Since 2005: 80+
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.
Rest In Peace Craigos
76.90 is a good, acceptable strike rate.
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.
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.
Last edited by silentstriker; 28-01-2010 at 05:45 AM.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)