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

[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.

 

[GIMH]

I mostly agree with you Uppercut. It almost seems a default argument sometimes, if arguing in favour of the 90s player it's like the fact that he played in the 90s is the ace in the hole. See my little discussion on Colly V Hick the other week.

I do think bowlers were better in the 90s but I also think we probably have better batsmen now. Just like rock bands were better in the 80s than the 90s tbh

 

[silentstriker]

The strike rates have gone up too. The averages would be even higher if you had the s/r constant. It's a clear increase that I can see with my eyes over 15 years. If you disagree that's fine but I would never directly compare the stats of a batsman or bowler directly between the two decades.

 

[GGG]

I have always put 75 as acceptable, but over the last few years I would say 80 is about par.

 

[Richard]

He is a bit obnoxious.

He's extremely obnoxious, all the time - and that's putting it politely.

Makes good points though.

Nah, pretty much never does really - this is the least stupid point he's ever made pretty much.

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.

Not really - I never say such things of course however much those who do not like it when I do say them use exaggeration to try to discredit. It's interesting that the difference isn't as much as I'd imagined it might be and I'll certainly be looking deeper into affairs sometime soon. The point about it not being obviously relevant was because it was just a random post not obviously linked to anything previously said. That might make it even more snide than usual, of course.

 

[Richard]

There's plenty of good bowlers around.

Let's hear some names then. There are, obviously, more than 0 good bowlers around, but plenty? Gross exaggeration.

 

[Richard]

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.

Of course it is, and the reason why this makes perfect sense is something I've stated countless times: the bowler controls the game, because it is he who sets live play in motion. Until the bowler bowls the ball, the ball is dead; it becomes live as he bowls it. It then goes dead again until he bowls it again.

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.

No-one has ever said any of this - however much it might be nice for those who disagree if they had, because it'd be easier to pick apart.

 

[Richard]

I mostly agree with you Uppercut. It almost seems a default argument sometimes, if arguing in favour of the 90s player it's like the fact that he played in the 90s is the ace in the hole. See my little discussion on Colly V Hick the other week.

On my part at least it's certainly not a case of 1990s vs Other Time. 1992-2001 (most of it at least) was merely the best period we've seen of bowling calibre in Test history. My contention has always been simply that, since 2001/02, batting has been markedly easier than at most other points in cricket history - that includes 1924 and 1959 as well as 1998. There are a variety of reasons for this, and because of this it is conceivable to me that some batsmen, on both sides of the divide, would see vast differences in their performance. Some however prefer to believe that someone who failed at one time would fail at any time and someone who succeeded at one time would suceed at any time. I don't agree and think this is a simplistic measure which fails to take account of the reasons for successes and failures.

 

[GIMH]

I wasn't referring to your part in that discussion, FYI

 

[Furball]

At the top of the order though, SR is generally inversely proportional to average, iirc, only 3 batsmen have managed to average over 40 and strike at 80 odd when opening - Graeme Smith, Chris Gayle (not sure if his average has dropped slightly below 40), and Tendulkar - the fact that Tendulkar averages 48 with a SR of 88 as an opener is statistically amazing.

 

[Sir Alex]

At the top of the order though, SR is generally inversely proportional to average, iirc, only 3 batsmen have managed to average over 40 and strike at 80 odd when opening - Graeme Smith, Chris Gayle (not sure if his average has dropped slightly below 40), and Tendulkar - the fact that Tendulkar averages 48 with a SR of 88 as an opener is statistically amazing.

Bat avg X SR / 100 is a very good measure in ODIs.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Bat avg X SR / 100 is a very good measure in ODIs.

Its not free of flaws either tbh. It puts Sehwag and Ponting at the same level (34.4 x 100 = 43 x 80), when I'd say Ponting is a better ODI batsman than Sehwag.

 

[Furball]

Its not free of flaws either tbh. It puts Sehwag and Ponting at the same level (34.4 x 100 = 43 x 80), when I'd say Ponting is a better ODI batsman than Sehwag.

It is a reasonable measure, you could look at Jayasuriya's career average of 32 and wonder why he's an all time ODI great.

 

[Sir Alex]

Its not free of flaws either tbh. It puts Sehwag and Ponting at the same level (34.4 x 100 = 43 x 80), when I'd say Ponting is a better ODI batsman than Sehwag.

Of course no statistical measure is without flaws but it is a better indicator than just avg or just the SR. It captures how fast and how much the batsman is contributing both of which are of importance in ODIs.

 

[Sir Alex]

Reposting what I posted in the Clarke thread,

The following is the list of all batsmen who have scored 1000+ runs in ODIs since the last World Cup. I have formulated an additional column which is Superavg or simply put strike rate multiplied by batting average which I believe gives a better picture than either just the avg or just the SR. Arranged in the descending order of super averages.

[B]SL	Player			Mat	Runs 	 Avg	 SR	Superavg[/B]
1	S Chanderpaul (WI) 	35	1477	 73.85 	 75.82 	 55.99 
2	V Sehwag (Asia/India) 	49	2039	 43.38 	 125.01  54.23 
3	CH Gayle (WI) 		37	1505	 50.16 	 95.92 	 48.11 
4	MS Dhoni (Asia/India) 	90	3330	 56.44 	 84.45 	 47.66 
5	SK Raina (India) 	51	1495	 45.30 	 97.39 	 44.12 
6	MEK Hussey (Aus) 	57	1910	 50.26 	 85.42 	 42.93 
7	SR Tendulkar (India) 	56	2547	 48.98 	 86.86 	 42.54 
8	TM Dilshan (SL) 	54	1871	 41.57 	 95.36 	 39.64 
9	SR Watson (Aus) 	34	1382	 46.06 	 85.83 	 39.53 
10	Mohammad Yousuf (As,Pk)	45	1706	 48.74 	 80.16 	 39.07 
11	GC Smith (SA) 		35	1487	 45.06 	 85.41 	 38.49 
12	AB de Villiers (Afr/SA) 52	1802	 43.95 	 87.22 	 38.33 
13	BB McCullum (NZ) 	49	1751	 39.79 	 93.18 	 37.08 
14	Yuvraj Singh (Asia/Ind)	84	2797	 39.95 	 92.70 	 37.03 
15	G Gambhir (India) 	77	2668	 41.04 	 86.65 	 35.56 
16	Salman Butt (Pak) 	41	1689	 44.44 	 79.48 	 35.32 
17	Misbah-ul-Haq (Pak) 	44	1218	 40.60 	 85.71 	 34.80 
18	JH Kallis (SA) 		38	1404	 43.87 	 76.93 	 33.75 
19	PD Collingwood (Eng) 	52	1512	 38.76 	 85.27 	 33.05 
20	RT Ponting (Aus) 	53	1956	 40.75 	 80.79 	 32.92 
21	HH Gibbs (SA) 		37	1362	 36.81 	 88.26 	 32.49 
22	BJ Haddin (Aus) 	35	1058	 37.78 	 85.46 	 32.29 
23	JP Duminy (SA) 		46	1149	 38.30 	 81.95 	 31.39 
24	Shoaib Malik (Pak) 	52	1581	 36.76 	 83.51 	 30.70 
25	H Masakadza (Zim) 	46	1618	 36.77 	 82.84 	 30.46 
26	Younis Khan (Pak) 	49	1768	 37.61 	 80.47 	 30.26 
27	KC Sangakkara (SL) 	67	2326	 37.51 	 77.01 	 28.89 
28	LRPL Taylor (NZ) 	49	1242	 35.48 	 81.28 	 28.84 
29	OA Shah (Eng) 		53	1540	 35.00 	 81.78 	 28.62 
30	IR Bell (Eng) 		35	1100	 35.48 	 77.84 	 27.62 
31	KP Pietersen (Eng) 	44	1153	 33.91 	 80.57 	 27.32 
32	MJ Clarke (Aus) 	54	1779	 38.67 	 69.71 	 26.96 
33	Shakib Al Hasan (Ban) 	50	1315	 31.30 	 83.22 	 26.05 
34	Kamran Akmal (Pak) 	49	1109	 29.18 	 88.50 	 25.82 
35	ST Jayasuriya (Asia/SL) 54	1423	 26.84 	 95.50 	 25.63 
36	DPMD Jayawardene (A/Sl)	70	1969	 30.76 	 80.43 	 24.74 
37	Tamim Iqbal (Ban) 	57	1773	 31.10 	 76.98 	 23.94 
38	WU Tharanga (Asia/SL) 	38	1104	 31.54 	 73.01 	 23.03 
39	S Matsikenyeri (Zim) 	42	1024	 26.94 	 83.11 	 22.39 
40	Mohammad Ashraful (Ban) 57	1437	 27.11 	 70.96 	 19.24 
41	Raqibul Hasan (Ban) 	40	1018	 29.94 	 61.95 	 18.55 
42	CK Kapugedera (SL) 	50	1021	 23.74 	 71.69 	 17.02

I think Chanderpaul's figures are good enough proof of why SRs alone should not be a factor. However barring him, there is no one in the top 15 who has a SR below 80, so I think that is a good enough barometer.

 

[Furball]

Reposting what I posted in the Clarke thread,

The following is the list of all batsmen who have scored 1000+ runs in ODIs since the last World Cup. I have formulated an additional column which is Superavg or simply put strike rate multiplied by batting average which I believe gives a better picture than either just the avg or just the SR. Arranged in the descending order of super averages.

[B]SL	Player			Mat	Runs 	 Avg	 SR	Superavg[/B]
1	S Chanderpaul (WI) 	35	1477	 73.85 	 75.82 	 55.99 
2	V Sehwag (Asia/India) 	49	2039	 43.38 	 125.01  54.23 
3	CH Gayle (WI) 		37	1505	 50.16 	 95.92 	 48.11 
4	MS Dhoni (Asia/India) 	90	3330	 56.44 	 84.45 	 47.66 
5	SK Raina (India) 	51	1495	 45.30 	 97.39 	 44.12 
6	MEK Hussey (Aus) 	57	1910	 50.26 	 85.42 	 42.93 
7	SR Tendulkar (India) 	56	2547	 48.98 	 86.86 	 42.54 
8	TM Dilshan (SL) 	54	1871	 41.57 	 95.36 	 39.64 
9	SR Watson (Aus) 	34	1382	 46.06 	 85.83 	 39.53 
10	Mohammad Yousuf (As,Pk)	45	1706	 48.74 	 80.16 	 39.07 
11	GC Smith (SA) 		35	1487	 45.06 	 85.41 	 38.49 
12	AB de Villiers (Afr/SA) 52	1802	 43.95 	 87.22 	 38.33 
13	BB McCullum (NZ) 	49	1751	 39.79 	 93.18 	 37.08 
14	Yuvraj Singh (Asia/Ind)	84	2797	 39.95 	 92.70 	 37.03 
15	G Gambhir (India) 	77	2668	 41.04 	 86.65 	 35.56 
16	Salman Butt (Pak) 	41	1689	 44.44 	 79.48 	 35.32 
17	Misbah-ul-Haq (Pak) 	44	1218	 40.60 	 85.71 	 34.80 
18	JH Kallis (SA) 		38	1404	 43.87 	 76.93 	 33.75 
19	PD Collingwood (Eng) 	52	1512	 38.76 	 85.27 	 33.05 
20	RT Ponting (Aus) 	53	1956	 40.75 	 80.79 	 32.92 
21	HH Gibbs (SA) 		37	1362	 36.81 	 88.26 	 32.49 
22	BJ Haddin (Aus) 	35	1058	 37.78 	 85.46 	 32.29 
23	JP Duminy (SA) 		46	1149	 38.30 	 81.95 	 31.39 
24	Shoaib Malik (Pak) 	52	1581	 36.76 	 83.51 	 30.70 
25	H Masakadza (Zim) 	46	1618	 36.77 	 82.84 	 30.46 
26	Younis Khan (Pak) 	49	1768	 37.61 	 80.47 	 30.26 
27	KC Sangakkara (SL) 	67	2326	 37.51 	 77.01 	 28.89 
28	LRPL Taylor (NZ) 	49	1242	 35.48 	 81.28 	 28.84 
29	OA Shah (Eng) 		53	1540	 35.00 	 81.78 	 28.62 
30	IR Bell (Eng) 		35	1100	 35.48 	 77.84 	 27.62 
31	KP Pietersen (Eng) 	44	1153	 33.91 	 80.57 	 27.32 
32	MJ Clarke (Aus) 	54	1779	 38.67 	 69.71 	 26.96 
33	Shakib Al Hasan (Ban) 	50	1315	 31.30 	 83.22 	 26.05 
34	Kamran Akmal (Pak) 	49	1109	 29.18 	 88.50 	 25.82 
35	ST Jayasuriya (Asia/SL) 54	1423	 26.84 	 95.50 	 25.63 
36	DPMD Jayawardene (A/Sl)	70	1969	 30.76 	 80.43 	 24.74 
37	Tamim Iqbal (Ban) 	57	1773	 31.10 	 76.98 	 23.94 
38	WU Tharanga (Asia/SL) 	38	1104	 31.54 	 73.01 	 23.03 
39	S Matsikenyeri (Zim) 	42	1024	 26.94 	 83.11 	 22.39 
40	Mohammad Ashraful (Ban) 57	1437	 27.11 	 70.96 	 19.24 
41	Raqibul Hasan (Ban) 	40	1018	 29.94 	 61.95 	 18.55 
42	CK Kapugedera (SL) 	50	1021	 23.74 	 71.69 	 17.02

I think Chanderpaul's figures are good enough proof of why SRs alone should not be a factor. However barring him, there is no one in the top 15 who has a SR below 80, so I think that is a good enough barometer.

How about taking out Africa/Asia matches and matches against minnows? No way is Brendon McCullum the 13th best ODI bat over the last 2 years.

Edit: had no idea that Dhoni's SR was as low as that, I know he's refined his game somewhat but I thought he was still striking at around 90.