Teams score more when they have better left‑handers, not because of hand diversity

[MenInG]

Interesting analysis from a post in Social Media.

The author analysed 3.4 million deliveries from all men’s internationals since 2001 and found no real advantage to left‑right batting partnerships. Mixed pairs appear to score more, but the data shows the true pattern is:

Left–Left > Left–Right > Right–Right

The conclusion:
Teams score more when they have better left‑handers, not because of hand diversity.

Coaches should pick the best batters, not engineer left‑right combinations.



Your views?

 

[sweep_shot]

I think this left-right thing is a stereotype.

A good opening pair are always likely to score well no matter what handed they are.

 

[sithb]

The conclusion:
Teams score more when they have better left‑handers, not because of hand diversity.

Coaches should pick the best batters, not engineer left‑right combinations.

Largely I agree , but a left and right partnership involves a bit more nuance from the fielding side w.r.t captaincy.

If there's an equal batsman who's left handed and one who's right handed. And one mainstay opening batsman who's slot is assured.

I'd rather pick the opposite hand batsman at the other end if possible. There is a small difference, definitely not a major one

 

[sithb]

But that really depends on whether the second opening batsmen are almost equal in talent.

Also depends on the makeup of the opposition team

A left handed batsman has a slight advantage against a right arm pace bowler and those small things matter

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Best batters with the best combination should be the priority. Sometimes, playing a different batter in place of a bunny against specific kind of bowler he is susceptible to, is acceptable. For example, playing someone like Imam, Shan, or Abdullah should never take precedence over playing Fakhar.
Australia were particularly overactive on this front during Tim Nielson and Mickey era.