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

[Craig]

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.

[inbox24]

Minimum is definitely 80 unless it's an uncovered or sticky dog wicket.

[Burgey]

156 is acceptable imo.

[Himannv]

Originally Posted by inbox24

Minimum is definitely 80 unless it's an uncovered or sticky dog wicket.

Agreed. Cannot be too far below this.

[silentstriker]

80 is what Ponting has, so his is the minimum S/R in ODI? A bit harsh IMO.

[R_D]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

80 is what Ponting has, so his is the minimum S/R in ODI? A bit harsh IMO.

Most ODI batsman are around 70-80 range and the better ones tend to be close to 80 or higher.

[Maximus0723]

At this point in age, >85 is good for #1-3. 80-85 for #4-6 batsmen
<75 is poor.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

80 is what Ponting has, so his is the minimum S/R in ODI? A bit harsh IMO.

Ponting's had a long career though. The average score in ODIs has gone up A LOT over the course of it.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

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.

[Sir Alex]

I think Tendulkar's SR is a good benchmark.

[Himannv]

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]

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]

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]

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.