Batting Strike Rates and Bowling Strike Rates

[Cricketismylife]

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".

 

[Uppercut]

I think scoring slowly is generally slightly better unless there's a specific reason why quick runs are needed. Bowlers get tired, so the longer you make them bowl at you the easier it'll be for the lower order to face them. Of course you might run out of time to win the game, but your opponent might also run out of time to win the game, so it balances out. And you might run out of partners, but if you get your runs and get out early one of the other batsmen might run out partners, so that balances out too. Some bowlers don't like being attacked, but I get the impression that most usually do.

The fact is that most people like watching aggressive batsmen. When people like watching things they come up with rationalisations for why it's the right thing to do. Cricket would be duller if every Ponting batted like Dravid and it's fine to prefer aggressive batsmen on aesthetic grounds. There's really no need to pretend it's somehow better strategically when it clearly isn't.

 

[hendrix]

I think scoring slowly is generally slightly better unless there's a specific reason why quick runs are needed. Bowlers get tired, so the longer you make them bowl at you the easier it'll be for the lower order to face them.

But they're not bowling at you longer...you're just scoring runs slower.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yep, the Aussie team of the 00's dominated and their best bats struck at 60 or better. Total coincidence.

Clue for the clueless; value of a contribution to a team is not linear. 50 off 100 balls may be just what the team needs or maybe 30 off 100 is a better reflection of the state of the game and that 30 was extremely valuable. 50 off 100 may not hurt another team as much as 100 off 200 or 200 off 400 or maybe laboring to said 200 at 3rpo ensures a draw when a quicker 120 would have been enough. Scoring slowly or scoring fast, without the context of the game, you really can't be as emphatic as you see from some on this forum.

Ponting isn't rated so much higher than Dravid because of his sr, it's because of when he scored his runs because it contributed so heavily to wins for his team. It's amazing, almost freakish, how many times he tonned up in the first dig of the series and how he went about his work set the tone for himself and others around him. This idea that he's only rated highly because he scored faster than Dravid needs to die.

 

[Uppercut]

Yep, the Aussie team of the 00's dominated and their best bats struck at 60 or better. Total coincidence.

But of course a team with McWarne scored more quickly. They were in far more dominant positions, were far more likely to be pushing for a result than batting out time, had an attack that could bail them out if things went pear-shaped with a lot of time left in the game, and didn't have to face the best bowlers.

It's not a coincidence: when you're the best team you bat aggressively more often than everyone else. You're just putting the horse before the cart.

EDIT: Ftr I don't disagree with any of your edit.

 

[Uppercut]

But they're not bowling at you longer...you're just scoring runs slower.

But I thought we were assuming both batsmen scored the same number of runs? Otherwise all you're saying is that scoring more runs is better than scoring less runs.

 

[Top_Cat]

But of course a team with McWarne scored more quickly. They were in far more dominant positions, were far more likely to be pushing for a result than batting out time, had an attack that could bail them out if things went pear-shaped with a lot of time left in the game, and didn't have to face the best bowlers.

It's not a coincidence: when you're the best team you bat aggressively more often than everyone else. You're just putting the horse before the cart.

EDIT: Ftr I don't disagree with any of your edit.

Not really at you anyway.

tbh, all the press from the players themselves suggests Warne/McGrath were able to bowl the way they did because of the padding of attacking bats rather than the other way around. That accords with what I remember too, the Aussie strength was built on batting first and laying on a big total fast. They were nowhere near as good responding to big totals against them. A team's fortunes do sway a lot on who's doing the job as well as when; McGrath, Hayden, Marto, etc. were the engine room, Warne and Ponting were the heartbeat. Either of those two failed and it was a much bigger a setback than if Hayden got a duck.

 

[Burgey]

I tend not to look too closely at batting strike rates in test matches generally, however, I think in the Dravid-Ponting instance people use it as a means to separate players who are otherwise very close statistically.

 

[Uppercut]

Not really at you anyway.

tbh, all the press from the players themselves suggests Warne/McGrath were able to bowl the way they did because of the padding of attacking bats rather than the other way around.

It works both ways obviously, but big totals to bowl at are the result of good bats, not attacking ones. Whereas having a good attack makes batsmen both better and more aggressive.

There's an element of adjusting to conditions as well. The fast, bouncy pitches and minimal swing of 00s Australia was very favourable to aggressive strokeplay. It was the right way for your batsmen to play for all sorts of reasons.

 

[Top_Cat]

Absolutely. The point is and always will be that context matters. For example, it wasn't just the number of runs but how fast they got there. Games which in the 90's were draws were innings wins in the 00's because declaring 550 with an hour to go on day 2 put you in a great position if you took a wicket or two before close. Was said many times that the best way to be in with a chance against the Aussie side of the 00's was to take the game into a 5th day any way you could. Let Ponting et al get all over you and you were playing catch-up from that point onward which, as was demonstrated many times, most teams failed hard at.

Now, of course, things are very different.....

/vagueCWbook

 

[Jono]

Ponting isn't rated so much higher than Dravid because of his sr, it's because of when he scored his runs because it contributed so heavily to wins for his team. It's amazing, almost freakish, how many times he tonned up in the first dig of the series and how he went about his work set the tone for himself and others around him. This idea that he's only rated highly because he scored faster than Dravid needs to die.

That's the reason a lot of people are giving to be fair. It may not be you, but strike rate is being used to differentiate the two.

 

[Top_Cat]

Talking about how highly he's rated outside of Nerdville, CW tbh.

 

[Jono]

You and SilentStriker never have the right to call anyone else a nerd. Ever.

Go put some acid in a test tube and talk about the physics of the light shining from the prism into your a-hole.

 

[uvelocity]

You and SilentStriker never have the right to call anyone else a nerd. Ever.

Go put some acid in a test tube and talk about the physics of the light shining from the prism into your a-hole.

 

[honestbharani]

And these arguments can be made from both sides.. I mean UC says your team is less likely to lose if you bat longer.. Sure, but also, your side is less likely to win, because an average to reasonable side's bowlers will need more time to bowl out opposition..


But when rating individual batsmen, SRs are used because, almost as a rule, it is easier to defend a good ball than to score runs off it. Obviously there are exceptions, but the assumption when comparing batsmen as close to each other as Dravid and Ponting are, is that the batsman with a higher SR was generally able to get a bit more out of a good ball than the batsman with the lower SR and therefore, a better player by that bit of difference. It may not be true all the time but it is generally the reasoning behind it, IMHO..

 

[Valer]

And these arguments can be made from both sides.. I mean UC says your team is less likely to lose if you bat longer.. Sure, but also, your side is less likely to win, because an average to reasonable side's bowlers will need more time to bowl out opposition..

This is why I prefer a high strike rate if in doubt. Say we got a test chapionship to happen and we scored it as follows

W 3
L 0
D 1


It follows imediately that the quick team (high batting sr / low bowling one) would do better. I'd rather win than not lose.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

A batsman with a low S/R can be just as much a "match winner" as anyone. 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. The more time someone is in at one end, the more time there is available to the team as a whole to score runs. Obviously in batting friendly conditions a high S/R is of greater importance. It's all about game situation and the value of time at the crease in the context.

 

[centurymaker]

Another factor is the quality of your bowling attack. If you know your attack can't really pick 20 wickets, you want Dravid.

 

[Uppercut]

A batsman with a low S/R can be just as much a "match winner" as anyone. 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. The more time someone is in at one end, the more time there is available to the team as a whole to score runs. Obviously in batting friendly conditions a high S/R is of greater importance. It's all about game situation and the value of time at the crease in the context.

Depends how keen you are for a result. Scoring quickly gives the other team more time to win the game too.

I have a lot of time for the idea that a win is worth more than twice as much as a draw, but it doesn't quite add up in the context of a series.

 

[honestbharani]

Depends how keen you are for a result. Scoring quickly gives the other team more time to win the game too.

I have a lot of time for the idea that a win is worth more than twice as much as a draw, but it doesn't quite add up in the context of a series.

It is not about that, UC.. If, as a team, you are sure you have next to no chance of winning and you still do not try, people still ridicule you for it.. Case in point: Lara's 400.. It was very obvious that THAT windies bowling attack was never gonna get 20 wickets on that track against England and yet, people felt they didn't give themselves the best shot by batting on too long.. Same iwth Sachin's 241 at Sydney.. When you got enough runs on the board that the loss becomes almost impossible, you HAVE to try and get more overs in at the opposition.. Cannot always keep thinking that you are giving the opposition a chance when you are trying to win.. That is why the more you score, people also expect you to improve the SR..


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..