• 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.

Par oneday Batting strike rates and Bowling economy rates?? ....

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
erm..dont know exactly what your point is..

Border WAS a great ODI batsman,in my time of watching him (1980 onwards) I saw him play several great intelligent innings,that invariably won the game for Australia.It might have been only a 30 or 40 or so,but still vital
He most certainly was not a great player.
He wasn't bad, no, but he wasn't anything remotely close to how good he was in Tests.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
So what's that if it's not the scoring rate?

No matter how many times your theory about wickets not affecting the scoring rate being proven wrong (as in pretty much every ODI) - you stick to it.
Here we go again - "it's been proven wrong because I say it has".
You've never, ever managed to prove it wrong - you've tried, but you've never been able to get around the fact that if you bowl badly you'll get the treatment old batsman or new.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
1 run in 10 over difference for bowling at the death?
And you know perfectly well that it's not as simple as that.
And 4.5 rules out just about every bowler, seeing as most scores are well over 250 now.
Exactly - which shows that bowling standards at present are pretty low.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Here we go again - "it's been proven wrong because I say it has".
You've never, ever managed to prove it wrong - you've tried, but you've never been able to get around the fact that if you bowl badly you'll get the treatment old batsman or new.
No, it's been proven wrong by the sheer weight of runs scored by batsmen in the death overs when they have wickets in hand, time and time again.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
No, it's been proven wrong by the sheer weight of runs scored by batsmen in the death overs when they have wickets in hand, time and time again.
Or rather, that has proven again how poor the standard of bowling at the death - like everywhere else - is currently.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
As it is, as in where teams with wickets in hand score big totals because they have wickets in hand?
No, as in where they score big totals because the bowling isn't good enough to stop them.
 

Fiery

Banned
Richard said:
No, taking wickets has no effect whatsoever on the scoring-rate.
Only bowling accurately does that.
Taking wickets simply has an effect on the total.
So taking wickets doesn't affect run-rate?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
So no bowlers are any good any more seeing as it happens in just about every game...
The ability of the bowlers hasn't changed - it's just some of the bowlers who used to be playing are better than most of the current lot.
Hence the average scores are currently higher...
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Fiery said:
So taking wickets doesn't affect run-rate?
Nope - that's an outdated theorem.
The only way to cut the scoring-rate is to bowl more accurately than you have been.
Of course, taking wickets can help galvanise the bowlers and up the confidence.
Obviously, of course, the reverse applies, big-time - slowing the run-rate will massively improve your chances of taking wickets.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
The ability of the bowlers hasn't changed - it's just some of the bowlers who used to be playing are better than most of the current lot.
Hence the average scores are currently higher...
dont be stupid, even the most rubbish of bowlers back in the 80s ended up with excellent ERs. average scores are higher today largely because most batsmen have become more adept at scoring quicker, boundaries have gotten shorter and pitches have gotten flatter.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
Nope - that's an outdated theorem.
The only way to cut the scoring-rate is to bowl more accurately than you have been.
Of course, taking wickets can help galvanise the bowlers and up the confidence.
Obviously, of course, the reverse applies, big-time - slowing the run-rate will massively improve your chances of taking wickets.
because unset batsmen can score just as quickly as set batsmen can cant they?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
dont be stupid, even the most rubbish of bowlers back in the 80s ended up with excellent ERs. average scores are higher today largely because most batsmen have become more adept at scoring quicker, boundaries have gotten shorter and pitches have gotten flatter.
Stop going-on about the '80s - of course things have changed from the '80s and '70s where 4-an-over was a maximum for a good bowler.
The significant date is about 1990-1992 sort of time, from on which anything under 4-an-over has been outstanding.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
because unset batsmen can score just as quickly as set batsmen can cant they?
They certainly won't find poor bowling much more difficult to score off.
 

Top