• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Archived [10/08/07] Battrick

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mahindinho

State Vice-Captain
On the subject, what affects strike rates and economy rates? I know mentality must contribute, but which of bowling and consistency contribute more to strike rate and vice-versa?

Thanks for any help. :)
If only I knew!

I _think_ it's really a combination of both. This is really just the way I read it...

For a given ball, you have a potential of how good it could be, which is defined by bowling ability. For argument's sake, imagine that a Superb bowler's best possible ball would rate 10, while a Mediocre's would only hit 5.

Next, you have how good the actual ball is, which I see as a percentage of the potential. With high consistency, more of the balls will be up there at 80-90% of potential. If the Superb bowler described earlier had high conc, most of his balls would rate 8, 9 or even 10. However, if he had rubbish conc, it would be more of a spread - 3, 4, lots of 5s...with maybe the odd ball up there at 10.

For each ball, you then get a rating for the batsman - how well they play the ball, basically. Again, shot potential is defined by batting rating, while actual shot quality is affected by concentration.

So, for each ball, you get two ratings:

batting >>> bowling = 4 or 6
batting >> bowling = 2 or 3
batting > bowling = 1 or 2
batting = bowling = 0 or 1
batting < bowling = dot ball
batting <<< bowling = wicket or chance

The quality of fielding, keeper, etc. could determine whether a chance is taken.

It's all about the random factors. Even the best batsmen will, while facing 100 balls, hit a really low rating - if this coincides with a rubbish bowler's one good ball, the überbatsmen will get out.

Consider an over bowled by various bowlers and faced by various batsmen:

Code:
[B]Ball           1  2  3  4  5  6[/B]
---
[B]Ratings[/B]
---
Bowler 1       8  8  7  6  9  8   high bowling, high cons
Bowler 2       4  8  6  9  3  5   high bowling, low cons
Bowler 3       4  5  5  6  5  5   low bowling, high cons
---
Batsman 1      8  9  6  7  8  8   high batting, high conc
Batsman 2      5  8  9  2  5  6   high batting, low conc
Batsman 3      5  4  5  5  5  4   low batting, high conc
---
[B]Outcomes[/B]
---
Bowl1 vs Bat1  .  2  .  1  .  1    4 runs
Bowl2 vs Bat1  4  2  .  .  6  2   14 runs 
Bowl3 vs Bat1  4  4  .  .  3  2   13 runs
---
Bowl1 vs Bat2  .  .  2  C  C  .    2 runs  2 chances
Bowl2 vs Bat2  1  .  .  W  2  1    4 runs  1 wicket
Bowl3 vs Bat2  1  3  4  C  1  .    9 runs  1 chance
---
Bowl1 vs Bat3  .  C  .  .  C  C    0 runs  3 chances
Bowl2 vs Bat3  1  C  .  C  3  .    4 runs  2 chances
Bowl3 vs Bat3  1  .  1  .  1  .    3 runs
---
[B]Totals[/B]
---
Bowler 1   high bowling, high cons   6 runs  5 chances
Bowler 2   high bowling, low cons   22 runs  2 chances  1 wicket
Bowler 3   low bowling, high cons   25 runs  1 chance
---
Batsman 1  high batting, high conc  31 runs
Batsman 2  high batting, low conc   15 runs  3 chances  1 wicket
Batsman 3  low batting, high conc    7 runs  5 chances
Anyway, this has taken long enough. I hope I've illustrated my point. Bear in mind that there are all sorts of other factors - stamina, pitch type, stage of the innings, RRR...
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Yeah that must have taken an age - thanks for taking the time mate. :)

Definitely helped me in terms of squad selection - thanks a lot. :)
 

Mahindinho

State Vice-Captain
Yeah that must have taken an age - thanks for taking the time mate. :)

Definitely helped me in terms of squad selection - thanks a lot. :)
No probs. Gave me a couple of things to think about, too.

BTW, I've used "chances" as a purely hypothetical thing - BT doesn't indicate when chances are taken or not taken, and they probably don't even exist!
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Yeah I think Adam said something like that in a thread a while back, once again thanks for it all.

EDIT: Thinking about it, does that mean the secondary is a bit more important for batting than bowling? Because I'd be prepared to sacrifice a few runs in bad balls for wickets due to bad secondaries with a good primary, but it's pointless having the potential to bat well but keeping on getting out - consistency is probably more important in batting. Once a batsman is out, that's his game over, whereas a bowler always gets to bowl another ball. (I know that's awfully structured, it often happens when I have lots of thoughts at once).

Do you (or anyone else for that matter) know whether form affects primaries, secondaries, or both?

Once again, thanks for any help.
 
Last edited:

Mahindinho

State Vice-Captain
Yeah I think Adam said something like that in a thread a while back, once again thanks for it all.

EDIT: Thinking about it, does that mean the secondary is a bit more important for batting than bowling? Because I'd be prepared to sacrifice a few runs in bad balls for wickets due to bad secondaries with a good primary, but it's pointless having the potential to bat well but keeping on getting out - consistency is probably more important in batting. Once a batsman is out, that's his game over, whereas a bowler always gets to bowl another ball. (I know that's awfully structured, it often happens when I have lots of thoughts at once).

Do you (or anyone else for that matter) know whether form affects primaries, secondaries, or both?

Once again, thanks for any help.
Don't take the numbers in my post seriously - it's just one over, with made up figures!

I've got no real experience with bowlers who have rubbish consistency, as my attack's always been pretty balanced. However, batsmen with plenty of conc and not much batting tend to stick around without scoring many runs...on the other hand, batsmen with high batting and low conc seem to either hit a quick 50 or fail miserably.

If a bowler has poor consistency, he will leak runs. If you then fail to bowl the opposition out, you're then far more likely to lose.

Generally, I'd say (again, this is without having any figures to back me up) that attacking/destructive players need better secondaries, while defensive/cautious types can get away with it. On the flip side, the def/cau players aren't as likely to win you a match.

Form. In the oHTer game, form "affects" all ratings (except stamina, I think). I'd expect it to be the same in BT.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Don't take the numbers in my post seriously - it's just one over, with made up figures!

I've got no real experience with bowlers who have rubbish consistency, as my attack's always been pretty balanced. However, batsmen with plenty of conc and not much batting tend to stick around without scoring many runs...on the other hand, batsmen with high batting and low conc seem to either hit a quick 50 or fail miserably.

If a bowler has poor consistency, he will leak runs. If you then fail to bowl the opposition out, you're then far more likely to lose.

Generally, I'd say (again, this is without having any figures to back me up) that attacking/destructive players need better secondaries, while defensive/cautious types can get away with it. On the flip side, the def/cau players aren't as likely to win you a match.

Form. In the oHTer game, form "affects" all ratings (except stamina, I think). I'd expect it to be the same in BT.
Thanks very much for all your help. :) It really is much appreciated.

And your point about destructive players, cautious players and secondaries is interesting - I'd never really thought of that.
 

Kweek

Cricketer Of The Year
Jon Grewcock (57980)
LH Batsman, LF Bowler, strong batting form, proficient bowling form, sublime
An attacking player with worthless leadership skills and feeble experience.

Plays For: VCC
Nationality: England
Age: 29 Years Old
Battrick Rating: 7,603
Wages: £1,489 p/w
Stamina: woeful Wicket Keeping: mediocre
Batting: feeble Concentration: feeble
Bowling: proficient Consistency: woeful
Fielding: feeble

listed 200k
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
GFIing it this week against the top team in my league. Also resting Pietersen, who has been playing absolutely awfully while he's on 4 nets a week.

Anyway, sent them in, not a great start.

End of Over 14: 76-2, runrate=5.43
Shamshad 2-0-6-0
Akhlagullah* 50 (41 balls)
Swann 13 (25 balls)
 

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Off to an ordinary start vs a bot team.

End of Over 14: 68-1, runrate=4.86
Brayley 2-0-9-0
Louis* 15 (22 balls)
Edwards 37 (44 balls)
Last Wicket: Chatterton Run Out 12 (FOW: 39/1)

At least my opening bats will get into double figures.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Just went to check the BT rating of the batsman from Buck's XI who is hammering me atm, and he's up for sale. superb/strong, which makes him comfortably better than any player I've got. He's on 60 off 58 atm, but at least the other guy is getting strangled.
 

Johnners

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
End of Over 27: 82-6, runrate=3.04
Savage 4-2-5-0
Arnison* 11 (27 balls)
Parnell 17 (53 balls)

Last Wicket: Elvins c. Taylor b. Verhoeven 2 (FOW: 65/6)

Once again, without Meyer my bowlers are lacking the Killer Blow. Groves is making himself more & more sellable by going for 5+ an over against a Bot team and only taking the 1 wicket.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Great figures from Lancaster.

End of Over 30: 160-3, runrate=5.33
Lancaster 5-0-48-0
Akhlagullah* 110 (91 balls)
Oboyle 10 (18 balls)
 

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Can't believe I'm 1 down after a couple of voers vs a bot team. So lame (we are).

End of Over 7: 43-1, runrate=6.14, reqrunrate=5.23 (267-4)
Haughton 4-0-22-0
Siyabonga* 15 (13 balls)
Reimann 20 (17 balls)
Last Wicket: Ghandi c. Chatterton b. Orourke 8 (FOW: 17/1)
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Going quite well in my chase so far. Set 305 to win, and I've seen off their star bowler Poke (career average of under 8 in my league) for the loss of just one wicket.

End of Over 18: 98-1, runrate=5.44, reqrunrate=6.47 (304-10)
Poke 9-1-35-1
Slaytor* 49 (60 balls)
Camilleri 44 (46 balls)

Amazing turnaround from when I played this guy last season. Lost one game by 200 runs after being bowled out for 60, and the other by 9 wickets.
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
End of Over 25: 120-4, runrate=4.80, reqrunrate=3.48 (206-10)
Elson 6-0-42-0
Canning* 44 (48 balls)
Tedstone 42 (55 balls)
Last Wicket: Griffin lbw b. Bullard 4 (FOW: 40/4)

Griffin's failure will really hurt me, after this pair I've only got Terry and Thatcher (both respectables) left. My bowling was decent, but I really would've liked to get them out for 20 or so less. Canning (3/43) and Tedstone (3/37) took most of the wickets for me, while Potgieter was expensive in what is his second match.

Edit: Bugger. Pretty much all over from here. If there was 50 or so runs to go I'd be in with a shout, but I fear Terry and Thatcher won't be able to hold on long enough

End of Over 29: 135-5, runrate=4.66, reqrunrate=3.43 (206-10)
Elson 8-0-53-1
Terry* 6 (11 balls)
Canning 52 (54 balls)
Last Wicket: Tedstone b. Elson 43 (FOW: 122/5)
 
Last edited:

Johnners

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Warnvale CC 138ao (41.2)
Parnell 51(95), Lawrence 17(36), 13(31), King 13(21)
Verhoeven 5-17(10), Savage 2-20(7), 2-29(6)

Clapo's XI 0-139 (18.2)
Orourke 76(62), Ludlow 61(48)
Lawrence 0-55(5), Tarr 0-35(4)

Code:
Clapo's XI Warnervale CC 
Top Order: mediocre feeble 
Middle Order: mediocre woeful 
Lower Order: abysmal abysmal 
Seam Bowling: mediocre worthless 
Spin Bowling: useless abysmal 
Fielding: abysmal woeful 
 
MOTM: Verhoeven
A comfortable victory again, with Orourke & Ludlow chasing down the total with ease. Verhoeven again bowled well, and is now probably my 2nd/3rd best bowler on performance. Groves on the other hand was (barring his last over) belted by a feeble top order, and is really proving to be a let down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top