It's not an hour of Richards/Richards vs an hour of Hutton/Sutcliffe that you need to compare. It's 1 hour vs nearly 2. You have to look at balls per dismissal as well.
That's an hour of bowlers tiring, the ball getting older, getting to bowl at worse bat(s), not having a settled partnership that functions as well together, not having bats with their eye in etc.
There are psychological advantages to hitting bowlers off their attack plans. And psychological advantages to grinding them off plans. I think hitting them off plans will probably be valuable more often psychologically, but enough to outweigh all the above?
I really don't think you can generalize to faster striking is better or worse, at all. You can point to games that have had results swung by blockathons/swinging, but these will kinda balance out. And the number is so few that a perspective on SRs shouldn't be based on them. And you can generalize to some degree through stuff like batting position. But we are generally comparing upper middle bats anyway, who it doesn't really apply to.
How fast you strike is totally dependent on game context, and I think it is typically not clear which is better even when watching a game.
The premise that we're comparing one hour to nearly two isn't always an accurate one. Batsmen of all s/r get out early on occasion, and all have the chance to get a good one and depart the scene.
I'm also not saying there's no benefit to having a grafter in your team, my AT one has in Hutton for that role, but that's the exception and because one anchor can be of benefit.
You still literally and deliberately didn't answer the questions put forward. It's not only a psychological advantage it's also quite real world and practical as well. I specifically referenced having to alter game plans, change rotations and have more defensive lines and fields, also providing less opportunities to take wickets. You hit the best two opposing bolwers out of the attack and you get more of the 2nd string, and force you to go deeper into your depth chart, no. 5 or 6 likely having to bowl more.
The last paragraph is of particular importance with regards to my point, you want someone who can adjust as necessary. Adopt a defensive or cautious posture when the situation calls for it, and being able to put your foot on your opponents necks and take them out of the game when again, the situation calls for it.
The thought process that the latter has little to no value, or that batsmen capable of scoring faster in all conditions don't bring anything additional to the game or requires greater skill is a fallacy.
I also note that you didn't try to defend the other (fielding) point, because quite frankly made no sense.
I just want to make clear though, not saying that there no place in the game for players who can save your hide when **** has hit the fan, or can grind out an innings. The Dravid's, Boycotts and Barrington's have their place. My only argument is that the guys capable of destroying attacks can not only do that as required as well, but that there's added value in having someone who can do it and, it does require that special genius to be able to do so.
