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

[Dan]

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.

 

[Psycho Macaque]

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.

 

[MW1304]

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.

 

[Psycho Macaque]

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.

 

[pup11]

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.

 

[Flem274*]

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.

 

[MW1304]

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.