Latest PWC Ratings.

[Bazza]

Yeah I agree Kallis isn't aggressive enough, I mean 53 off 26 balls what's that about? As I keep saying aggression is not the most important part of test cricket. I'd rather post 500 in 2 days than 400 in 1.

 

[Eclipse]

Its not so important but you would always rather a match winning batsman who avrages 50 Vs a Deffensive batsman who avrages 50.

Thats basicly what I was saying not that its bad to be deffensive.

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by Eclipse

Its not so important but you would always rather a match winning batsman who avrages 50 Vs a Deffensive batsman who avrages 50.

Thats basicly what I was saying not that its bad to be deffensive.

Nope...but how many Defensive players have won games for their teams regularly? I mean the whole point of the game is to win...

[Edited on 30/11/2002 by Rik]

 

[masterblaster]

but when your defensive, you rule out the possibility of a loss as well, India and England were successful in the 70's only because they had grinders like Gavaskar and Boycott, without them both of these teams would've capitulated time and time again.

But I love what the Australians are doing with test cricket, 4-5 an over is FANTASTIC!

 

[Eclipse]

Yes masterblaster but winning is better than losing :P

and Im sure Australian batsman could play deffensivly if the needed to.

 

[Bazza]

Well look at Dravid as an example. He is not a particularly aggressive batsman (nicknamed 'the wall'), but he saved Indias backsides twice this summer and as a result they were able to take out the series.

 

[Gotchya]

I dont think criticising Kallis for a slow strike rate is jusitifed. He's the best batsman in the SA line up, and as such has a huge responsibility to anchor each and every innings. These are the type of players that a team is hugely indebted to. If he were to go out there and play his shots and possibly get out early, I am sure half of us would be shouting CHEAT for not doing justice to talent and 'letting the side down', so its unfair to label him as a batsman who has a negative approach towards test cricket. Count the many occasions when players like Gibbs, Kirsten etc. have built a match winning innings around a solid Kallis performance ?

 

[Eclipse]

Im not critersizing him Im just stating that Match winning batsman who can play strokes and take to the bowlers are more valuble than deffensive ones.

An example could be M.Waugh almost every time he made runs Australia would win.

Think if Tendulkar suddenly started playing deffensivly all the time I am sure we would all agree he was the better batsman when he plays his strokes.

 

[Gotchya]

Originally posted by Eclipse
Im not critersizing him Im just stating that Match winning batsman who can play strokes and take to the bowlers are more valuble than deffensive ones.

An example could be M.Waugh almost every time he made runs Australia would win.

Think if Tendulkar suddenly started playing deffensivly all the time I am sure we would all agree he was the better batsman when he plays his strokes.

You missed my point. I said that good batting lineups today have in majority attacking batsmen. But there is alway's one batsman who can grind it out. Dravid for India, Kallis for South Africa, Youhana(defensive to a lesser extent for) for Pakistan..........And these players are instrumental in their teams success.

As for Tendulkar, he is not playing THAT role for his team.

 

[Bazza]

Mark Waugh averages 48 when Australia win, 42 in a draw and 27 when they lose. Jacques Kallis averages 58 when South Africa win, 57 when they draw and 30 when they lose. If that doesn't make him vital to their cause what does?

 

[Eclipse]

I am not missing anyones point I started the descussion so instead of asking if I see your point maybe you should look at mine.

Just on a 1 off basis you have 2 players side by side both very good one who is deffensive and one who is agressive.

If you were to chose one player to put in your team you would always choose the stroke maker.

Basicly everything you have said I agree with but its clear that a positive batsman is more valuble to a team than a negitive one given they are both of equal talent. (Even the don said so what more can I say)

 

[Neil Pickup]

I would disagree.

A defensive or anchor batsman is the most vital player in a line up as he will consistently play the innings to build the total around. Aggressive players, whilst on their day hitting crucial innings, will also have far more failures.

 

[Eclipse]

I said batsman of equal ability Neil eg they both avrage the same amount.

Then you would rather the stroke maker.

Deffensive players tarditonaly make less runs than agreesive ones as well.

And no were does it state that deffensive players are less likley to get out infact statistics show deffensive player usualy have more failures in the rang of 0-15.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I don't care if he's defensive or attacking. Personally I would choose the one who can bat and is a very good bowler.....

 

[Bazza]

Brian Lara - 59.22
Sachin Tendulkar - 58.46
Steve Waugh - 47.84
Matt Hayden - 58.84
Ricky Ponting - 57.28
Jacques Kallis - 39.49
Adam Gilchrist - 81.32
Michael Vaughan - 50.82
Inzamam-ul-Haq - 53.42
Herschelle Gibbs - 46.49
Andy Flower - 45.07
Mahela Jayawardene - 53.86
Kumar Sangakkara - 51.11
Shivnarine Chanderpaul - 40.30
Yousuf Youhana - 47.42
Damien Martyn - 51.73
Rahul Dravid - 40.81
Mark Waugh - 52.27


OK guys those are career strike rates for the worlds top 16 batsmen and the Waugh brothers. You will see there are 10 guys in the 50s, only Gilchrist stands out with his ridiculous 80+. Two of the worlds best batsmen though in Kallis and Dravid have SRs of about 40, whilst Youhana, Chanderpaul, Gibbs, Flower and S Waugh - all very good players, some of them great - have SRs below 50, so I don't really think you can claim there is a correlation there. As for getting out for scores of 15 or less, wll I'll leave that to someone else because I can't be bothered right now! Maybe I'll do it tomorrow...

 

[anzac]

My preference is for the shot maker over the anchor role - although I'd say it would probably have more to do with the make up of your batting line up & where they bat in the order, rather than the individual style.

Anyone who averages a strike rate over 50 in Test cricket is an 'Aggressive' batsman in my book, with 35 - 50 being 'Moderate' and below 35 being 'Defensive'.

This being the case it would be an interesting to compare how many of the top batsmen fall into what category, and how many teams have what types of batsmen in their line-ups, and how their batting order shapes up. Eg, S Waugh may be considered 'Moderate', but he bats at 6! The top 4 are all considered 'Aggressive', and Lehman is too new on the scene to rate. That gives the Aussies one hell of a kick start to their innings and great momentum!!!!

You could almost argue that the traditional 'Defensive' anchor role has almost been done away with in the modern game, and that this role is now up to the individuals involved in partnership at the crease at the time. Both have a duty to keep the scoreboard moving by either rotating the strike while they are playing themselves 'in', and then by playing their shots.

Both Martyn & Bevan are good examples of this in their respective Test & ODI formats - both start relatively slowly, yet accelerate their strike rate during their innings - the longer the innings the higher both their score and strike rates!!!

For example I'd doubt that a traditional 'Defensive' anchor player such as Boycott would be in serious contention now a days - except for times like the current injury crisis!!!! These type of players may avoid a match being over in 3 - 4 days, but they aren't going to get you any closer to winning the match either!!!

I am convinced that it is the Aussie's run rate that is their key to winning their tests - and they aim to score around 250 - 300+ on their 1st day at bat on any half decent batting track. They then have a great 'target' to attack when bowling, and neither their batting / bowling seldom fails for 2 consecutive innings.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Originally posted by anzac
For example I'd doubt that a traditional 'Defensive' anchor player such as Boycott would be in serious contention now a days - except for times like the current injury crisis!!!! These type of players may avoid a match being over in 3 - 4 days, but they aren't going to get you any closer to winning the match either!!!

Athers?

 

[anzac]

what was his strike rate in comparison to Boycott & re my thumb sketch????

But I'm mainly talking in reference to the strategy here & now of this Aussie team as started under Tubby & more lately completed under Waugh.....

 

[Gotchya]

Originally posted by Eclipse
I am not missing anyones point I started the descussion so instead of asking if I see your point maybe you should look at mine.

Just on a 1 off basis you have 2 players side by side both very good one who is deffensive and one who is agressive.

If you were to chose one player to put in your team you would always choose the stroke maker.

Basicly everything you have said I agree with but its clear that a positive batsman is more valuble to a team than a negitive one given they are both of equal talent. (Even the don said so what more can I say)

Alright, let me illustrate what I am saying :

1 stroke maker
2 stroke maker
3 stroke maker
4 stroke maker
5
6 ---------------
7 ---------------
8 ---------------
9 ---------------
10 --------------
11 --------------


Now if I gave you a choice between a stroke make and a defensive player, who would you choose ?

If you choose stroke maker again, I can see your side 100-all out (Like Pakistan most of the time), if you choose a defensive player maybe u'll get a little more consistency in the batting.

 

[Anil]

My preference is for the shot maker over the anchor role - although I'd say it would probably have more to do with the make up of your batting line up & where they bat in the order, rather than the individual style.

It has everything to do with the makeup of the batting lineup and in fact the strength of the bowling attack.

Anyone who averages a strike rate over 50 in Test cricket is an 'Aggressive' batsman in my book, with 35 - 50 being 'Moderate' and below 35 being 'Defensive'.

I would mostly agree with that.

This being the case it would be an interesting to compare how many of the top batsmen fall into what category, and how many teams have what types of batsmen in their line-ups, and how their batting order shapes up. Eg, S Waugh may be considered 'Moderate', but he bats at 6! The top 4 are all considered 'Aggressive', and Lehman is too new on the scene to rate. That gives the Aussies one hell of a kick start to their innings and great momentum!!!!

True, but just think of the Australian lineup and compare that to lineups in other countries. Which other country has such a talented lineup where everyone except maybe, the captain are wonderful stroke players? If you take the case of India which is supposed to have an strong lineup, IMO, Tendulkar is the only batsman who would walk into this lineup(and don't tell me he won't because he will). Dravid, who would be welcomed with open arms by most teams in international cricket wouldn't make the cut and Ganguly and Laxman wouldn't even be considered. Similarly, if you take the case of Pakistan, Inzi maybe, no one else including Youhana will be considered. Take England, Trescothick(not in his current form, I mean with his potential) or Vaughan might just replace Langer, but that's it.

You could almost argue that the traditional 'Defensive' anchor role has almost been done away with in the modern game, and that this role is now up to the individuals involved in partnership at the crease at the time. Both have a duty to keep the scoreboard moving by either rotating the strike while they are playing themselves 'in', and then by playing their shots.

That's where you are wrong. You are looking only at Australia which has an embarassment of riches at the moment, something akin to what the Windies team of the 70's, 80's and early 90's possessed. The other countries have weaker batting lineups and weaker bowling attacks(with the possible exception of a fully fit and fully motivated Pak attack). Their batsmen can't afford to take the same approach as the Australians because 1. They just aren't that good 2. If they fail, there is no guarantee that their bowlers can recover lost ground. Prime example in this category: India.

Both Martyn & Bevan are good examples of this in their respective Test & ODI formats - both start relatively slowly, yet accelerate their strike rate during their innings - the longer the innings the higher both their score and strike rates!!!

Again true of Australia, not of test cricket as a whole.

For example I'd doubt that a traditional 'Defensive' anchor player such as Boycott would be in serious contention now a days - except for times like the current injury crisis!!!! These type of players may avoid a match being over in 3 - 4 days, but they aren't going to get you any closer to winning the match either!!!

Wrong again. Most other countries need such anchor players even now. They might not win you as many matches as the Australians, but they will save a lot of matches and help the bowlers win every now and then. That's the role of Dravid, Kallis(ok, he is part of a much better team than the other 2, but still much weaker than the Aussies), Chanderpaul and their like. You are looking at the Australian team right now, do you know the role played by Border and later by S.Waugh when the team was in a big mess(in the late 80's and early 90's) and was in the rebuilding process for years? They played the anchor role for their team to perfection, saved countless matches and even won some. You are belittling their efforts when you ridicule an anchor player. Again, all these players have shown time and again that they can accelerate the scoring when the situation warrants, but their main job is consolidation.

I am convinced that it is the Aussie's run rate that is their key to winning their tests - and they aim to score around 250 - 300+ on their 1st day at bat on any half decent batting track. They then have a great 'target' to attack when bowling, and neither their batting / bowling seldom fails for 2 consecutive innings.

All that is possible for Australia because of the amazing talent they possess. However, even this approach can fail as evidenced by what happened to the Aussies in India. No one in that team except Hayden and to a certain extent S.Waugh possessed the skills required to face quality spin on slow turners. Yet, they adopted the same strategy and came a cropper. I believe the failure of the only player who could have anchored the innings(Waugh) made a lot of difference for the Aussies as in the end, they lost it narrowly.