In strategy, does it perhaps make sense for a team to take more risks with the less capable and so more expendable non-international batters (by asking them to score more quickly and get out more frequently) than it takes with the more capable and so more valuable international batters who are tasked with scoring more runs in the more crucial phases of the innings?
There are outliers among the international players too (Dhoni for instance). If you want to remove outliers, remove them equally from both groups. Or not at all.
I'm not sure what "obsessed about strike rates" means. What should they be obsessed about other than competing? Are there any circumstances in a T20 match when scoring slowly is better than scoring quickly?
No, you score at 14 an over because it gives you a better net run rate. Scoring at 14 an over is better than scoring at 9 an over. Its competing as hard as possible to get every possible advantage for your team.
Is selection as simple as, look at one guy's record, decide whether or not to pick? Don't you have to do that every player? And isn't that record uneven? Can you treat a record over two tournaments as being as reliable as a record over 10 years or 10 tournaments?
I ask all this, because you seem very sure that the selectors would be stupid to make this one choice.
If n are deserving, and there are only k spots, then it follows from the fact that n are deserving that all n have roughly equal probability of success. It follows that picking any combination of k players out of the n is equally reasonable.
Whether a side should be picked on form is a matter of opinion. There's no evidence to suggest that this is a measurably good idea.
I hope the point is evident - that its easy to abuse the selectors. Its basically impossible to argue that a selection is incompetent.
Sharma is high risk, high reward. Kohli is low risk, low reward. There's an argument that international T20 matches tend to be lower scoring than IPL or BBL or PSL or what have you, and that knockout matches tend to be played more conservatively. In such an event, Kohli and/or KL will be useful.
There's also the commercial argument - the world cup is going to America for the first time and Kohli will be a big draw, and his absence will mean a huge commercial hit. Even in the IPL, they shoehorn Kohli into the broadcast every chance they get even in matches where RCB are not playing. Whether you and I like it or not, TV broadcasters are a powerful constituency in the game - they take the game to millions.
So there's a reasonable argument either way. I would prefer it if they went with the 10 best power hitters in India and picked eight of them and relied on Jadeja, Pandya, Dube, Axar, Kuldeep, Bumrah, Arshdeep/Bhuvi/Mohsin/Siraj to do the bowling between them.
I think this is the 1st IPL where I've felt there's a couple of teams that would be better off not playing 4 overseas players.
In strategy, does it perhaps make sense for a team to take more risks with the less capable and so more expendable non-international batters (by asking them to score more quickly and get out more frequently) than it takes with the more capable and so more valuable international batters who are tasked with scoring more runs in the more crucial phases of the innings?
I doubt that its ever a good strategy for any batter to score slowly.
I'm curious about how would these figures look, if we exclude Virat Kohli and Abhishek Sharma respectively from the 2 cohorts?
And I think the newer generation is more obsessed with Strike Rates than older ones.
Just checked. If we remove Sai Sudharshan from internationals and Abhishek Sharma from non-int, Strike Rates for both the cohorts is same (149.5).
And Sai Sudarshan has barely played 3 ODIs, can be considered non-international.
I'd like to consider Abhishek Sharma as an outlier, so both the cohorts have pretty much the same strike rate.
There are outliers among the international players too (Dhoni for instance). If you want to remove outliers, remove them equally from both groups. Or not at all.
Makes sense. I guess it's better to remove Travis Head from internationals.
So, without Head & A Sharma,
Int - 147.2 & Non int - 149.7
This could change at the end of the season, but I guess the new gen is more obsessed about Strike rates.
I'm not sure what "obsessed about strike rates" means. What should they be obsessed about other than competing? Are there any circumstances in a T20 match when scoring slowly is better than scoring quickly?
Let's say our team needs 30 runs from 25 balls to win.
You decide to score at 9 runs an over, since that's enough for victory but I score at 14 runs an over since I want to prove my hitting ability.
Hence, I'm more obsessed about Strike rate.
No, you score at 14 an over because it gives you a better net run rate. Scoring at 14 an over is better than scoring at 9 an over. Its competing as hard as possible to get every possible advantage for your team.
But for the upcoming crop, it is also about getting into the national team and getting bigger paychecks in the future season.
Unlike say Kohli, who does timepass in middle overs since he is assured of his place in the national team as well as 15 crore paycheck.
Well, T20 WC is gonna have a very small number of matches, so it's more about Luck. Even KL Rahul might have a couple of match winning knocks.
But I'd say that Abhishek Sharma not getting into the squad would be incompetence.
Based on what?
Based on SMAT 23( 500 runs @ 190+ SR) and IPL (200+ SR)
Choosing Kohli over A Sharma is an incompetent decision in my view.
Is selection as simple as, look at one guy's record, decide whether or not to pick? Don't you have to do that every player? And isn't that record uneven? Can you treat a record over two tournaments as being as reliable as a record over 10 years or 10 tournaments?
I ask all this, because you seem very sure that the selectors would be stupid to make this one choice.
I know that when you have X number of deserving batsmen, only 4 or 5 will be in the playing XI, and (X - 5) players won't get a chance.
But these 4 or 5 batsmen should be chosen based on which guy has higher probability of succeeding.
With A Sharma being the best (or top 2) IPL batter at the moment, isn't the probability of him succeeding in WC higher than other players ?
Also, it's irrelevant what a player has done in the past 10 years. Only past 1-1.5 years should be considered
If n are deserving, and there are only k spots, then it follows from the fact that n are deserving that all n have roughly equal probability of success. It follows that picking any combination of k players out of the n is equally reasonable.
Whether a side should be picked on form is a matter of opinion. There's no evidence to suggest that this is a measurably good idea.
I hope the point is evident - that its easy to abuse the selectors. Its basically impossible to argue that a selection is incompetent.
Fair enough, but do you think Kohli and A Sharma have the same probability of succeeding?
Sharma is high risk, high reward. Kohli is low risk, low reward. There's an argument that international T20 matches tend to be lower scoring than IPL or BBL or PSL or what have you, and that knockout matches tend to be played more conservatively. In such an event, Kohli and/or KL will be useful.
There's also the commercial argument - the world cup is going to America for the first time and Kohli will be a big draw, and his absence will mean a huge commercial hit. Even in the IPL, they shoehorn Kohli into the broadcast every chance they get even in matches where RCB are not playing. Whether you and I like it or not, TV broadcasters are a powerful constituency in the game - they take the game to millions.
So there's a reasonable argument either way. I would prefer it if they went with the 10 best power hitters in India and picked eight of them and relied on Jadeja, Pandya, Dube, Axar, Kuldeep, Bumrah, Arshdeep/Bhuvi/Mohsin/Siraj to do the bowling between them.
But its not stupid to pick Kohli.