Why T20 hitting is not just a more risky version of batting

[zen]

Link

 

Hitting is different. It is the art of plundering each delivery for as many runs as possible. Its measures of merit must be different from those for batting. The hitter's technique is designed to make it possible for them to consistently hit the ball to the parts of the boundary that are not defended by a fielder. Among batters, if two score at the same speed, the one who averages more is the better batter. Among hitters, if two score at the same speed, the one who averages less is the better hitter, because this player achieves the said speed earlier in their innings.
 

The more selective players score slower than the less selective ones. In a fast-scoring format like T20, this is not viable in the same way that it is in Tests and to a lesser extent in ODIs.
 

The essential distinction between Test cricket and T20 is that in Test cricket, wickets are the scarce resource. There is a relative abundance of deliveries, accommodating a range of batting approaches, while in T20, deliveries are the scarce resource, since there is a relative abundance of wickets (ten) over only 120 deliveries. This is not a particularly counterintuitive insight but its implications have been resisted in T20 international cricket and in the way T20Is are discussed.
 

From a batter's point of view, 45 for 1 and 54 for none are both excellent returns in a seven-over period because wickets have been preserved. But under the hitter's orthodoxy, these scorelines reflect bad play. The hitter's orthodoxy says that team that had wickets in hand should have scored more runs if they didn't lose wickets, or lost more wickets if they didn't score more runs.
 

A key element in embracing the hitter's orthodoxy involves the use of the anchor. India insist on playing Virat Kohli, Rohit Sharma and KL Rahul in three of the top four positions in their line-up. To be a genuinely hitting XI, they will need to drop two out of those three down the order and promote their power-hitters - Suryakumar Yadav, Rishabh Pant, Hardik Pandya, and probably Dinesh Karthik - up the order. In a good hitting line-up, the anchor offers insurance in case of a collapse rather than blocking one end from the start. To embrace such a theory fully, India would have to pick the most aggressive T20 opener available to them - Prithvi Shaw. That they haven't done so, and their line-up positions their hitters below their anchors, suggests that there is a step in the direction of hitting that India are not yet prepared to take.

 

Nevertheless, T20 international cricket is, at long last, moving towards the approach the franchise leagues have already embraced. T20 is a hitter's game. Hitting is a distinct art and needs to be described on its own terms. It is not a riskier version of batting. Rather, it is a response to the unique circumstances of giving teams ten wickets to use over only 120 balls.

 

(Many of the points in the article are similar to a few I keep talking about including in the notes from GT thread!).

Edited October 3, 2022 by zen

[zen]

Y’day from players’ interviews: 

 

KL thought 180 would be a good score batting first. He was happy that Ind got more than that.  
 

SKY thought there is no point in having a target in mind when batting first. The team has to push for as many runs as possible. 
 

^ different thinking process. 

[zen]

My T20 11s have been from a “hitting” (not necessarily “batting”) perspective (good to see the distinction made in the article): 

 

Gill

Pant/Samson/Shaw/… 

Hooda or Sundar (as they can bowl) … From a “batting” perspective, a Rituraj could be considered better but a Hooda is in as a “hitter”

SKY

Sir Don

DK/Pant

Tewatia or Sundar (to bowl) or V Iyer  or equivalent 

Moshin

Bishnoi or equivalent wkt taking spinner 

Bumrah - experienced “pace” bowler 

Umran - X factor, can touch 155+