• 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.

Batting Strike Rates and Bowling Strike Rates

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
To be more clear, there are cases when a 30 off a 100 ball is more valuable than a 60 off 100 balls but it is a much rarer case when a 100 off 300 balls is more valuable than a 175 off 300 balls..
I don't think this is quite what you meant to say.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
lol.. Au Contraire, that is exactly what I wanted to say.. What I mean is , if the batsman gets out for a lesser score, it is often better for the side that he has spent more time at the crease (a regular Ed Cowan if you will).. But the bigger the score the batsman makes, the more chance your side has of winning and therefore, the better it is that they score it faster.. (my example of a 100 off 300 Vs a 175 off 300)..
 

bagapath

International Captain
I am a fan of bowlers with low ER. O'Reilly over Warne... Wasim over Waqar.... Donald over Steyn... Always followed that logic. You will see that my choices have high SR in comparison. But I am ok as long as my fast bowler gets his wickets each 10 overs and the spinner gets his scalps every 12 overs. This would be enough to win matches, provided the bowlers are not profligate.

Similarly I always rate batters with high SR. Want one opener, no3 and my no 7 or 8 to be hard hitting batsmen while I would want my other opener, nos 4 and 5 to be long innings players. And would like no 6 to be an expert in batting with the tail. By that logic, I would prefer Ricky over Rahul all the time.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
I noticed on the Ponting-Dravid thread a lot of people are placing Ponting over Dravid on the basis of his superior strike rate even though this is a test match.

In other words they feel that in general scoring say 50 runs off 80 balls is better than scoring 50 runs off 100 balls. I personally don't agree with this, because in a game where you have 5 days I see amount of runs as the only factor, not speed of scoring.

The reason these people argue that 50 off 80 is better than 50 off 100 is because it "creates momentum" for the batting side which demoralises the bowling side.

However, these same people should then agree that if 2 bowlers have the same average, the one with the better economy rate and therefore worse strike rate is better for the team, since they prevent the batting team from creating momentum.

A bowler who bowls 10 overs 1 for 30 is better than a bowler who bowls 5 overs 1 for 30, because the bowler with the lower economy rate is causing momentum to be lost for the batting team more than the one with the higher economy rate.

So if you favour Ponting over Dravid on strike rate, you should favour Wasim over Waqar on economy rate, as this lower economy rate prevents the batting side from "demoralising" and "taking the game away".
Whilst what you say is undoubtedly true, I have to point out that Rahul McDravid did in fact play for Scotland a few years ago. This means that he is terminally infected with gingeritis, and therefore is destined never to win a popularity contest.

Not even amongst Scotsmen.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
To be more clear, there are cases when a 30 off a 100 ball is more valuable than a 60 off 100 balls but it is a much rarer case when a 100 off 300 balls is more valuable than a 175 off 300 balls..
So you're saying that scoring more runs is better than scoring less runs? Intriguing.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
. In games where a good total is 200 and finishing the game within 5 days isn't an issue a bloke coming it and blasting a run-a-ball 50, while entertaining, does not help the team in any great way. .
Except that he's just made 1/4 of a team's good total, on what is presumably a **** batting deck that's going to get worse.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
Give me one example.
There could be quite a few actually. When you want to do away with the shine of a new ball or get some overs out of the way when you are stalling for time or you need to tire out some of the opposition bowlers etc etc
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Something seems wrong. I can understand 30 (100) being better than 60 (60) but 60 (100) is always better than 30 (100).
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Something seems wrong. I can understand 30 (100) being better than 60 (60) but 60 (100) is always better than 30 (100).
Well.. actually that was my argument.. Used a stupid example, I guess.. better examples would be:


1. 30 off 100 is better than 30 off 50.
2. 100 off 170 is better than 100 off 300..
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
However, these same people should then agree that if 2 bowlers have the same average, the one with the better economy rate and therefore worse strike rate is better for the team, since they prevent the batting team from creating momentum.

A bowler who bowls 10 overs 1 for 30 is better than a bowler who bowls 5 overs 1 for 30, because the bowler with the lower economy rate is causing momentum to be lost for the batting team more than the one with the higher economy rate.
.
I am very interested in this concept. When Finn bowled against Aussie a couple of years ago he kept getting flukey wickets and getting belted around. While the other bowlers got fewer wickets and kept it tight. Because it looked like Finn was a fluke artist no one rated him.
He is your example of a 5 overs 1 for 30 bowler or at least he used to be.

Chris Cairns by memory has a similar average to Chatfield. But Cairns has a better SR but worse econ rate. Cairns is regarded as the better test match bowler because he advanced the game.

I think if you pick clear examples like 1/30 off 5 vs off 10 then the answer looks obvious. But with more subtle variations SR is often more important for bowlers than econ rate provided you can keep your econ rate under 4 runs for tests. This is my view anyway.

My other example is the Nadkami (sp?) fellow. Only has a decent bowling average because he was one of the most miserly bowlers of all time. Some people rate him because they pick him in their draft teams - other people aren't interested in taking him at all.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
I am very interested in this concept. When Finn bowled against Aussie a couple of years ago he kept getting flukey wickets and getting belted around. While the other bowlers got fewer wickets and kept it tight. Because it looked like Finn was a fluke artist no one rated him.
He is your example of a 5 overs 1 for 30 bowler or at least he used to be.

Chris Cairns by memory has a similar average to Chatfield. But Cairns has a better SR but worse econ rate. Cairns is regarded as the better test match bowler because he advanced the game.

I think if you pick clear examples like 1/30 off 5 vs off 10 then the answer looks obvious. But with more subtle variations SR is often more important for bowlers than econ rate provided you can keep your econ rate under 4 runs for tests. This is my view anyway.

My other example is the Nadkami (sp?) fellow. Only has a decent bowling average because he was one of the most miserly bowlers of all time. Some people rate him because they pick him in their draft teams - other people aren't interested in taking him at all.
And ER of 4 is extremely high for tests. Should be closer to 3 for a decent bowler
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I am very interested in this concept. When Finn bowled against Aussie a couple of years ago he kept getting flukey wickets and getting belted around. While the other bowlers got fewer wickets and kept it tight. Because it looked like Finn was a fluke artist no one rated him.
He is your example of a 5 overs 1 for 30 bowler or at least he used to be.

Chris Cairns by memory has a similar average to Chatfield. But Cairns has a better SR but worse econ rate. Cairns is regarded as the better test match bowler because he advanced the game.

I think if you pick clear examples like 1/30 off 5 vs off 10 then the answer looks obvious. But with more subtle variations SR is often more important for bowlers than econ rate provided you can keep your econ rate under 4 runs for tests. This is my view anyway.

My other example is the Nadkami (sp?) fellow. Only has a decent bowling average because he was one of the most miserly bowlers of all time. Some people rate him because they pick him in their draft teams - other people aren't interested in taking him at all.
I think people would rate Finn higher if they thought his wicket-taking could be sustained. There's a perception that he's just got a bit lucky and will soon end up averaging a lot more.

Very generally it's better for your best bowler to have a better strike rate and your worst bowler to have a better economy rate.
 

Top