Tom Halsey
International Coach
Similar to the thread recently about acceptable ER's in FC cricket, I would like to know what you think about acceptable SR's in FC cricket
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Acceptable SR in FC cricket
- Thread starter Tom Halsey
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Anything under 50 is exceptional - anything over 70 is beginning to be questionnable as to the bowlers' ability - when coupled with an economy over 3 that equates to an average of over 33.33, poor by any standards.
As to favourable and unfavourable conditions, judge a bowler as to his success in favourable conditions; if he fails in certain conditions, simply say "he's not up to standard in these conditions". Eg. Caddick on a flat, grassless pitch; any fingerspinner on a pitch not offering quite a bit of turn.
Good bowlers will be a threat in any conditions, a la Donald, the W's, Vaas, Warne, Muralitharan, Mushtaq Ahmed in his earlier days, Gough, Ambrose, Walsh; going back a bit Marshall, Holding, Hadlee, Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Abdul Qadir. You get the picture.
Anyway, the gist is 60 is probably up-to-standard, like under 3-an-over is up-to-standard.
As to favourable and unfavourable conditions, judge a bowler as to his success in favourable conditions; if he fails in certain conditions, simply say "he's not up to standard in these conditions". Eg. Caddick on a flat, grassless pitch; any fingerspinner on a pitch not offering quite a bit of turn.
Good bowlers will be a threat in any conditions, a la Donald, the W's, Vaas, Warne, Muralitharan, Mushtaq Ahmed in his earlier days, Gough, Ambrose, Walsh; going back a bit Marshall, Holding, Hadlee, Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Abdul Qadir. You get the picture.
Anyway, the gist is 60 is probably up-to-standard, like under 3-an-over is up-to-standard.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
What, like Brett Lee?
Vaas is incredibly inconsistent, I haven't denied that. However, it's always been my belief that his best is about as good as you can be (like Akram, Donald and co.), and also that his troughs could be rather less low and rather less frequent. If this were the case, he'd average about, say, 24.
As far as I'm concerned Vaas is better than McGrath and Gillespie, and Pollock. Expressing incredulity at that won't add any weight to your argument because:
1, it hardly needs it, most people agree with you anyway.
2, it doesn't help. You know how I rate bowlers, you don't agree. There really is no point in going over it again and again. I don't place as much emphasis on wickets against name as techniques and wickets taken with wicket-taking balls.
Last edited:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
You're a loony:PRichard said:
Tom Halsey
International Coach
That's true. And Vaas does mainly bowl in unfavourable conditions. But he is not as good as McGrath, Pollock, etc.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
And yet players should be picked purely on domestic stats??? Will the real Slim Shady please stand up!Richard said:
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
But that still doesn't stack up.Richard said:
You agree he's inconsistent, then insist that he's as good as a list of class players who do it all the time consistently.
If he's inconsistent, he's not a threat in ANY condition since we never know how he's going to bowl.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Not at all.Richard said:
If you'd responded by saying that THE DUCK was, I would have agreed.
(walks away mumbling to self)
Craig
World Traveller
Warne's strike rate is about 62 and Merv Dillion's is around that. I'm a bit surprised that it is that high for Warne. Please note I havent looked at any stats at this.
Vettori's is closer to 70, but he has to bowl in unfavourable conditions.
With Vaas I will say he is the best left-armer in the world. He is certainly better then rubbish like Nehra and I'm not too convinced on Zaheer Khan.
With mainstream bowlers Flintoff has to have the worst strike-rate of them all.
Vettori's is closer to 70, but he has to bowl in unfavourable conditions.
With Vaas I will say he is the best left-armer in the world. He is certainly better then rubbish like Nehra and I'm not too convinced on Zaheer Khan.
With mainstream bowlers Flintoff has to have the worst strike-rate of them all.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Most spinner have high SR's. That's because they bowl alot of tight overs while taking wickets. Murali is 59.Craig said:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
If you can watch every wicket you're a pretty good analyst!Mr Mxyzptlk said:
If you can't watch something, you have no choice but to rely on stats. It's better than relying on, for instance, one spell in one innings that you happened to see, or how they bowled at you in the nets.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
No, what you mean is he can be a threat in any conditions and he can be no threat in some conditions (remember there are some conditions it's very hard not to be a threat in).marc71178 said:
I insist he's as good as a list of players because he does what I consider makes someone good more often than the players who have wickets against their name most of the time, ie take wickets with good balls.
Pollock and McGrath, for instance, almost never take wickets with good balls in certain conditions. Not to say they're not capable of doing so, but the fact is, when I've had the opportunity to watch or read about it, they haven't (and I've been keeping track for the last 3 years).