Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 72

Thread: Aceptable econmy rates in ODIS

  1. #1
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131

    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.
    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. #2
    State 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    787
    and then there is Joel Garner...

  3. #3
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    Well he was the most accurate bowler ever (in ODIs).

  4. #4
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,119
    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.
    Sounds fair to me.

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

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp


  5. #5
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,844
    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.
    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

  6. #6
    International Regular Andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,123
    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.

  7. #7
    Soutie Langeveldt's Avatar
    Pinball Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    29,542
    id say anything under 5 is acceptable

    4.50 and under is very good
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    Don't like using my iPod dock. Ruins battery life too much.
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    Thanks Dick Smith. Will remember to subscribe to your newsletter for more electronic fun facts.

    ****.

  8. #8
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    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.
    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."


  9. #9
    PY
    PY is offline
    International Coach PY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Posts
    10,736
    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:
    A True Champion - Bob. Rest in peace. 15/04/06
    "People today have too big a devil and too small a God"

    - Stephen Currie

    "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" Psalm 27:1

  10. #10
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    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:

  11. #11
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,668
    Originally posted by royGilchrist
    and then there is Joel Garner...
    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.
    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.

  12. #12
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,668
    Originally posted by Craig
    I can never work out how people like to highlight a cricketer's substandardness.
    You're the only one who seems to constantly fly in the face of the forum and highlight these "substandard" players!


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


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


    Originally posted by Craig

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

  13. #13
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,119
    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.
    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".

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

    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.
    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.

  14. #14
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Canberra, ACT
    Posts
    2,585
    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!


  15. #15
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    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.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •