• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

Craig

World Traveller
And what do you classify as poor?

Obviously it varies if the pitch is flat, how many wickets lost, quality (or lack thereof) of bowling, stage of the innings (batting PP, last 10 overs) etc.

For me on a good batting wicket with wickets in hand, then the batsmen should at least have a strike rate of at least 75 to 80. Last 10 overs, at least scoring at 90 IMO.

This thread was a result of the Michael Clarke thread.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
If it's an opener, batting with a guy who strikes at 90+, I don't mind a strike rate in the mid-70s or so. That is, once that opener bats through most or all of the innings on a consistent basis. This may be from the perspective of a weak team though, where having an opener anchor the innings would be ideal and necessary.

Of course all this changes based on circumstances (ie pitch, target, opposition etc)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Ponting's had a long career though. The average score in ODIs has gone up A LOT over the course of it.
As the quality of bowling has gone down, yeah. With good-quality bowling on anything bar a rank road, it remains the case that scoring expectations are moreorless as they were at the start of Ponting's career. Against a side with 2-3 good-quality ODI bowlers, I'd say a batsman can be content though hardly ecstatic with a SR of 70, and one of 80 is pretty good. Against a side with just a single good ODI bowler you'd perhaps expect more 90; against one without any good ODI bowlers (which isn't unusual presently and hasn't been for a fair few years), someone striking below 100 would be if not quite a disappointment then someone who could be called a little tardy.

Goes without saying too that blanket strike-rates can only be applied to first-innings batting. In the second-innings it changes completely and is entirely situational dependant.
 
Last edited:

Himannv

International Coach
I think its a matter of looking at it per 100 balls as thats what strike rate is. I think we can all agree that scoring less than 70 from 100 balls is simply not good enough in the current ODI game. I believe the scores have gotten higher ever since T20's were started.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You believe wrongly in that case TBH, the sea-change started in about 2000/01 or 2001/02; Twenty20 did not even begin to be played domestically on a large scale until about 2005/06 or so. It has only been a regular international feature (regrettably so in my book) since 2007/08 and the first World Thingy.
 

Himannv

International Coach
Hmm I always thought it was a continous gradual change which got hiked up even more once the T20 started. What started off the 00/01 change?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mostly a drop in the quality of bowling, but this has been exacerbated by rule and convention changes like the use of shorter boundaries, more Powerplay overs and most significantly of all a deliberate attempt to produce rank roads for frankly the overwhelming majority of ODIs. Good bowlers can and have circumvented these changes and continued to return outstanding figures; poor ones cannot and the economy-rates for poor-quality bowlers have increased massively in the last ~8-9 years.

Twenty20 might've made a miniscule difference but I really don't think it's tremendously significant compared to the above factors. Had they been absent I reckon the introduction of Twenty20 would've made essentially zero difference.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Twenty20 has brought about quicker scoring in both of the longer games, surely?

Must be stats to settle this one anyhow?
 

AaronK

State Regular
80 to 85..

but it is harash to expect the same strike rate from batsman like Kallis, Dravid and afew others who played during the 90s considering that the game was much slower back in those days..for upcoming players that strike rate is good enough..

I am interested to see the strike rate of batsman post 20/20 era.. if the 50 over versian survives..
 
Last edited:

Matt79

Global Moderator
Mid to high 70s is perfectly acceptable, especially when coupled with an average in the mid 30s or higher. The best batsmen will have rates in the mid 80s and a similar average. The very best will be past ninety.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
I think its a matter of looking at it per 100 balls as thats what strike rate is. I think we can all agree that scoring less than 70 from 100 balls is simply not good enough in the current ODI game. I believe the scores have gotten higher ever since T20's were started.
Nah, because you'd expect any batsman to accelerate as their innings progress. They might be striking at 60 by the time they get to 30, but then you'd expect them to score at 90/100 for the rest of their innings.

Your applying an average rate and saying it should apply in extreme Individual examples.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Depends on what role you play in your team. Michael Bevan, Arguably the best ODI batsman ever, has a SR rate of 74.
 

Top