Scoring rates and their influence on victories

[Mr. P]

I don't think he's top of the list - just the first player mentioned. Note amz's comment regarding Sobers, who appears second on the list. I think the numbers next to their names are strike rates.

I know that I didn't mean on top of the list, I mean on top of the bowlers.

In my opinion a strike rate of 63 is very good considering the era, pitches and the fact that he always hit is along the ground. But then again, it is Bradman, so its not that amazing.

 

[Mr. P]

Well, of course he can defend, but I don't think he'll ever play a long, defensive innings.
Not that Australia have been in a situation where they need to bat for 40 overs and cannot win for quite a while and certainly during his career.
But if he had to bat for 40 overs to save a game and Australia were following-on and still 100 behind I can't help doubting he'd be able to do it.

True he may not ever play one (a defensive, long innings) but IMO he could easily do it. You have seen Gilchrist's defence, yes? IMO it is as good as any. The only reason he doesn't defend that much is his mentality. With determination and proper instruction from players/coachs he could do it in any situation. And he will at some stage my guess is. There will be a time when he has to.

Remember mate this is international cricket and the standard of batting is VERY high. If you can't defend you shouldn't be there. (Unless you're a bowler ) Gilly is superb, if he was in the situation you speak of I know he'd be fine. (9/10 times)

 

[a massive zebra]

I know that I didn't mean on top of the list, I mean on top of the bowlers.

In my opinion a strike rate of 63 is very good considering the era, pitches and the fact that he always hit is along the ground. But then again, it is Bradman, so its not that amazing.

Very true. And this is not likely to be an overestimate of his entire career strike rate, because for Bradman an innings of over 80 was the normal course of things, not an exceptional performance.

 

[thirdslip]

is hitting along the ground correlated with strike rate? Ganguly tends to hit in the air more than Tendulkar. It will interesting to compate the 4:6 ratio with strike rates.

- TS

 

[a massive zebra]

is hitting along the ground correlated with strike rate? Ganguly tends to hit in the air more than Tendulkar. It will interesting to compate the 4:6 ratio with strike rates.

- TS

Logic would suggest that those batsmen who hit a high proportion of their boundaries as sixes would have a high strike rate, but Bradman and Weekes still have outstanding strike rates despite barely ever hitting the ball in the air. Interesting.

 

[Richard]

is hitting along the ground correlated with strike rate? Ganguly tends to hit in the air more than Tendulkar. It will interesting to compate the 4:6 ratio with strike rates.

- TS

Don't forget, fours aren't neccesarily struck along the ground.

 

[luckyeddie]

Don't forget, fours aren't neccesarily struck along the ground.

For part of their journey, they all are

 

[Richard]

True he may not ever play one (a defensive, long innings) but IMO he could easily do it. You have seen Gilchrist's defence, yes? IMO it is as good as any. The only reason he doesn't defend that much is his mentality. With determination and proper instruction from players/coachs he could do it in any situation. And he will at some stage my guess is. There will be a time when he has to.

Remember mate this is international cricket and the standard of batting is VERY high. If you can't defend you shouldn't be there. (Unless you're a bowler ) Gilly is superb, if he was in the situation you speak of I know he'd be fine. (9/10 times)

Well hopefully we will get the chance to see (because it'll mean Australia are in a bad position which is a situation to relish in itself).
Yeah, certainly there's nothing wrong with Gilchrist's defensive-technique, he mightn't use it as much as some people but it's perfectly sound when he does use it.
What I have to wonder is if his shot-selection would allow him to play innings where he faced 200 balls for 70 or 80.
If the bowlers constantly bowled fullish-length deliveries, just short of Half-Volley length, a little way outside off, I can't help wondering whether he'd be able to keep letting them go.
Though I'm not saying they wouldn't keep rattling the cover boards, but if he were to hit one in the air to a fielder when the situation was demanding to just keep leaving, I wonder how much villification he would get?
I always have that Martyn shot against South Africa in mind. Though I'm sure it wouldn't have the same result for Gilchrist.

 

[Richard]

For part of their journey, they all are

Well, invariably more of a part than the journey of a six is, yes, but still, it's hitting the ball "straight" to ground (generally accepted as being struck into the ground before reaching the inner-circle) that counts as "not hitting the ball in the air", and there are still plenty of fours that I would classify as "in the air".

 

[Mr. P]

is hitting along the ground correlated with strike rate? Ganguly tends to hit in the air more than Tendulkar. It will interesting to compate the 4:6 ratio with strike rates.

- TS

Yeah...but that doesn't take into account a few things. As already mentioned, fours can be hit in the air. Also if you only hit along the ground, that takes out many shots. (Slog sweep, most hooks (not pulls), also an upper cut, cuts over slips etc.)

Another thing to take note of is that some batsman may hit the ball in the air a lot and be very aggresive, yet not hit many sixes.

 

[Mr. P]

Well hopefully we will get the chance to see (because it'll mean Australia are in a bad position which is a situation to relish in itself).
Yeah, certainly there's nothing wrong with Gilchrist's defensive-technique, he mightn't use it as much as some people but it's perfectly sound when he does use it.
What I have to wonder is if his shot-selection would allow him to play innings where he faced 200 balls for 70 or 80.
If the bowlers constantly bowled fullish-length deliveries, just short of Half-Volley length, a little way outside off, I can't help wondering whether he'd be able to keep letting them go.
Though I'm not saying they wouldn't keep rattling the cover boards, but if he were to hit one in the air to a fielder when the situation was demanding to just keep leaving, I wonder how much villification he would get?
I always have that Martyn shot against South Africa in mind. Though I'm sure it wouldn't have the same result for Gilchrist.

Yes...but we're just going back to mentality again. My point is that even an Adam Gilchrist would be able to defend consistantly if needed. (And yes, he would let the half volleys go past.) I suppose it depends on circumstance. (RRR, overs remaining, wickets remaining, his batting partner, the day, the innings, the bowler etc.)

 

[Eclipse]

I know Gilly made a 100 off about 240 balls for WA back in 1999 on a dificult pitch.

 

[marc71178]

I had a quick search, but couldn't find the game - which was it?

 

[anzac]

Another thing to take note of is that some batsman may hit the ball in the air a lot and be very aggresive, yet not hit many sixes.

or many boundaries for that matter...........

I remember Glenn Turner in his latter ODI career was a pioneer of the chip shot over the inner fielders, yet he was not trying to hit the ball to the boundary...........like a golfing short iron it would pitch & slow b4 getting to the boundary riders & he would take an easy 2 runs..............

 

[anzac]

one question - this thread is supposedly about scoring rates and their influence on victories, yet all I see is individual rates being discussed.........

surely we should be discussing team & innings scoring rates to be relevant to victory..........as an individual batting performance does not necessarily ensure either victory or the opportunity of victory without support..................

as such I'd not be surprised to see some of the inings scoring rates of yesteryear (Bradman era AUS, WI & SA) be comparable to the current AUS innings rates..........my suspicion is that int cricket went thru' a 'defensive' batting strategy in the '60s & '70s, as a result of both a desire to NOT loose the match b4 pressing for a victory, and as a result of the IND spin threat & then WI express attack...........

 

[thirdslip]

Out of the top 25 quick scoring matches, 20 have resulted in wins for the quicker scoring team, there have been 4 draws, and 1 loss (this mostly the result of an overgenerous Australian declaration). That's a high rate of victories, but other questions can be asked: whether the quick scoring was necessary for those games to be won, for example.

- TS

The distraction about individuals was partly the result of the original article itself having taken that detour.

 

[Dasa]

I had a quick search, but couldn't find the game - which was it?

I found one where he made 100 off 170odd. I guess that's slow for Gilchrist.

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1998-99/AUS_LOCAL/SS/QLD_WA_SS_21-24OCT1998.html
Correction - the above was in 1998, not 1999.

 

[Eclipse]

I found one where he made 100 off 170odd. I guess that's slow for Gilchrist.

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1998-99/AUS_LOCAL/SS/QLD_WA_SS_21-24OCT1998.html
Correction - the above was in 1998, not 1999.

That may have been the one I was thinking of it was certainly in 1999.

I though he made the hundred in a partneship with Katich who also made a 100 but maybe I got confused because Kat did make a ton in the second innings here.

Look's like my 240 balls was way off the mark if this is the innings in question.

 

[Mr. P]

or many boundaries for that matter...........

I remember Glenn Turner in his latter ODI career was a pioneer of the chip shot over the inner fielders, yet he was not trying to hit the ball to the boundary...........like a golfing short iron it would pitch & slow b4 getting to the boundary riders & he would take an easy 2 runs..............

True and I agree with you.

Only reason I didn't mention it was because it was not the focus of our discussion. Good point mind.

 

[marc71178]

That may have been the one I was thinking of it was certainly in 1999.

I though he made the hundred in a partneship with Katich who also made a 100 but maybe I got confused because Kat did make a ton in the second innings here.

Look's like my 240 balls was way off the mark if this is the innings in question.

I only looked because 240 sounds a lot of balls for any FC batsman (except maybe Mark Richardson) so 240 for Gilchrist was about 120 runs too short!