Aceptable econmy rates in ODIS
 

As per usual, nobody agrees with anything I say (well most of the time - and Rik agrees with me more then anybody else) and I have given on a few times I have given what I believe is an acceptable economy rate for bowlers in ODIs.

For those that dont know, it is:

Anything under 4 an over is outstanding and anything under 4.5 runs per over is good.

And guess what I have the beloved Andrew Flintoff as a good ODI bowler under my system.

So I need to what other posters think what an acceptable rpo in ODI cricket.

Surely Simon Jones will never ODI cricket for England. Just look at his List A record.

and then there is Joel Garner...

Well he was the most accurate bowler ever (in ODIs).

Sounds fair to me.

Now come on. He's played FIVE games and has only bowled 26 overs in those. He'll need a bit more time to prove himself!

Besides, Andy Bichel VERY erratic in his early days for QLD but since then is one of Australia's most reliable and accurate bowlers. 5 games is nowhere near enough to judge a player on.

You can look at RPO all you like - and obviously it's a useful factor in rating someone, but so is strike rate, and so is average.

Then there is the extra factors a bowler brings to an attack that cannot be measured in statistics.

I only need to pick out one statistic that proves beyond doubt that this is a spurious attempt to prove everything in numbers, once again.

Waqar Younis
LIST A: 671 wickets @ 4.57 RpO
ODI: 416 wickets @ 4.68 RpO

If my memory serves me rightly, he was a little useful?

Simon Jones' List A career: 5 matches, 1/175 in 26 overs @ 6.73

Agreed, that's poor, but anyone attempting to judge him off that is at best misguided and at worst downright ignorant of reality being different to statistics.

I think somewhere around 4.75 is a good economy rate for a bowler.

Depending on what the bowler is (eg. express pace, wrist spinner), around 5 is acceptable IMO for what the bring to the attack.

Anything under 4 is exceptional.

id say anything under 5 is acceptable

4.50 and under is very good

Considering that a score <=250 is still very chase-able, I don't see a problem with a bowler being between 4.5 and 5 rpo... especially if it's a spinner.

All depends what part of the innings they bowled in.

IMHO, if they bowl for first half of innings then they should be aiming for between 3-4 RPO because the batsmen aren't generally going for it. However if they are bowling at the death then anything under 6 is good.

To criticise Simon Jones after 5 games can only be described as a joke :rolleyes:

I can never work out how people like to highlight a cricketer's substandardness.

To have played 5 games over 5 years with Glamorgan, shows that he must be bad. You can have a go at the Glamorgan selectors if you want.

Auctually according to Shane Warne, Australia try to keep their ten overs per bowler under 45 runs which gives them 225 (that's off the top of my head, so I cant be sure).

I bet you probably think James Kirtley should be a certainty in the one-day team :rolleyes:

Don't forget the way the game has evolved in favour of the batsman.

I'm not putting Garner down here, but it's a lot harder nowadays, a lot more work for bowlers (relative to batsmen) and the fielding restrictions.

You're the only one who seems to constantly fly in the face of the forum and highlight these "substandard" players!


Yes, and he's had so much chance in the last year since he got some Academy coaching hasn't he...


Most nations would settle for going at 5 an over - the Aussies are a class apart, so set their sights higher.


What would be wrong in someone rating a particular player (who is untried really in all honesty?

Better that than constantly criticising players, even to the extent that James Anderson is too expensive (despite the fact that there's not that many current players more economical than him)

No kidding, you're on shaky argumentative ground now. This is spurious reasoning at best. Craig, dude, If you want to argue that Glamorgan think Jones is crap, you'll have to do MUCH better than "To have played 5 games over 5 years with Glamorgan, shows that he must be bad".

Now you're just being childish and showing your lack of experience in real debate. There's actually logical argumentative terms for what you're doing here. Have a read of my mate's page here (http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~tedescom/Logicoverview.htm) and see if you can pick out which fallacy you're following. And in case anyone is wondering, yes I did study Logic at Uni. :D

Which explains quite succinctly why Waqar Younis's economy rate might be considered a little high; you'd struggle to find a game he played where he DIDN'T bowl in the last 10 overs.

IMO there are quite simply too many variables to be taken into consideration to judge a ODI bowler on economy rates alone.

factors such as the following will always have an impact on economy rates:

pitch, weather, when they bowl, opposition, team tactics / role, style of bowler (aggressive, strike etc), type of bowler (seam v spin, frontline v back up), who they are bowling in tandem with, team selection etc etc etc......

To mind you also need to consider how many overs they bowl per match & what their strike rate is like b4 you can pass any judgement.

eg a back up bowler may bowl only 4 - 5 overs per match on average, get hit around and only take a wicket or 2. On paper he doesn't look like much, yet in those games he may have the habit of being able to remove dangerous batsmen.

Astle's figures aren't great as a bowler but consider that his role is to produce pressure - not take wickets.

As I said - stats in ODI bowling are soooo misleading to be considered just on economy rates.

However in saying that if the bowler can do their job and maintain an economy rate of 5 or less, then under normal playing conditions they are contributing to a sub 300 batting target which must be thought of as getable! Anything over that means a run a ball or more which creates enormous pressure on the top order!

:)

Thank you Top_Cat, that linked really helped (no I am not being sarcastic, just giving you a complement :) ).

I will ask two questions:

1-Bowling at the death is the reason why say Kallis and Waqar Younis have higher rpo's then what they usually should. Either that or they are not to worried about. It was most surprised to find it was higher for a bowler of their quality.

2-Depending on pitch type would detrime say a bowlers rpo. I mean bowling a seamer friendly wickets like we had for the the New Zealand-India ODI series to that of say a pitch in India which are often flat and rock hard (sorry if that sounds unclear - just let me know).

I often give a bit of leeway to bowlers who's rpo is between 4.5 and 4.6 runs per over.

Alright Marc, give me what define acceptable. I want to know this one.