Acceptable economy rates in FC cricket

[Craig]

What do people here view as an acceptable economy rate in Test or FC cricket? I view anything under 3 an over is good.

I will still maintain to my opinion that Ntini didn't bowl well I had during the Eng-RSA Test series.

 

[JohnnyA]

I will still maintain to my opinion that Ntini didn't bowl well I had during the Eng-RSA Test series.

Completely agree ... if what your saying is that he didn't bowl as well as the commentators and press were saying.

I thought it was very condescending the way Mark Nicholas kept mentioning his race and colour every time he mentioned the player. It may be symbolically important that a black cricketer lead the SA attack ... but he didn't need to keep going on about it.

It got to the stage were he was beyond criticism ... he was the next Malcolm Marshall by the end of the series, despite making only one real contribution (Lords), and that was ONLY because Englands moron batsmen commited suicide and went hook crazy ... holing out 6 or 7 times!!!

He's a useful first change bowler, and may one day be a team leader. But right now he's a long way off. He too inaccurate, and doesn't strike often enough.

 

[age_master]

under 3 is good

 

[luckyeddie]

Depends upon the rate of taking wickets, of course.

I don't mind my openers going for 4 or even 5 an over in the short term (remember, opening = men round the bat = gaps) providing they nip a couple out.

 

[iamdavid]

In ODI's economy is obviously very important but to be honest in Test/FC cricket I think that economy takes second priority to WICKETS , I would rather see a bowler take 5/75 off 20 overs than 2/40 from the same amount.

However if you insist I reckon that an average of 24-27 & economy rate of under 3 is acceptable for a spinner on the subcontinent or the West Indies , or a seamer in England , South Africa , New Zealand.

While average 28-31 & economy 3-3.5 are decent for a seamer on the subcontinent & in the West Indies or a spinner in South Africa , England or New Zealand/ anyone in Australia.

Really as I said though I think wickets come first regardless of how many you conceed.

 

[deeps]

in a test match,the bowlers are looking to get the batsman out...not restrict a batsman. I captained the u/16's Western Australian team 2 years back,and i would certainly keep bowling a person that got hit for 30 runs in an over,if he picked up a wicket every over...basically wat i mean is that economy is not everything,and means very little in test cricket..

Waqar Younis was pretty expensive (not extremely..but expensive), and yet is considered one of the very best fast bowlers ever...bcoz of his strike rate..he took wickets every 25 balls or somefing

Ntini is a wicket taking bowler..definately not an economical one...He is erratic,but that gives him the ability to produce that 'special' delivery..The unplayable one!

I doubt he will ever b the cornerstone of any bowling attack,but he will always b a vital cog in a test match line-up

Similar to Ajith agarkar from india..he takes a lot of wickets,but is also expensive...Brett Lee used to b the same..although now he's much more economical...

 

[Rik]

He played the strike bowler to perfection...although he averaged over 30, more like 32, which shows he bowled a serious load of tripe to boot.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Aye. Totally agree with Eddie, David etc. Although 30rpo is a touch of an exaggeration I reckon.

Waqar's economy is 3.25, strike rate 43.4 (ODI is 4.68/30.5)

 

[marc71178]

I don't think Economy Rate is that good a thing to base on in FC Cricket - you need 20 wickets to win a game, not 20 overs delivered for 30 runs.

Also, by that definition Mushtaq Ahmed had an unacceptable 2003 County season!

 

[Rik]

I don't think Economy Rate is that good a thing to base on in FC Cricket - you need 20 wickets to win a game, not 20 overs delivered for 30 runs.

Also, by that definition Mushtaq Ahmed had an unacceptable 2003 County season!

I know you need 20 wickets, but Ntini went at 4 an over which ment if his team's batting had not been so strong, he would have not been the top wicket-taker in the series as they wouldn't be able to let him get away with letting so many runs go.

What was Mushy's econ btw?

 

[Neil Pickup]

3.03

 

[Rik]

3.03

So...how is that appauling?

Ntini's series average econ was about 4...

 

[Langeveldt]

Guess in todays game... 3 is very good and 3-4 is acceptable...

Nicholas's constant raving about Ntini being coloured made me cringe.. Fact is, it doesnt matter, and im sure not even he cares...

 

[marc71178]

So...how is that appauling?

I was merely pointing out the stupidity of basing the acceptability of a bowlers performance on economy rate being below 3 (or any number for that matter)

 

[Craig]

I'm not judging a bowler on it, I just wanted to know what was an acceptable rpo for a bowler.

 

[Rik]

I was merely pointing out the stupidity of basing the acceptability of a bowlers performance on economy rate being below 3 (or any number for that matter)

Well then Mushy wasn't a very good example, because an econ of 3.03 is .03 off being 3 an over, which is basically 3.00, which Craig has stated is basically the accepted econ rate for modern bowlers. It's not just Craig either, it's universally accepted that going for only 3 an over is very good, under that is outstanding.

 

[Neil Pickup]

What do you mean by "acceptable"?!

If it's over that, he's not deserving of a Test place?

 

[Craig]

Well until recently, he had not played a Test for over 2 years.

 

[marc71178]

Yet his eco rate was below 3 when he wasn't called up - hmm, is that your point I see flying out the window?

 

[Rik]

Yet his eco rate was below 3 when he wasn't called up - hmm, is that your point I see flying out the window?

I might just have missed the point, but I didn't see anything said here by anyone claiming that someone with an econ of over 3 an over wasn't deserving of a Test place. All I've seen is that 3 an over is the acceptable econ rate in FC cricket, any more constitutes being a bit wayward or expensive, below 3 an over is superb. It was a question...