Is it time to consider the strike rates of batters in Test cricket?

[FearlessRoar]

Let's talk about something that's been on my mind lately - batting strike rate in Test cricket. We all know that T20 and ODIs are fast-paced and thrilling, but what about Tests? Shouldn't we expect some excitement there too?

As cricket evolves, I think it's time for batters to focus on strike rate in Tests as well. I mean, think about it - a batter scoring at 20 runs per 100 balls might have been okay in the past, but now it's just too slow. The game has changed, and we need to adapt.

And let's look at some stats:

Most hundreds at 100+ strike rate in Tests

7 - Adam Gilchrist
6 - Virender Sehwag
6 - David Warner
3 - Mohammad Azharuddin
3 - Shikhar Dhawan
3 - Kapil Dev
3 - Ian Botham
3 - Brendon McCullum
3 - Shahid Afridi

These players were already playing in their own aggressive style with a strike rate of 100+ in Test cricket, even before the invention of 'Bazball'.

What do you guys think? Should strike rate matter in Test cricket?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Let's talk about something that's been on my mind lately - batting strike rate in Test cricket. We all know that T20 and ODIs are fast-paced and thrilling, but what about Tests? Shouldn't we expect some excitement there too?

As cricket evolves, I think it's time for batters to focus on strike rate in Tests as well. I mean, think about it - a batter scoring at 20 runs per 100 balls might have been okay in the past, but now it's just too slow. The game has changed, and we need to adapt.

And let's look at some stats:

Most hundreds at 100+ strike rate in Tests

7 - Adam Gilchrist
6 - Virender Sehwag
6 - David Warner
3 - Mohammad Azharuddin
3 - Shikhar Dhawan
3 - Kapil Dev
3 - Ian Botham
3 - Brendon McCullum
3 - Shahid Afridi

These players were already playing in their own aggressive style with a strike rate of 100+ in Test cricket, even before the invention of 'Bazball'.

What do you guys think? Should strike rate matter in Test cricket?

Amazed to see Azharuddin in the last, I always considered him a Younis Khan type player. Brendon Mccullum and Shahid Afridi should have fared better.

 

[Bhaijaan]

It’s not about SR but intent and your ability to do the needful.

Sometimes a 120 ball 20 is also priceless and many times a run a ball 70 also might not have served the purpose.

When we conquered Aussies in Australia and spanked them in front of their fans in test cricket, Pujara played the role of the rock many times. Not a lot of runs but the dude just wouldn’t give up his wicket. Those knocks were legendary.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Pakistan need a half decent bowling attack that can pick wickets cheaply.

The bowling attack is minnow level. Batting is fine, bar Shan.

 

[Major]

Strike rate is irrelevent when you cant stay on the wicket.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

Test cricket is not about strike rate... basic principle is to stay at the wicket.

What’s the use of trying to score runs quickly if you get out for under 250 runs.

 

[Ab Fan]

Strike rates are like bonus in Tests, not necessarily most important thing.

Sometimes, when wickets are falling, that one batsman who digs in for two hours and score even 20 of 90 balls and stay not out can be pivotal in ensuring no collapse happens and once the partnership is build, life becomes easy automatically. On other hand, an attractive 35(45) might not help much in the course of the game because when bowlers keep getting wickets, they remain interested. If they don't, it frustrates.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Test cricket is not about strike rate... basic principle is to stay at the wicket.

What’s the use of trying to score runs quickly if you get out for under 250 runs.

Yep Ben stokes team syndrome. That's why they fail often

 

[gibsyhesperis]

Let's talk about something that's been on my mind lately - batting strike rate in Test cricket. We all know that T20 and ODIs are fast-paced and thrilling, but what about Tests? Shouldn't we expect some excitement there too?

As cricket evolves, I think it's time for batters to focus on strike rate in Tests as well. I mean, think about it - a batter scoring at 20 runs per 100 balls might have been okay in the past, but now it's just too slow. The game has changed, and we need to adapt.

And let's look at some stats:

Most hundreds at 100+ strike rate in Tests

7 - Adam Gilchrist
6 - Virender Sehwag
6 - David Warner
3 - Mohammad Azharuddin
3 - Shikhar Dhawan
3 - Kapil Dev
3 - Ian Botham
3 - Brendon McCullum
3 - Shahid Afridi

These players were already playing in their own aggressive style with a strike rate of 100+ in Test cricket, even before the invention of 'Bazball'.

What do you guys think? Should strike rate matter in Test cricket?

Your entral premise is that Test cricket is not exciting.
I beg to differ.
Most of the exciting (and memorable) cricket I have seen has been in Test matches.
When Pakistan played in the UAE there were some very exciting games.

Cricket (of all formats) is tedious on poor wickets, like in Pakistan (though, even then, the last day of the latest Test was very exciting).
Bazball cannot be used as a model as it has failed where it really counted — winning a Test series against Aus and India.

 

[Rana]

Strike rate is irrelevent when you cant stay on the wicket.

And when you stay on the wicket, it makes a lot of ‘bowling plans’ irrelevant. It also makes it extremely hard to find an exit route…like it was for Babar Azam in Rawalpindi against England.

 

[Rana]

There has to be a balance. A minimum batting strike rate of 55-60 from all batsman. You can add the ones who go at 80-100 as an opener (one out of two) and at number 6-7-8.

don’t tinker too much with your 3, 4 and 5…but they can’t really be these players who generally strike at 35-45, no good stalling at the crease unless the conditions and situation really demand it.

 

[Rana]

Used to love watching Chris Gayle bat in Test cricket. Jaysuriya also.

 

[Major]

And when you stay on the wicket, it makes a lot of ‘bowling plans’ irrelevant. It also makes it extremely hard to find an exit route…like it was for Babar Azam in Rawalpindi against England.

It always depends upon pitches. A pitch that will turn into a spinners paradise by day 4 and day 5, the team batting first is better off slowing the run rate by taking their time on the wicket. The more the overs bowled, the bigger the advantage the team batting first has on day 5, as you have more footmarks to play with..

As for playing in england, i think its less about strike rate and more about how good your technique is. One batsman that i remember that made a name for himself was Tamim Iqbal in england

 

[Rana]

It always depends upon pitches. A pitch that will turn into a spinners paradise by day 4 and day 5, the team batting first is better off slowing the run rate by taking their time on the wicket. The more the overs bowled, the bigger the advantage the team batting first has on day 5, as you have more footmarks to play with..

As for playing in england, i think its less about strike rate and more about how good your technique is. One batsman that i remember that made a name for himself was Tamim Iqbal in england

There are some very flat tracks in England too, become easy to bat on once shine is gone and if it isn’t overcast.

Yousuf was a great batsman in England. Dravid was also. Younis Khan was very good on the flatter venues, his hundreds were always scored at a brisk pace.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

Yep Ben stokes team syndrome. That's why they fail often

even that Bazball methodology not helping them either

 

[Major]

There are some very flat tracks in England too, become easy to bat on once shine is gone and if it isn’t overcast.

Yousuf was a great batsman in England. Dravid was also. Younis Khan was very good on the flatter venues, his hundreds were always scored at a brisk pace.

Test cricket in england is a treat to watch, especially the session till lunch.

Yousuf knew how to bat there and his sr used to be in the 50s.

Younis khan was more frusturating due to his lack on consistency and you are right that he would perform on flatter wickets

 

[FearlessRoar]

Strike rates are like bonus in Tests, not necessarily most important thing.

Sometimes, when wickets are falling, that one batsman who digs in for two hours and score even 20 of 90 balls and stay not out can be pivotal in ensuring no collapse happens and once the partnership is build, life becomes easy automatically. On other hand, an attractive 35(45) might not help much in the course of the game because when bowlers keep getting wickets, they remain interested. If they don't, it frustrates.

I don't agree that strike rate isn't important in Tests. You say one batter digging in for hours is pivotal, but I think a high strike rate can be just as crucial.

What about when a team needs to score quickly to win a game? A slow innings won't help then. And what about when a team is trying to declare early? A high strike rate is necessary for that.

Plus, a fast-scoring batter can put pressure on the opposing team and make their bowlers tired. That's a big advantage.

You say an attractive 35 off 45 might not help much, but I think it can be a game-changer. It can get the momentum going and put the opposing team on the back foot.

 

[sweep_shot]

Strike-rate is not as important in Test as it is in ODI/T20.

Having said that, a strike-rate of less than 65 is not ideal in modern day Test cricket.

I think a strike-rate of 65 should be the minimum. If a batter scores slower than that, that's problematic.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Sometimes I do believe batters need to play aggressively in Test cricket instead of playing with defensive mindset as it is more prone to make bowlers commit mistakes.

 

[gazza619]

It’s not about SR but intent and your ability to do the needful.

Sometimes a 120 ball 20 is also priceless and many times a run a ball 70 also might not have served the purpose.

When we conquered Aussies in Australia and spanked them in front of their fans in test cricket, Pujara played the role of the rock many times. Not a lot of runs but the dude just wouldn’t give up his wicket. Those knocks were legendary.

Agreed. Unfortunately some posters wont understand. They suggested Asif Ali to be captain and Azam Khan his vice.

 

[jnaveen1980]

ABDV is a fine example of this. He has scored 70 ball 100 as well in Test. Also scored 35 in 174 balls . Then there was this epic match saving partnership between Faf and ABDV against India where they were cautious about every shot they played.

 

[giri26]

I don't agree that strike rate isn't important in Tests. You say one batter digging in for hours is pivotal, but I think a high strike rate can be just as crucial.

What about when a team needs to score quickly to win a game? A slow innings won't help then. And what about when a team is trying to declare early? A high strike rate is necessary for that.

Plus, a fast-scoring batter can put pressure on the opposing team and make their bowlers tired. That's a big advantage.

You say an attractive 35 off 45 might not help much, but I think it can be a game-changer. It can get the momentum going and put the opposing team on the back foot.

it does a bit in the sense if the SR is between 50-60 and the batter gets a big score. A 35 of 45 does not do anything in Tests. For example Zak Crawley scored lots of attractive 50's at a high SR vs India but never kicked on. England ended up scoring under 300 most of the times and lost. SR matters in the sense that every team should try and score at least at 3.5 runs an over but again it shouldn't be for the sake of doing it which would get you in trouble if you aren't skilled enough to do that. England found that out when they were in India when they faced a bowling attack which was well rounded. They will face the same in Australia as well. People talk about Gilchrist and Sehwag but just think the batters they played with in the playing XI. There were some solid players in the line up and these two just played their natural game. Winning a game by batting quickly comes about very rarely in Test cricket, most of the times a batter's role is to set up a game which needs a good mix of attack and defence.

 

[FearlessRoar]

it does a bit in the sense if the SR is between 50-60 and the batter gets a big score. A 35 of 45 does not do anything in Tests. For example Zak Crawley scored lots of attractive 50's at a high SR vs India but never kicked on. England ended up scoring under 300 most of the times and lost. SR matters in the sense that every team should try and score at least at 3.5 runs an over but again it shouldn't be for the sake of doing it which would get you in trouble if you aren't skilled enough to do that. England found that out when they were in India when they faced a bowling attack which was well rounded. They will face the same in Australia as well. People talk about Gilchrist and Sehwag but just think the batters they played with in the playing XI. There were some solid players in the line up and these two just played their natural game. Winning a game by batting quickly comes about very rarely in Test cricket, most of the times a batter's role is to set up a game which needs a good mix of attack and defence.

I totally get it but in modern Test cricket, teams need a good balance between scoring quickly and playing smartly. The top three batters should aim to score fast, around 100+ strike rate, to get the team off to a great start. Then, the middle order should steady the ship and keep the runs coming.

But here's the thing, teams also need someone who can rotate the strike, you know, keep the scoreboard ticking with singles and doubles. That's where the all-rounder comes in.

Teams need a mix of fast and slow bowlers who can keep the opposition guessing. It's like a game of chess, teams need to think ahead and outsmart their opponents.

It's all about finding that balance between scoring quickly and playing smartly. That's how teams win in modern Test cricket and thats BazBall is all about.

 

[Buffet]

I totally get it but in modern Test cricket, teams need a good balance between scoring quickly and playing smartly. The top three batters should aim to score fast, around 100+ strike rate, to get the team off to a great start. Then, the middle order should steady the ship and keep the runs coming.

But here's the thing, teams also need someone who can rotate the strike, you know, keep the scoreboard ticking with singles and doubles. That's where the all-rounder comes in.

Teams need a mix of fast and slow bowlers who can keep the opposition guessing. It's like a game of chess, teams need to think ahead and outsmart their opponents.

It's all about finding that balance between scoring quickly and playing smartly. That's how teams win in modern Test cricket and thats BazBall is all about.

Only possible if pitch is highway. Any new ball movement and you will lose wickets quickly if you aim to have SR of 100+ for top 3.

Problem is not really having a high strike rate always. Problem I have seen with Pakistan is that they don't bat according to situation. If pitch is good to bat and flat, some time they play very slow.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Only possible if pitch is highway. Any new ball movement and you will lose wickets quickly if you aim to have SR of 100+ for top 3.

Problem is not really having a high strike rate always. Problem I have seen with Pakistan is that they don't bat according to situation. If pitch is good to bat and flat, some time they play very slow.

Honestly, I don't get why we're always making excuses about the pitch? They are professional cricketers, they should be able to adapt to any conditions no? The problem isn't the pitch, it's the way our batters approach the game. They need to learn to bat according to the situation whether the pitch is flat or tricky, they should be able to rotate the strike and play with a strike rate that makes sense. If they can't handle a strike rate in any situation then maybe they need to stop calling themselves batters.

 

[Buffet]

Honestly, I don't get why we're always making excuses about the pitch? They are professional cricketers, they should be able to adapt to any conditions no? The problem isn't the pitch, it's the way our batters approach the game. They need to learn to bat according to the situation whether the pitch is flat or tricky, they should be able to rotate the strike and play with a strike rate that makes sense. If they can't handle a strike rate in any situation then maybe they need to stop calling themselves batters.

Agree with the bold, but it's not that easy to do unless you have good skills.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Agreed. Unfortunately some posters wont understand. They suggested Asif Ali to be captain and Azam Khan his vice.

Bazzball is a marketing gimmick.

When England came to Bharat there was no Bazzball. A lot of media talk, a lot of Sky sports commentators talking about it and that’s it. Bharat played more attacking cricket in batting and bowling.

Bazzball is nothing but a means to hide England’s obsession with bullying minnow nations whom they continue to play a lot in test cricket.

Pakistan need to stay away from this fraud of a term. Test cricket has a proven formula of a 100 years. Do the basics right and you will be fine.

Some Pakistani fans defended the declaration last time calling it intent. If the intent and confidence was so high, should have posted 600 and backed yourselves to bowl out Bangladesh twice.

 

[BouncerGuy]

In red ball format, strike rate doesn't matter more than trying to take the game session by session and win each session. In case of pakistan, 1 or 2 bad sessions can put them in trouble. These batters don't care about strike rates in t20 so we should not expect them to do it in test cricket. Yeah, tuk tuk by no means is encouraging but going with 100 strike rate is not possible for these batters.

 

[mominsaigol]

Strike rate is irrelevent when you cant stay on the wicket.

Has to be a balance.

No one wants an asif Ali or Azam Khan who can supposedly strike at 300 only to realise that they are the very definition of Blink ans you'll miss them batsmen.

But at the same time no wants a tuk tuk batsmen either who cannot play according to modern requirements. Pakistan in 2023 wc approach was rubbish plain and simple, it worked againat weaker teams like sri lanka, Bangladesh, Nedtherlands.

But their approach of chasing aka score 150 to 160 in first 30 amd try to chase 150 to 180 in last 20 overs will obviously never work agaonat top sides, as in t20 chasing 150 to 180 happens when you have 10 wickets, A new ball and a 6 over PP to exploit.

Not the same case when you likely have wickets called and PP rules are not applicable.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Bazzball is a marketing gimmick.

When England came to Bharat there was no Bazzball. A lot of media talk, a lot of Sky sports commentators talking about it and that’s it. Bharat played more attacking cricket in batting and bowling.

Bazzball is nothing but a means to hide England’s obsession with bullying minnow nations whom they continue to play a lot in test cricket.

Pakistan need to stay away from this fraud of a term. Test cricket has a proven formula of a 100 years. Do the basics right and you will be fine.

Some Pakistani fans defended the declaration last time calling it intent. If the intent and confidence was so high, should have posted 600 and backed yourselves to bowl out Bangladesh twice.

Actually Pakistan did declare for 470 odd for 4 against Australia. But Australia crossed that target if i am right. Pakistan replied with 252/0 and math ended in a draw at Rawalpindi. Imam and Shafique both made 100. They probably expected to do something like that. But this pitch had a bit more bite for spinners. That and pressure contributed towards the collapse. There were no real demons.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Misbah-ul-Haq, during a press conference today, spoke about taking on the role of mentor for the Wolves in the Champions Cup:

"Enhancing our strike rate is crucial to meet the global standards of cricket, even in Test matches, where it plays a vital role. Teams like England are setting the benchmark, consistently scoring at a rapid pace, including achieving 500 runs in a day. We need to focus on improving our strike rate to remain competitive and match the intensity of top-tier teams."

 

[Bhaijaan]

Actually Pakistan did declare for 470 odd for 4 against Australia. But Australia crossed that target if i am right. Pakistan replied with 252/0 and math ended in a draw at Rawalpindi. Imam and Shafique both made 100. They probably expected to do something like that. But this pitch had a bit more bite for spinners. That and pressure contributed towards the collapse. There were no real demons.

I am not a fan of brave 1st inning declarations because they still leave too much time for the opposition to play normal cricket and still get ahead.

3rd inning brace declarations are more meaningful to me as they throw a serious challenge at the opposition to dare and chase the total at a risk of getting bowled out.

I am oldschool.
If you are in a position of power in the first inning, then you must absolutely minimize your chances of having to bat again. Even if Bangladesh were made to follow on trailing 200 runs, they could have made Pakistan bat again to chase 100 and then you never know.

It will go down as an arrogant declaration, not a brave one.

It’s one thing being 1-0 up or 2-1 by the last test match and throwing the dice because at worse you will draw the series.

This was a home test. The first test match. The series is still at stake and if it keeps raining and the 2nd test match gets drawn, Bangladesh will walk away laughing with the series win. That’s no attempt at bravery , that’s just gambling with your cricketing legacy.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I am not a fan of brave 1st inning declarations because they still leave too much time for the opposition to play normal cricket and still get ahead.

3rd inning brace declarations are more meaningful to me as they throw a serious challenge at the opposition to dare and chase the total at a risk of getting bowled out.

I am oldschool.
If you are in a position of power in the first inning, then you must absolutely minimize your chances of having to bat again. Even if Bangladesh were made to follow on trailing 200 runs, they could have made Pakistan bat again to chase 100 and then you never know.

It will go down as an arrogant declaration, not a brave one.

It’s one thing being 1-0 up or 2-1 by the last test match and throwing the dice because at worse you will draw the series.

This was a home test. The first test match. The series is still at stake and if it keeps raining and the 2nd test match gets drawn, Bangladesh will walk away laughing with the series win. That’s no attempt at bravery , that’s just gambling with your cricketing legacy.

Last time Bangladesh rolled over for 87 and 205 runs in BD lost by an innings. For Pakistan drawing a test is not an option as they haven't won a test at home in a long time. So BD was the perfect opposition atleast on paper. Given that they almost lost first day's play they had to take that chance.Conceding a lead of 100 plus from a position of strength is where they faltered first. Second mistake was Pakistan could have played conservative cricket and played for a draw. But they didn't do. They lost th eplot. Few risky shots were attempted. But they didn't pay off. Pakistan needed enough overs to take 20 wickets to beat Bangladesh. So they had to give themselves some time.

 

[pratiktc]

There has to be a balance. A minimum batting strike rate of 55-60 from all batsman. You can add the ones who go at 80-100 as an opener (one out of two) and at number 6-7-8.

don’t tinker too much with your 3, 4 and 5…but they can’t really be these players who generally strike at 35-45, no good stalling at the crease unless the conditions and situation really demand it.

I think the nature of batters has to change to be able to put hammer down when needed.

With the nature of pitches in SENA nowadays the best time to bat is between overs 40-80 when ball is soft.

If a team survives new ball to reach say 100/2 after 40 ovs, it really helps if you have a batting pair who can capitalize on conditions and take the team to around 270-290 before second new ball. From here team is looking at a worst case 320 all out (which is still competitive) or a best case scenario of 400+

However if you have a Pujara and Azhar Ali combo you might wnd up limping to 220-230 and leaving yourself open to possibility of a 260-270 allout if the opposition clicks with new ball.

The nature of pitches has changed now. Days of scoring 550-600 and batting 140-160 overs are gone as most countries transitioned to result oriented pitches. Realistically inns last between 85-110 ovs max. Batters also thus have to adapt to new era and cannot play in third gear limit just because format is tests.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Salman butt speaking on his YouTube Channel:

"The strike rate mafia and intent mafia are basically illiterates of cricket. They have no idea about the format they are talking about."

"You lose within four days and come back, what are you going to do by playing fast? You played just 46 overs. What hurry do you have? Why don't you understand that your job is to bat long?"

"Do the greats of the game play like highlights? Do the likes of Joe Root, Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma score runs in this fashion?"​

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Bazball is good when you have T20 mindset players in your line up. But when you have Younis Khan and Root like characters in line up then it is just a disaster.

 

[SportsWarrior]

Amazed to see Azharuddin in the last, I always considered him a Younis Khan type player. Brendon Mccullum and Shahid Afridi should have fared better.

He was always an aggressive batsman when in good form. He originally held the fastest ODI 100 record of 69 balls. Even during his normal innings he will just come out and hit sixes out of nowhere. He wasted his talent and legacy due to questionable morals

 

[shaz619]

Imagine you had 7 Misbah Ul Haq’s in the batting line up from 1-7, maybe you wouldn’t lose, but the Test match would go on forever while his fans do a massive bhangra about being survivors of an earthquake that has obliterated all else

 

[Cricket Warrior]

to make Test cricket more interesting batters need to up the pace of the game to make it more lively.