Par oneday Batting strike rates and Bowling economy rates?? ....

[Richard]

If it were that easy how come you're not currently playing for England (!)

Jesus, you do come-up with some things, don't you?
Did I ever say that this was ALL YOU NEEDED TO DO?

 

[Richard]

And you can say that by ignoring the fact that it happens so often in the game?

Yes, by looking at the fact that it very often doesn't, something which most people seem to miss.

 

[Richard]

If you honestly think that then you are an idiot.

Say hyperthetically if a team is 145/5 in a ODI after say 33 overs or so. Then the fielding side takes a wicket and the score changes to 145/6. The batting sides attitude and mentality then changes as they have to revise their tactics and set a lower target score than they had in mind originally due to the lack of wickets in hand and therefore they will be looking for less runs off each over all due to the fact that a wicket has fallen . The run rate will drop accordingly as the batsman are more cautious to keep wickets in hand. They will probably be looking at about 3-4 runs an over for the next 7 overs.

If they hadn't lost their sixth wicket then they would probably be setting a target of 4-5 runs an over for the next 7 overs.

The run rate drops when a wicket is taken because not only does the new batsman have to get his eye in, the targets the team sets will change according to the situation

Alll depends on the bowling - if it's crap no adjustment takes place.
If it's good the wicket would quite conceivably fall anyway.
That often confuses the issue - it's far, FAR more common for economy to lead to wickets than the other way around.

 

[Swervy]

Alll depends on the bowling - if it's crap no adjustment takes place.
If it's good the wicket would quite conceivably fall anyway.
That often confuses the issue - it's far, FAR more common for economy to lead to wickets than the other way around.

do you have proof that this is the case...

 

[SJS]

Par oneday Batting strike rates and Bowling economy rates?? ....

0.02 runs per over less than the opposition if you are bowling second and 0.02 more if you are batting second

 

[Richard]

do you have proof that this is the case...

Of course proof is immaterial - but you just need to look at how often a spell of good tight bowling leads to an expansive shot becoming neccessary - and often it's not possible to play without big risk, and often that risk results in a wicket falling.
Obviously the later in the innings, the shorter any spell needs to be - after 40 overs it can only take 3 or 4 dot-balls to cause the need for a big shot.

 

[Swervy]

Of course proof is immaterial - but you just need to look at how often a spell of good tight bowling leads to an expansive shot becoming neccessary - and often it's not possible to play without big risk, and often that risk results in a wicket falling.
Obviously the later in the innings, the shorter any spell needs to be - after 40 overs it can only take 3 or 4 dot-balls to cause the need for a big shot.

I might be wrong here..but I am sure about a year ago we all had a debate about how the build up of pressure on a batsman due dot balls brought about wickets etc (I seem to remember someone..it might have been me ..quoting some factoid about more dot balls equating to wins)...and I am sure you were one who took a stance opposite to the one you have just posted....correct me by all means if I am wrong..my memory aint what it was

 

[Richard]

Hmm - your memory certainly ain't what it was. You do remember something vaguely resembling a truth, but... me, someone who has repeated until he is blue in the face that economy-rate, bowling for as few runs as possible, is the really important thing in the limited-over game... and you think that I'd deny that the more dot-balls you bowl the better chance of winning?
There were two things - for starters, the whole thing got confused with several people insisting that a slow scoring-rate also had to create pressure in the limitless-over game (ie - where scoring-rates don't matter).
The thing you seem to remember most is you said something about maidens and correlations with victory - I have always insisted that maidens are really totally irrelevant - you've got a set number of overs (usually 10) - all that matters is that you concede as few runs as possible off those overs. 10-0-22-0 is a better set of figures than 10-4-23-0. What matters is your overall figures - not your figures for a certain over.
In the limited-over game, every dot-ball is a victory for the bowler and his side. Obviously the more of these, the more the batsman has to think about trying to break out. It's not, as people often say, silly to try an attacking, improvised shot, it's the logical and sensible thing to do. Sometimes people play silly non-percentage shots, yes, but an improvisation is the logical thing to do if the bowler's tying you down. The chances, though, are that if the bowler's good enough he'll get you out before too long if you have to keep trying it. This is what I'd call the effect of scoreboard-pressure. And it's the whole point of the one-day game - a slowing of the scoring causing a wicket happens far more often than a wicket slowing the scoring. Of course, the two can be intertwined.