Cricket Player Manager
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 136 to 147 of 147

Thread: What is an acceptable, or even good, strike rate for batsmen in ODIs?

  1. #136
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,019
    You have noticed that England have been winning lately right?

    The idea that you must strike at 90 is just so far-fetched it isn't funny.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    get ready for a broken ****in' arm

  2. #137
    International Debutant theegyptian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,042
    Conditions dictate everything. English conditions generally dictate caution early on. The first 15 overs in Asia are generally the best time to score runs quickly.

  3. #138
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wouldn't you like to know
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    You have noticed that England have been winning lately right?

    The idea that you must strike at 90 is just so far-fetched it isn't funny.
    Winning in conditions condusive to the early 90's style of play - i.e. block the hell out of it and hope that our pop-gun bowlers extract enough movement.

  4. #139
    State Captain Stapel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho Macaque View Post
    Oh, there's no way I can agree with that. Top three to lay a platform? Have you been plucked out of 1992. The world changed, man. People moved on. They decided to think out of the box. Pitches got truer. Powerplay overs increased. The top three's job is to make the most of Powerplay overs, not block 40/60 that the likes of IR Bell and AN Cook do. And IJL Trott. As I mentioned in my previous post, maybe it'll change with the inception of two new balls. But for the last 10 or more years it's been get after the ball, hell for leather, and don't waste the overs when the field is restricted. It's 'missionary position', the way England have always gone about things.
    As a matter of fact I have only been watching ODI's since 2006..... Before that time, I didn't know ODI's existed .Not sure what you are on. What I see is England closing in on the #1 ODI spot with Bell, Cook & Trott......

    And as facts show, hardly any players strike over 90 while having some sort of decent average. According to your own logic, Pietersen, Tendulkar, Gayle, Gambhir, Smith, Hayden and Clarke (to name a few) do not make the cut to bat at the top......

    Of course..., anyone would like to have a Gilchrist or Sehwag. But they are exceptional.


  5. #140
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wouldn't you like to know
    Posts
    64
    Yeah, we're winning ATM. I personally don't like the make-up of the team at all. I'm possibly having to change my mind due to the new ball at each end may have evened things up. 90 was a bit of a sweeping statement - upward of 85. I don't think there's an excuse to waste so many Powerplay balls for a top three player and hence they should be getting on with it. I recognise our top three are more likely to struggle because there aren't many sides that will have to consistently cope with the conditions that we do - my problem is when they're faced with pristine batting conditions they don't do anything different and, quite possibly, can't do anything different.

    Let's not forget that these games are friendlies. They mean nothing. Who cares if you're #1 in the world in ODIs - like football the big championships render anything but winning it meaningless. I'm sure Aus couldn't have given less of a stuff that they were still #1 after the WC.

  6. #141
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho Macaque View Post
    Craig?

    You're essentially relying on your lower order to be able to come in and hit from the off and always get a quick score. It doesn't always happen. Each batsman has a responsibility to be posting more than 200 in 40 overs.

    200 in 40 overs is a joke and the sort of rationale that helped the likes of England look horrendous in the WC2011.

    We are on about individual batsmen, aren't we?
    Craig, the poster of this thread, passed away recently.

    That's kind of the middle order's job - Eoin Morgan, MS Dhoni, AB de Villiers et al. have made a career of it.

    And we have to remember as well, strike rate isn't static across a batsman's innings. Ali Cook, for example, has scored at ~90 per hundred balls since his return - but England's scores after 10-15 overs haven't represented that (and Bell/KP score pretty quick too). They recognise that striking at 70-ish is acceptable to get set, and then you can force forwards to score at a higher rate - rotating the strike becomes easier, and the boundaries become more frequent. If Bell, KP or Cook ton up in an ODI, they rarely take longer that 110 balls.

    Trott bats within himself, and is an anchor for the rest of the team - it lets the likes of Morgan show up and hit out from ball one, and he rarely 'hogs' the strike. He isn't taking up 4 or 5 balls an over blocking, he gives the strike to the faster scorer. More importantly, he ensures that he stays there, allowing the other batsman to bat without fear of a collapse. Sure, he may only strike at 75, but he'll be facing less balls and allowing the other batsman greater freedom.

    Plus if Morgan falls, he can bat with Bresnan, Broad and Swann, rather than having to let them do it themselves.
    My sworn enemy:
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I hate s smith.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I give out points for style of which Steve(n) Smith has none.

  7. #142
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wouldn't you like to know
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by rvd619323 View Post
    Craig, the poster of this thread, passed away recently.

    That's kind of the middle order's job - Eoin Morgan, MS Dhoni, AB de Villiers et al. have made a career of it.

    And we have to remember as well, strike rate isn't static across a batsman's innings. Ali Cook, for example, has scored at ~90 per hundred balls since his return - but England's scores after 10-15 overs haven't represented that (and Bell/KP score pretty quick too). They recognise that striking at 70-ish is acceptable to get set, and then you can force forwards to score at a higher rate - rotating the strike becomes easier, and the boundaries become more frequent. If Bell, KP or Cook ton up in an ODI, they rarely take longer that 110 balls.

    Trott bats within himself, and is an anchor for the rest of the team - it lets the likes of Morgan show up and hit out from ball one, and he rarely 'hogs' the strike. He isn't taking up 4 or 5 balls an over blocking, he gives the strike to the faster scorer. More importantly, he ensures that he stays there, allowing the other batsman to bat without fear of a collapse. Sure, he may only strike at 75, but he'll be facing less balls and allowing the other batsman greater freedom.

    Plus if Morgan falls, he can bat with Bresnan, Broad and Swann, rather than having to let them do it themselves.
    Sorry to hear about your friend, my condolences.

    -------------

    I recognise Cook's improvement, I'm willing to stick with him. But I think he'll go missing if bowlers don't give him width or if the pitch is devoid of bounce - he hasn't got many shots.

    With the rest of it, you really lost me. Especially when you said Ian Ronald Bell scored quickly. Statistically, that's impossible to prove and TBH I've found him to be either incredibly inept or incredibly selfish for large chunks of his ODI career. Then you go on to say something about Bell tonning up, like it's a regular occurrence. Hmmm. Both he and Trott have wasted so many powerplay balls, it's just not funny. Furthering this, you seem to think it's Test match cricket, ODIs are about pushing yourself as a batsman - or at least they have been for the last 17 or so years.

  8. #143
    International Vice-Captain MW1304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    South Central
    Posts
    4,216
    Think England have taken a leaf out of India's book with this 'laying a platform' kind of style, and the two new balls has a lot to do with that i'm sure. Basically when we were getting hammered left right and centre in India, it was often due to the top order being patient and making sure they had wickets in hand for the later overs, where Raina, Dhoni and shamefully even Jadeja would go to town. Dhoni was even doing this in the series in England, though obviously not with enough support to be able to win matches. Whereas we were sticking Kieswetter at the top and expecting him to play in a t20 fashion - he'd often get out early and then Trott and Cook would feel under pressure to score quickly.

    Of course much of the reason for that hammering was a failing middle order and the fact that India were just much much better than us, but we still seem to be somewhat mimicking that successful Indian tactic. I think its a good principle, especially when the new ball is swinging about, but I doubt it will be particularly helpful in India. Bopara and Morgan may be firing but we don't have a Kohli, Raina and Dhoni level of middle order to consistently make use of this tactic. Need to get Buttler in the team to have any hope.

    This doesn't have all that much to do with what preceded it but yerknow.

  9. #144
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wouldn't you like to know
    Posts
    64
    I agree that the two new balls may have an impact. But it's all well and good saying we're doing what India did, but only Morgan touches their middle order's calibre and finishing capabilities - Kohli, Raina, Dhoni and Jadeja - even RAshwin are much more effective than ours. Dhoni's candidate for the best ever ODI finisher.

  10. #145
    International Coach pup11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    India
    Posts
    12,146
    Quote Originally Posted by MW1304 View Post
    Think England have taken a leaf out of India's book with this 'laying a platform' kind of style, and the two new balls has a lot to do with that i'm sure. Basically when we were getting hammered left right and centre in India, it was often due to the top order being patient and making sure they had wickets in hand for the later overs, where Raina, Dhoni and shamefully even Jadeja would go to town. Dhoni was even doing this in the series in England, though obviously not with enough support to be able to win matches. Whereas we were sticking Kieswetter at the top and expecting him to play in a t20 fashion - he'd often get out early and then Trott and Cook would feel under pressure to score quickly.

    Of course much of the reason for that hammering was a failing middle order and the fact that India were just much much better than us, but we still seem to be somewhat mimicking that successful Indian tactic. I think its a good principle, especially when the new ball is swinging about, but I doubt it will be particularly helpful in India. Bopara and Morgan may be firing but we don't have a Kohli, Raina and Dhoni level of middle order to consistently make use of this tactic. Need to get Buttler in the team to have any hope.

    This doesn't have all that much to do with what preceded it but yerknow.
    Don't know about the whole India laying the foundation bit, Indian ODI side basically attacks when the ball is new and then looks to finish with a bang in the death overs, the middle overs they just look to milk the opposition spinners and of course they have a string of batsmen to make this tactic work, but then again this tactic only works when playing on flat sub-continental pitches as is evident by India' record in ODI cricket outside the sub-continent.

    In similar way this measured approach from England of playing with five pure bowlers and stacking the top order with test quality batsmen is only likely to work when the conditions are sporting which is a rarity in ODI cricket.

  11. #146
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Swimming in the cry water of Antarctica
    Posts
    29,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho Macaque View Post
    Winning in conditions condusive to the early 90's style of play - i.e. block the hell out of it and hope that our pop-gun bowlers extract enough movement.


    If Finn nearing 150kph is pop gun, I'd hate to know what you think of most other bowlers in the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  12. #147
    International Vice-Captain MW1304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    South Central
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by pup11 View Post
    Don't know about the whole India laying the foundation bit, Indian ODI side basically attacks when the ball is new and then looks to finish with a bang in the death overs, the middle overs they just look to milk the opposition spinners and of course they have a string of batsmen to make this tactic work, but then again this tactic only works when playing on flat sub-continental pitches as is evident by India' record in ODI cricket outside the sub-continent.

    In similar way this measured approach from England of playing with five pure bowlers and stacking the top order with test quality batsmen is only likely to work when the conditions are sporting which is a rarity in ODI cricket.
    Not sure it was purposeful but quite often they would be going at a steady but unspectacular rate for 35, 40 overs before exploding, which is what i was trying to get across really. Less of an all-out attack at the beginning.

    Yeah by no means are we using the same tactics, I just think it opened our eyes to the fact that you don't have to be going at 6 an over throughout. The t20 pinch-hitting tactic we used successfully didn't translate to ODI's and Kieswetter wasn't working out.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 134
    Last Post: 29-12-2009, 06:01 PM
  2. ***Official*** Australia vs Pakistan in UAE
    By howardj in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 662
    Last Post: 10-05-2009, 08:07 AM
  3. Surrey 2002: A Cricket Captain Diary
    By SIX AND OUT in forum General
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17-02-2005, 09:25 AM
  4. Trade: TN Players available
    By jaganjai in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 05-09-2002, 08:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •