Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 72

Thread: Aceptable econmy rates in ODIS

  1. #46
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    But Richard that is also down to quick outfields and hard pitches.

    Still Bond, Pollock, Donald (before he retired), Tuffey, Vettori, Warne, Muralitharan, Bichel (yes he is just accurate enough), Gillespie, McGrath, Ntini, Gough, Caddick (before his retirement), Colleymore, Walsh, Ambrose (before their retirements), Srinath, Vaas, Wasim Akram, Saqlain (before he lost the plot) and Mushtaq Ahmed (before he was dropped), Blackwell were still able to be accurate enough on these type of wickets.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

  2. #47
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Originally posted by Craig
    But Richard that is also down to quick outfields and hard pitches.

    Still Bond, Pollock, Donald (before he retired), Tuffey, Vettori, Warne, Muralitharan, Bichel (yes he is just accurate enough), Gillespie, McGrath, Ntini, Gough, Caddick (before his retirement), Colleymore, Walsh, Ambrose (before their retirements), Srinath, Vaas, Wasim Akram, Saqlain (before he lost the plot) and Mushtaq Ahmed (before he was dropped), Blackwell were still able to be accurate enough on these type of wickets.
    Yes, quick outfields haven't helped either.
    No matter how fast, slow, green or dry a pitch, accuracy remains the same. It is still as hard to score off accurate bowling (unless batsmen use their feet) as it is on the next pitch. Obviously when the ball is moving around it's harder still, but good bowlers should never just think "oh, well, it's a good pitch" - if they've been smacked around (ie gone for 5-an-over), they have probably done something wrong.
    Yes, watersheds change too (ie going for 39 when everyone else has gone for less than 28 is disappointing for a good bowler), but someone should invariably be disappointed if they go for 45 off 10 overs, even if everyone else went for 60. Not as disappointed as if everyone else went for 30, no, but still disappointed.
    If you don't set high standards, you'll never attain them.
    No-one is going to get it right all the time, and it's unrealistic to expect every bowler I rate to go at less than 4-an-over, but for me a good one-day bowler should never go for more than 4.5-an-over over his career, and even that's only if he's playing in unfavourable conditions and bowling at the death. If he's in good conditions never bowling in the last 10, he should aim for 4.2-an-over.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  3. #48
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    Well all the cricketers I have named in that list were all under 4.5 runs per over.

  4. #49
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    Originally posted by Craig
    But Richard that is also down to quick outfields and hard pitches.

    Still Bond, Pollock, Donald (before he retired), Tuffey, Vettori, Warne, Muralitharan, Bichel (yes he is just accurate enough), Gillespie, McGrath, Ntini, Gough, Caddick (before his retirement), Colleymore, Walsh, Ambrose (before their retirements), Srinath, Vaas, Wasim Akram, Saqlain (before he lost the plot) and Mushtaq Ahmed (before he was dropped), Blackwell were still able to be accurate enough on these type of wickets.
    Reon King, Cameron Cuffy, Gavin Larsen, Andy Flintoff, Jacob Oram...
    Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."



  5. #50
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,687
    Originally posted by Richard
    Recently there have been far too many 250s, and more. The standard of bowling in one-day-international-cricket has denegrated in the last 4 years.
    So it's nothing to do with the game becoming more batsman friendly because that's what excites the public then?

    Originally posted by Richard
    For a good bowler, 100 runs is a massive amount. A good bowler should be aiming for 40 or less from 10 overs.
    100 runs in 100 ODI's is nothing - allowing an extra 0.1 per over if they bowl at the death just isn't worth allowing!
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  6. #51
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,687
    Originally posted by Craig
    Blackwell were still able to be accurate enough on these type of wickets.
    Blackwell?!

    A batsman who can fill in a few overs?!

  7. #52
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,854
    Originally posted by marc71178
    Blackwell?!

    A batsman who can fill in a few overs?!
    Just confirms the lunacy of judging players purely on statistics, really...
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

  8. #53
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,150
    No matter how fast, slow, green or dry a pitch, accuracy remains the same. It is still as hard to score off accurate bowling (unless batsmen use their feet) as it is on the next pitch.
    I've had enough experience bowling to guys who can bat to know that this is absolute rubbish. I've had it happen to me several times where, on a good deck, three simultaneously reasonable deliveries on a top-of-off stump line-and-length were dispatched to three different parts of the ground. I've also had several occasions where I've done the same on a slightly less bat-friendly wicket and watched as the ball has taken the edge or been blocked. Same with other players I know. If your logic is to be believed, the higher economy rates of players on the sub-continent vs the lower economy rates of seamers in England is a total co-incidence.

    In my experience, the only ball which almost guarantees you won't be hit away is the bottom-of-the-bat yorker. Let's see anyone bowl those consistently.

    Yes, watersheds change too (ie going for 39 when everyone else has gone for less than 28 is disappointing for a good bowler), but someone should invariably be disappointed if they go for 45 off 10 overs, even if everyone else went for 60. Not as disappointed as if everyone else went for 30, no, but still disappointed.
    It depends on so many things that you cannot be absolutist about it. By your logic, Ashish Nehra should be disappointed with taking 0/57 in the World Cup final, despite the mayhem going on around him.

    http://www-aus.cricket.org/link_to_d...23MAR2003.html

    As anyone who watched the match knows, he was part of the reason Australia didn't make 380-390 as he bowled superbly the whole day. He didn't drop his bundle like the rest of the Indian bowlers and bowled several yorkers which Rick Ponting, even seeing the ball like a football as he was that day, was unable to get away for more than a single or two. But by your statement he should be 'disappointed'? Whatever you're on in order to come to that conclusion, I want two.

    If you don't set high standards, you'll never attain them.
    There's a subtle difference between 'high' and 'unrealistic'. Aiming for 40 off ten overs is a good thing but that must be tempered by the relativity of the situation; if you're bowling on a decent deck in Ahmedabad and Sachin is on the rampage, you'll have to accept that anything short of 50 off ten overs would be a supreme effort with 55 being par. Similarly on a seaming minefield in Sydney against the same team, 30 off ten overs might be par. It simply depends on the conditions and the opposition.

    Whether the economy rate is the most important measure of a bowler's effectiveness is a matter open to debate too. I dispute it, personally. I hate to be elitist about this but, it's easy to assume it is if you've never played against guys who can really bat. In my experience, nothing should be taken for granted against good players.

    Perhaps one of the reasons totals have increased is bowlers have been encouraged to settle for mediocrity.
    You do realise how ludicrous this sounds, don't you? Players sacrifice so much to get to the stage where they are good enough to play for their country, not to mention not knowing if they will be picked at all, whether they'll ACTUALLY be good enough and work damn hard to maintain physical fitness. Then there is all the personal sacrifices they make in terms of family, other careers, etc. Then once they get into the team, they have to fight like mad to make sure they stay there against tough opposition, hostile media, other players vying for their position, etc.

    So do you then honestly believe that having strived for nothing but excellence for all of their playing career, having struggled, sacrificed and toiled beyond the mental and physical means of others less gifted, that having finally reached their goal, they'd "settle for mediocrity"?

    Mate, I've played only for the South Australian U/19's side and to get there, I had to work harder than I'd ever thought was reasonable. I poured everything (mind, body and spirit) into getting to where I did and that's still WAY below where the top players are at. So I think you can understand why I would think your statement defies logic.
    Last edited by Top_Cat; 12-10-2003 at 08:49 PM.
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  9. #54
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Originally posted by Top_Cat
    I've had enough experience bowling to guys who can bat to know that this is absolute rubbish. I've had it happen to me several times where, on a good deck, three simultaneously reasonable deliveries on a top-of-off stump line-and-length were dispatched to three different parts of the ground. I've also had several occasions where I've done the same on a slightly less bat-friendly wicket and watched as the ball has taken the edge or been blocked. Same with other players I know. If your logic is to be believed, the higher economy rates of players on the sub-continent vs the lower economy rates of seamers in England is a total co-incidence.

    In my experience, the only ball which almost guarantees you won't be hit away is the bottom-of-the-bat yorker. Let's see anyone bowl those consistently.

    It depends on so many things that you cannot be absolutist about it. By your logic, Ashish Nehra should be disappointed with taking 0/57 in the World Cup final, despite the mayhem going on around him. As anyone who watched the match knows, he was part of the reason Australia didn't make 380-390 as he bowled superbly the whole day. He didn't drop his bundle like the rest of the Indian bowlers and bowled several yorkers which Rick Ponting, even seeing the ball like a football as he was that day, was unable to get away for more than a single or two. But by your statement he should be 'disappointed'? Whatever you're on in order to come to that conclusion, I want two.

    There's a subtle difference between 'high' and 'unrealistic'. Aiming for 40 off ten overs is a good thing but that must be tempered by the relativity of the situation; if you're bowling on a decent deck in Ahmedabad and Sachin is on the rampage, you'll have to accept that anything short of 50 off ten overs would be a supreme effort with 55 being par. Similarly on a seaming minefield in Sydney against the same team, 30 off ten overs might be par. It simply depends on the conditions and the opposition.

    Whether the economy rate is the most important measure of a bowler's effectiveness is a matter open to debate too. I dispute it, personally. I hate to be elitist about this but, it's easy to assume it is if you've never played against guys who can really bat. In my experience, nothing should be taken for granted against good players.

    You do realise how ludicrous this sounds, don't you? Players sacrifice so much to get to the stage where they are good enough to play for their country, not to mention not knowing if they will be picked at all, whether they'll ACTUALLY be good enough and work damn hard to maintain physical fitness. Then there is all the personal sacrifices they make in terms of family, other careers, etc. Then once they get into the team, they have to fight like mad to make sure they stay there against tough opposition, hostile media, other players vying for their position, etc.

    So do you then honestly believe that having strived for nothing but excellence for all of their playing career, having struggled, sacrificed and toiled beyond the mental and physical means of others less gifted, that having finally reached their goal, they'd "settle for mediocrity"?

    Mate, I've played only for the South Australian U/19's side and to get there, I had to work harder than I'd ever thought was reasonable. I poured everything (mind, body and spirit) into getting to where I did and that's still WAY below where the top players are at. So I think you can understand why I would think your statement defies logic.
    I've bowled to a few guys who can bat, too (I don't know who the best you've bowled at are, but Matt Maynard and Chris Rogers are probably the best for me, and only in the nets). But I'm only late-60s in mph, so that's rather different to being early-80s. However, you don't need to play to learn; I have also watched plenty of cricket, enough, I would say, to judge accurately.
    And believe me, you've got to be pretty good (sort of Tendulkar-in-good-form standard), even on the most batsman-friendly pace-and-bounce of pitch (ie not too slow and not too fast), to consistently hit a bowler consistently bowling at the top of off for more than 4-an-over if you don't use your feet.
    If you ask me, every Indian bowler should be devestated with the World Cup final. Just because 57 is better than 87 is no excuse. If everyone had gone for 57, India would still have been chasing nearly 300 (assuming there were a normal number of leg-byes) and would have been decidedly second-favourites.
    Maybe I'm unrealistic about settling for mediocrity, naturally I have never experienced the ride up the cricket feudalism (the best I've done is Exeter Seconds), but if someone keeps telling you that under 5-an-over's OK, you'll start to believe it.
    The only other explanation for the sudden increase in scoring-rates in the last 2 years or so in one-day-cricket is the batsmen have suddenly got better, and I don't really think that's likely. So unless bowlers have lowered their standards, there is only one explanation: medium-fast bowlers (who can stop batsmen using their feet by having the 'keeper stand-up) have been alienated, and bowlers of fast-medium who can be attacked by the use of feet have been preferred, so accuracy has been degraded in use, and your only chance is if you get a pitch which enables you to move the ball.

  10. #55
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,854
    Originally posted by Richard
    Exeter Seconds
    OT: Are you playing for Exeter at present?

    I can't add anything here to what Corey's already said.

  11. #56
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Originally posted by Neil Pickup
    OT: Are you playing for Exeter at present?
    I have spent most of the last 2 seasons playing for Sir Jeffrey Stanyer's Third, Sunday and Midweek XIs.

  12. #57
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Originally posted by marc71178
    So it's nothing to do with the game becoming more batsman friendly because that's what excites the public then?
    Yes, sadly most public do not understand the cricketing beauty in watching batsmen being kept quiet by accurate bowling.
    A run-fest is no fun if you ask me. I'd prefer see 200 plays 200 any day. With the occasional 260 plays 260 mixed-in.

  13. #58
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,687
    Originally posted by Richard
    The only other explanation for the sudden increase in scoring-rates in the last 2 years or so in one-day-cricket is the batsmen have suddenly got better
    What about regulations changing to help batsmen at the expense of bowlers?

  14. #59
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Originally posted by marc71178
    What about regulations changing to help batsmen at the expense of bowlers?
    What, like this bouncer rubbish?

  15. #60
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,854
    Originally posted by Richard
    I have spent most of the last 2 seasons playing for Sir Jeffrey Stanyer's Third, Sunday and Midweek XIs.
    That means nothing to me . I've just started at Exeter Uni and am getting involved with coaching the juniors (I'm qualified and CRB-checked, before any even thinks about it!) at Exeter CC over the coming year(s).

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •