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

[Sanz]

13 batsmen 50+, 3 batsmen 50+....

What's that supposed to mean ?

[Streetwise]

What's that supposed to mean ?

There are lots more teams playing ODI's like Ireland, Kenya, Bangledesh amd Holland which somehow means that players that didnt play them are better than players that do.

[wfdu_ben91]

1980s: 65+
1990s: 70+
2000-2005: 75+
Since 2005: 80+

[Flem274*]

He is a bit obnoxious. Makes good points though.

It was relevant because you were off on a trademark rant about how the 90s was a time when Zeus Ambrose and Thor Akram powered lightning bolts towards batsmen of unsurpassed and unsurpassable bravery and ability on pitches that had previously been used for Whack-a-Mole. It's such a shame that these days we're left with Gollum Steyn and Ephialtes Asif to pathetically try to get useless batsmen out on heavily tarmacked motorways. Woe betide at the fate that has befallen our once glorious game.

Etc. etc. etc.

This.

There's plenty of good bowlers around.

[pasag]

On a match by match basis it really depends.

First innings - for a middle order player it depends on what's happened till now. If there's been a collapse then just playing it slow and getting to a decent total can be perfectly acceptable. If the openers have done well then you really have to be able to up the ante though. Second innings is completley dependant on what you're chasing.

[Johnners]

He is a bit obnoxious. Makes good points though.

It was relevant because you were off on a trademark rant about how the 90s was a time when Zeus Ambrose and Thor Akram powered lightning bolts towards batsmen of unsurpassed and unsurpassable bravery and ability on pitches that had previously been used for Whack-a-Mole. It's such a shame that these days we're left with Gollum Steyn and Ephialtes Asif to pathetically try to get useless batsmen out on heavily tarmacked motorways. Woe betide at the fate that has befallen our once glorious game.

Etc. etc. etc.

[Zinzan]

He is a bit obnoxious. Makes good points though.

It was relevant because you were off on a trademark rant about how the 90s was a time when Zeus Ambrose and Thor Akram powered lightning bolts towards batsmen of unsurpassed and unsurpassable bravery and ability on pitches that had previously been used for Whack-a-Mole. It's such a shame that these days we're left with Gollum Steyn and Ephialtes Asif to pathetically try to get useless batsmen out on heavily tarmacked motorways. Woe betide at the fate that has befallen our once glorious game.

Etc. etc. etc.

Made me chuckle this, mainly due to the reference to Gollum Steyn

[Sir Alex]

He is a bit obnoxious. Makes good points though.

It was relevant because you were off on a trademark rant about how the 90s was a time when Zeus Ambrose and Thor Akram powered lightning bolts towards batsmen of unsurpassed and unsurpassable bravery and ability on pitches that had previously been used for Whack-a-Mole. It's such a shame that these days we're left with Gollum Steyn and Ephialtes Asif to pathetically try to get useless batsmen out on heavily tarmacked motorways. Woe betide at the fate that has befallen our once glorious game.

Etc. etc. etc.

Good one.

[NUFAN]

76.90 is a good, acceptable strike rate.

[Himannv]

He is a bit obnoxious. Makes good points though.

It was relevant because you were off on a trademark rant about how the 90s was a time when Zeus Ambrose and Thor Akram powered lightning bolts towards batsmen of unsurpassed and unsurpassable bravery and ability on pitches that had previously been used for Whack-a-Mole. It's such a shame that these days we're left with Gollum Steyn and Ephialtes Asif to pathetically try to get useless batsmen out on heavily tarmacked motorways. Woe betide at the fate that has befallen our once glorious game.

Etc. etc. etc.

Lol, hilarious post.. Woe betide indeed..

[Uppercut]

13 batsmen 50+, 3 batsmen 50+....

It's odd how in times of better bowling averages it's because the standard of bowling is at an all-time high but in times of better batting averages it's because pitches are flat and bowlers are crap.

Seriously though, not that they don't have a point, but the 90s-love amongst cricket fans is mildly embarrassing. Taken to the extremes they observe miniscule differences in runs-per-wicket for each decade and use it to show that an average of 51 this decade obviously < an average of 37 in the previous decade. Every drawn game is greeted with disgust at the flattening out of wickets (rightly so) and teary-eyed nostalgia of the times when draws never happened, even though they actually happened far more, but sshhh. Any aggressive batsman with a good average would have flopped Back In The Glorious Nineties (hereafter annotated BITGN) because no pitch this decade has ever been as difficult to bat on as those BITGN and no bowler, even for a single spell, can match those bowled BITGN. Guys, it's over a decade ago now, and it's not coming back. Time to get over it.

[Johnners]

It's odd how in times of better bowling averages it's because the standard of bowling is at an all-time high but in times of better batting averages it's because pitches are flat and bowlers are crap.

Seriously though, not that they don't have a point, but the 90s-love amongst cricket fans is mildly embarrassing. Taken to the extremes they observe miniscule differences in runs-per-wicket for each decade and use it to show that an average of 51 this decade obviously < an average of 37 in the previous decade. Every drawn game is greeted with disgust at the flattening out of wickets (rightly so) and teary-eyed nostalgia of the times when draws never happened, even though they actually happened far more, but sshhh. Any aggressive batsman with a good average would have flopped Back In The Glorious Nineties (hereafter annotated BITGN) because no pitch this decade has ever been as difficult to bat on as those BITGN and no bowler, even for a single spell, can match those bowled BITGN. Guys, it's over a decade ago now, and it's not coming back. Time to get over it.

Agree with this so so much, as it applies to almost every sport, how it was so much better back two decades ago and today it's just blah blah blah.

[silentstriker]

Guys, it's over a decade ago now, and it's not coming back. Time to get over it.

That's not the issue, and it has never been the issue. As an India fan, the last thing I'd be nostalgic for is the 1990s. I'm just saying, 3->13, that's neither a small change nor a coincidence. Zeus Ambrose or not, whatever the reason maybe, direct comparison of averages without taking into account other circumstances does not work for me.

[silentstriker]

On the whole, I rather prefer this decade much more than the 90s, both for higher results, for (personally) the team I support being better, for more aggressive cricket, etc. But as I said, that is absolutely irrelevant to the point you're arguing against, namely, the direct comparison of how easy or hard scoring was, in general.

[Uppercut]

It's a very specific stat, the number of batsmen averaging over 50, considering that the average runs scored per wicket has remained so similar. A similar number of runs are being scored, but a greater proportion of them are being scored by a small proportion of batsmen.

You can make of it whatever you want. But what I don't understand is that when more bowlers are averaging <27 it's because there are more good bowlers but when more batsmen are averaging 50+ it's because bowlers are worse and pitches are flat. To me it just seems that, for some reason, people are more willing to pick holes in Mahela Jayawardene or Matthew Hayden than they are in Fanie De Villiers or Heath Streak.