Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 147

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

  1. #31
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    13 batsmen 50+, 3 batsmen 50+....
    What's that supposed to mean ?

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    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.

  3. #33
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,613
    1980s: 65+
    1990s: 70+
    2000-2005: 75+
    Since 2005: 80+

  4. #34
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Flem274*; 27-01-2010 at 11:33 PM.
    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


  5. #35
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    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
    2003-2012

  6. #36
    Hall of Fame Member Johnners's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18,928
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Mitch Johnson is ****ing awesome for cricket.
    Quote Originally Posted by pasag View Post
    Ponting's ability to ton up in the first innings of a series should not be understated. So much pressure, so important. What a great!

  7. #37
    International Coach Zinzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    cover point
    Posts
    10,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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.

  9. #39
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    17,440
    76.90 is a good, acceptable strike rate.

  10. #40
    International Captain Himannv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SL
    Posts
    6,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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..

  11. #41
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    23,054
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  12. #42
    Hall of Fame Member Johnners's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18,928
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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.

  13. #43
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,357
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  14. #44
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,357
    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.

  15. #45
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    23,054
    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.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


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