Some questions from a new cricket fanatic

[Neil Pickup]

rubbish figures!!!! i would go for none for 20 in ten overs. imagine all five bowlers going for such figures. your opponents would end with 325 for 9 in 50 overs. my opponets would have scored 100 without loss in 50 overs. which one is easier to chase????

Well, no they wouldn't, they would end up all out for 217 in 33.2 overs.

 

[C_C]

rubbish figures!!!! i would go for none for 20 in ten overs. imagine all five bowlers going for such figures. your opponents would end with 325 for 9 in 50 overs. my opponets would have scored 100 without loss in 50 overs. which one is easier to chase????

Except this doesnt really work out unless you are bowling on a demon of a pitch.
Ideally you need aggro and conservative bowlers to make a complete ODI attack. You cant be Agarkar-esque with 50-3 in 7 overs but you cant be 20-0 in 10 either. Simply because if all bowlers bowled that conservatively, batsmen will strat taking risks and really whacking the bowling around later on- WI used to lose matches this way in the Amby-Walsh era sometimes this way- both start off with 50 runs in the first 15 overs and then in return spells they get walloped because the score was something like 160/3 in 40 overs.

 

[marc71178]

rubbish figures!!!! i would go for none for 20 in ten overs. imagine all five bowlers going for such figures. your opponents would end with 325 for 9 in 50 overs. my opponets would have scored 100 without loss in 50 overs. which one is easier to chase????

It doesn't work like that.

A team with wickets in hand will score heavier as the innings progresses.

 

[bagapath]

Well, no they wouldn't, they would end up all out for 217 in 33.2 overs.

which is still more difficult than chasing 100. (I feel stupid to have given the wrong figures!!!)

of course, i know it doesnt work out like that. good bowling is a mix of wicket taking ability and economical line and length. but in one-dayers you need more restrictive bowlers and in tests the bedis and mcgills can be given the freedom to "buy" their wickets.

in the middle overs i would prefer none for 20 in 10 overs compared to 3 for 65. in the first instance it is left to the batting team to take risks; in the second, the damage is already done and u have to lick your wounds.

 

[lord_of_darkness]

for the longer version of the game it is better for a spinner to consistently toss it up and tease the batsmen dinu.. but as for the shorter version of the game.. no matter how crap or good you are.. i think you cant rely on flight alone, just variations in speed and flight.

 

[dinu23]

it depends on the match situation I suppose. If a team is 5 down for 90 then you'd probably bowl more aggressive, else if they are 150 from 20 overs you'd bowl more defensively.