David Warner has finished his storied career; his career average of a tick under 45 puts him in the ‘good to very good’ category – but it is his strike rate of over 70 that leaves a legacy – and a rather significant hole in the current lineup.
Even in his very final test innings, Warner’s ability to apply scoring pressure was on show one last time.
There have been approximately 12,000 different suggestions for who is to replace Warner at the top of the order, however, none of them have anything like his scoring speed.
For the sake of this exercise, let us assume that the pathway has been cleared for the return of Cameron Green, via Steve Smith moving up the order. Here are the career strike rates for our current top four:
• Warner – 70.2
• Khawaja – 48.6
• Labuschagne – 52.5
• Smith – 53.5
A basic combination of these comes to a strike rate of 56.1. But if we just look at the past two years each of these players has slowed down, particularly Warner and Smith:
• Warner – 60.7
• Khawaja – 46.4
• Labuschagne – 52.1
• Smith – 48.4
• Combined – 51.4
So if it feels to you like our top-order scoring speed has fallen recently, you are correct: a drop of nearly five runs per 100 balls.
If it feels like Warner’s last two years have tarnished his legacy of performance, you are also correct. But also, Smith has found it significantly more difficult to score freely in recent times. He is facing a similar number of balls, but scoring less runs.
Now, let us remove our dearly departed Warner (or not so dearly, depending on your opinion) and replace him with Cameron Green – who has a test strike rate over the past two years of 48.8 – note his first-class strike rate is 51.8, so a little higher but not that much.
Our combined top-four strike rate now becomes just 48.9, which is under three runs per over. Digging in, rather than dominating, looks like being the order of the day for our next phase.
How does this compare to some of our top four combinations in recent history? Set out below are four groups that played together for a reasonable period of time.
In each case, I have measured their strike rates in all the tests where the opening combination played together; starting with the late 1980s to early 1990s matches involving both Geoff Marsh and Mark Taylor:
• Mark Taylor – 40.5
• Geoff Marsh – 37.0
• David Boon – 39.5
• Alan Border – 39.1
• Combined – 39.0
This combination played over 20 times together. Even allowing for a different era it must have been a hard watch at times.
1990s matches involving both Michael Slater and Mark Taylor:
• Michael Slater – 53.4
• Mark Taylor – 44.4
• David Boon – 41.8
• Mark Waugh – 55.4
• Combined – 48.5
So by including batsmen considered historically to be free-scoring, like Michael Slater and Mark Waugh, this group’s combined strike rate was still a tick lower than our proposed post-Warner top four. Maybe Warner’s relentless speed has raised our expectations these days.
2000’s (matches involving both Matt Hayden and Justin Langer):
• Matt Hayden – 61.3
• Justin Langer – 58.3
• Ricky Ponting – 62.0
• Damien Martyn – 51.0 (note could have used Mark Waugh at 53.8, but less innings)
• Combined – 58.2
Now we are talking; this dominant, domineering top four all scored very quickly by historical standards – especially the top three.
Usman Khawaja and David Warner. (Photo by Ryan Pierse – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images/Getty Images)
The combined rate is not only more than nine runs per 100 balls more than what we are likely to see post-Warner, but is well higher than the current combination, even if we include peak speed Warner and Smith, rather than the more recent shadow versions.
This all-time great team scored quickly enough as a combination to negate any Warner effect, plus there was the small matter of Adam Gilchrist (strike rate of 83.6) coming in at seven – we were so spoilt!
2010s matches involving both David Warner and Chris Rogers:
• David Warner – 77.4
• Chris Rogers – 50.6
• Steve Smith – 57.7
• Michael Clarke – 57.8
• Combined – 60.9
Warner played with bespectacled Rogers more than any other opener before Khawaja.
Not a noted fast scorer, Rogers still comfortably has Khawaja covered, plus both Warner and Smith were scoring at supercharged rates compared to their most recent two years.
Michael Clarke rounded out an aggressive combination that had a combined scoring rate higher even than the all-time great group of the 2000s.
By having this combination straight after the great Hayden/Longer/Ponting/Martyn combo of the 2000s, expectations were raised that scoring speeds of 55 to 60 runs per 100 balls were commonplace.
In reality, our more turgid recent efforts from Khawaja, Labuschagne and Smith are not so unusual.
So, do we accept that we are heading into a more sedate era when you can go to the fridge, read a chapter and mow the lawn and still not miss a lot of the action?
Or do we find a Warner 2.0 to try and bring back the heady days of Hayden, Ponting and the rest?
It is plain that none of Green, Bancroft, Renshaw or Harris provide that impetus, so the Australian selectors would have to take a risk on a less credentialed T20 slogger to take up the baton.
But I guess that is what they did back in the day with Warner.
Maybe our next test opener should be a Josh Inglis, Short (no, the other Short) or Josh Philippe?
Or maybe we give the first session to the bowlers and go back to the future to ensure our continued Test Match success.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
I still think it’s a hard one to figure out Matth. If we’re talking averages it’ll count if our top six averages 45 rather than 35, no matter how slowly they go. But how much one person does one person batting slow affect others? It may well do if puts on pressure, but it’s very hard to judge because we can’t make comparisons about What Ifs. Maybe someone could do it by comparing how some guys go with slower or quicker batting partners, but that has some obvious problems.
matth
Roar Guru
And taking 20 wickets helps most of all
matth
Roar Guru
Great stuff Dave. I guess if you bat at a 40 strike rate va 60 you have to make it count. Taking 80 balls but only adding 35 means when you get out you haven’t moved your team forward much at all. That’s okay if you have a mix of players but if they are all doing this then we are in trouble. With Smith now confirmed it will be interesting to see whether bowling sides attack him more, allowing him more freedom in his scoring areas or whether they continue the tactic of strangling him until he loses patience
Lance Boil
Roar Rookie
As far as winning test matches is concerned scoring more quickly helps but not losing 20 wickets helps more.
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
Maybe we have caught that bazball bug?
Andrew
Roar Rookie
the frequency of batsmen stopping play because of spectator movement 5 or more metres away from a sightscreen, or a tiny bundle of not-moving electrical tape somehow visible from 100 metres away (you, again) - Steve Smith trying to prove his eyesight isn't going maybe. I couldn't see it from the members pavillion, but I had had a couple of schooners.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Nice one Matth. It’s an interesting question- what’s the impact of scoring rate on batting partners and team performance? It feels intuitive to say someone batting at Warner’s pace can take the pressure off his partner - if he doesn’t get out! - but otherwise is there much difference between players scoring between 40 and 55/100 if they get the results? Obviously you’d take two guys average 50 but scoring at 40 over two averaging 40 but scoring at 60 - it’s not white ball cricket. There’s even a potential advantage- openers taking longer to score means they are taking the shine off the ball and blunting the seam more before others get in. I suppose if you have a lowish score on the first day but score real quick you can increase your chances of getting the oppo in earlier, maybe on the first evening (see the England tactic at Edgbaston!). But you wouldn’t want to base selection on low scores or batting first every time. Note on Green - i wouldnt assume he replicates a 48 scoring rate if he opens, where he will be naturally even more cautious than usual and batting will be harder unless it’s in the subcontinent. Green has a slow strike rate for a number 6. He ranks 59th out of 69th in scoring rate and 48th in averages among all Test players who have played at least 10 matches at no.6 since 2000 while averaging over 30. Is Bancroft’s slow scoring rate is a worry if picked?. His scoring rate in all FC cricket is 43, compared to Renshaw at 49 and Harris 53. Only 39 in the Shield this year. Out of the 73 batters worldwide who have averaged 35 or more since 2000 (min. 10 Tests) when opening, only 4 have scored at a slower rate in Tests, and none whose career started after 2000. But they probably all had faster scoring rates than Bancroft in FC cricket.
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
The "crash through, or crash" approach worked really well for Warner for a long time, even on testing pitches. Until it didn't. Meaning that suddenly the No 3 batsman was at the crease far earlier, far too often, than he or his captain liked. The beauty of a steady batsman playing time, is that he can build long partnerships with his faster-scoring partner, as well as make life easier for subsequent batsmen. Woodfull and Bradman, Brown and McCabe, Taylor and Slater, Edwards and Walters etc- https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/07/03/baggy-green-odd-couples-part-2-the-batting-partners/
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
Hi Aransan, as well as- * the frequency of mid-over conferences and fist-bumps between batsmen * the frequency of batting-glove changes (Steve Smith, I'm looking at you) * the frequency of batsmen stopping play because of spectator movement 5 or more metres away from a sightscreen, or a tiny bundle of not-moving electrical tape somehow visible from 100 metres away (you, again) * the frequency of field changes, and conferences between bowlers and fielding captains * the frequency of runners bringing out drinks during stoppages eg a wicket or DRS review, sometimes within 10-15 minutes of the last instance, or of that session having commenced * bowlers fielding in the deep during their alternate overs, when in past eras they often fielded far closer to the tops of their own bowling approaches.
Aransan
Roar Rookie
What effect do player referrals have on over rates? Perhaps even more than the direct time lost as they slow the game and don’t forget the time allowed for referrals. Thanks matth for the article.
KangarooSushi
Roar Rookie
If you gave Mark Taylor a monstrous, but lighter bat, shortened boundaries and free hits then he could've been known as a master blaster... Haha. Who knows. I wholeheartedly agree about the likelihood of our scoring rate going down for a period. The brainstrusts are aware that 4+ per over is the way forward, so hopefully they're able to encourage our top 4 to do their bit to bridge the gap with a bit if extra intent. Or we just open with Maxwell. :shocked:
matth
Roar Guru
Great insight Roseville, thanks
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
Thanks matth, For the first 100 years of Test cricket, a scoring rate of 40-45 runs/100 balls was considered acceptable. While match conditions made any increase highly risky, bowling rates of 100-120 overs/day still enabled plenty of runs to be scored in a typical day's play. Then in the 1980s, daily over-rates fell as low as 70-75. Leading to the introduction of a minimum daily quota of 90. The importance of acceptable over-rates shouldn't be overlooked. It's one thing for scoring rates to drop from 60 runs/100 balls, to 50. But that issue is compounded when fewer than 85 overs are delivered in 6.5 hours, despite the quota being 90 in 6 hours. While a slower scoring rate might cost a batting side 40-50 runs per day, a slower over-rate adds a further 20-30 runs to that tally. It staggers me that while overs lost due to rain must be made up with an early start the following morning, overs lost due to slow delivery are gone for good.
matth
Roar Guru
Ironically Labuschagne has a faster scoring rate than Khawaja, Smith or Green over the past two years.
Aransan
Roar Rookie
Warner was one of a kind and won’t be replaced. Smith has been hard to understand, in a recent innings he made one run in over 20 deliveries allowing the bowlers to get on top and then he went out. It must have been hard for the batsman at the other end.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
True, but when he gets going, he can really motor and very hard to bowl to. Sadly not enough chances to demonstrate that
Tom
Pucovski's FC career strike rate is lower than Harris and Renshaw's
Opeo
Roar Rookie
All of our top six, except for Labuschagne, can score very quickly when the situation calls for it, so while we might start an innings very slowly, our run rate can catch up. A really good example of this was in the second innings of the Perth test. We were two for five and then Khawaja and Smith spent the next couple of hours or blocking and leaving to ensure that no further damage was done. I forget exactly how slowly they scored but Khawaja was on about 30 runs from his first 100 deliveries. Once Australia got control back he went into t20 mode and scored at 10 an over for a while.
Opeo
Roar Rookie
“Whenever we lose wickets trying to score faster, especially if it results in a loss, every fan and his dog call the team out for not being patient.” This sums up cricket fans so well.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
I think selectors plans were scuppered a lot when Will Puckovski didn't kick on. IMO they saw him as the natural successor to Warner, ie some who could score freely, maybe not from ball one, but certainly way faster than those mentioned in this piece. Selectors need to do what footy coaches have to do every season - take stock of the playing talent they have available, formulate plans to win games using that available talent, get buy-in from the players and tweak the plan as required. An extreme example of this has been Bazball, with guys going hell for leather with the bat, giving mediocre attacks lots of runs and time to bowl out the opposition twice. Why wouldn't Australia settle for scoring more slowly, but still making huge totals, knowing it has arguably the best attack in world cricket. If the playera vailable don't allow for fast scoring, don't expect them to. Simply plan to play 5 day Test cricket using all the talent in the team.