 and finding hard to get out.

You aren't going to find them very hard to get out for AS LONG if they score at 100 and score the same amount of runs, though. A 150 partnership at a SR of 30 would be really demoralising IMO - the amount of time elapsed with the bowlers not taking any wickets would leave them more shattered than any quick 70 could ever do - or even a 150 partnership off 150 balls. The latter would rock the team slightly but it wouldn't grind them down into a complete sense of uselessness like the former would.

 

[Mister Wright]

You aren't going to find them very hard to get out for AS LONG if they score at 100 and score the same amount of runs, though. A 150 partnership at a SR of 30 would be really demoralising IMO - the amount of time elapsed with the bowlers not taking any wickets would leave them more shattered than any quick 70 could ever do - or even a 150 partnership off 150 balls. The latter would rock the team slightly but it wouldn't grind them down into a complete sense of uselessness like the former would.

I wasn't really referring to test cricket, but my two day cricket. I'm never going to captain Queensland or Australia, but I do captain my club side.

In a test match situation if they're at the crease for the same amount of time it's going to hurt more if they're scoring at 100 than 30 and it's going to be much more demorilising.

 

[Ikki]

You aren't going to find them very hard to get out for AS LONG if they score at 100 and score the same amount of runs, though. A 150 partnership at a SR of 30 would be really demoralising IMO - the amount of time elapsed with the bowlers not taking any wickets would leave them more shattered than any quick 70 could ever do - or even a 150 partnership off 150 balls. The latter would rock the team slightly but it wouldn't grind them down into a complete sense of uselessness like the former would.

If you have 2 batsmen slogging 75s each with a strike-rate of 150, then yes, I'd still go for the faster duo. Still a partnership, still lasts a while and is very damaging.

 

[Prince EWS]

I guess what I mean is that there aren't that many matches that teams GO for ties from the outset.

I don't believe you should ever go for one from the outset. But that doesn't mean you don't end up going for them once the second innings rolls around.

Most batsmen have strike rates that range between 45 and 65 these days. It really isn't a great deal of difference either way when you take into account all the positives and negatives of scoring either quickly or slowly - and they'd be much less exaggerated given we've spoken in absolute extremes most of the time. I'd rather a batsman averaging 56 and striking at 45 than one averaging 53 and striking at 65 - the pros and cons of different scoring rates and the small difference leads me to just completely ignore it. Unless of course it is ridiculously fast or ridiculously slow - both can cause problems. I'm not talking about the difference between Ponting and Kallis here - I'm more talking Afridi-Hoggard proportions.