• 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.

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

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
In the early years of international oneday cricket (1970s-late 80s) a batting strike of 65/100 balls was considered very good...(Gordon Greenidge for example was 64.92 for his career) and a economy rate for a bowler at that time was expensive if it was above 4.2 per over.

Things have certainly changed these days...

So what is considered Par these days??

IMO the following (given things even out with different pitches over time) apply these days....

BATTING STRIKE RATES

100 + Almost Freakish, (only Afridi of batsmen scoring over 1000 runs is above 100)
85-100 Extremely High (Gilchrist, Flintoff etc)
80- 85 Very good (Cairns, Gibbs etc)
70-80 Good (Fleming, Ponting etc)
65-70 Average/reasonable (Harris, Vaughan etc)
60-65 - Slowish(Sinclair, etc)
60> Poor/Can't hit the ball off the square (M.Richardson, Vincent etc)



BOWLING STRIKE RATES

4<- Absolute top bracket (Mcgrath, Murali, Larson etc)
4-4.25 Extremely Good (Warne, Bond, Gillespie etc)
4.25- 4.40 Very good (Vettori, Oram etc)
4.40-4.60 Good ( Mills, Tuffey etc)
4.60-4.80 Reasonable Average (Cairns, Lee etc)
4.80-5.00 Below Average ( Styris, Nel)
5-6 Poor/ Expensive ( Butler, Tendulkar)
6< Awful....(Drum etc)


Any thoughts on these guidelines??
 

Sir Redman

State Vice-Captain
Sounds reasonable to me, but I think bowlers economy rates are quite a lot higher than they used to be e.g. for an opening bowler I think an RPO of 4.8 is better than acceptable - theoretically means the batting team is on 72 after 15 overs which isnt bad. However since opening bowlers are generally death bowlers as well only going for 48 off 10 is quite good
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
For a bowler you need to consider strike rate.

Nothing slows the run rate as much as taking wickets.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
marc71178 said:
For a bowler you need to consider strike rate.

Nothing slows the run rate as much as taking wickets.
Absolutely. Bowling Strike rates play a huge Part...Thats why Lee for example is considered such a great oneday bowler, because even though his economy is 4.72, his strikerate and average is excellent.

Same obviously applies to batsmen. Ie. Its better to average 45 @ a strikerate of 69 like Kallis than averaging 28 @ strikerate of 79 as Styris has.

However this the purpose of this thread was just to deal with Batting Strikerates and Bowling economy rates.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sir Redman said:
Sounds reasonable to me, but I think bowlers economy rates are quite a lot higher than they used to be e.g. for an opening bowler I think an RPO of 4.8 is better than acceptable - theoretically means the batting team is on 72 after 15 overs which isnt bad. However since opening bowlers are generally death bowlers as well only going for 48 off 10 is quite good
Yes on a great batting track 1-50 off 10 over can represent a good bowling performance. But different pitches even these things out over time, and if you look at great opening bowlers like Pollock and Mcgrath, you'll see their career economy's are still around 3.8.
 

Bookie

U19 12th Man
I really dont think 65 is an accpetable strike rate with the way batters bat. I think a recognised batsman should be 75 at the least in an ODI.

As for bowlers, economy of under 4 is Xtreme (Shaun Pollock and Glenn McGrath receieve extra honours as they bowl at the start and the death), but for any pace bowler, it shoudl be under 5, and I can't reccomed one for the spinners, but seeing as they bowl in the middle overs they should be <4.5
 

Ming

State 12th Man
zinzan12 said:
60> Poor/Can't hit the ball off the square (M.Richardson, Vincent etc)
Vincent may have struggled on the international stage, but he is a free flowing batsman on the domestic circuit.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
Bookie said:
I really dont think 65 is an accpetable strike rate with the way batters bat. I think a recognised batsman should be 75 at the least in an ODI.

As for bowlers, economy of under 4 is Xtreme (Shaun Pollock and Glenn McGrath receieve extra honours as they bowl at the start and the death), but for any pace bowler, it shoudl be under 5, and I can't reccomed one for the spinners, but seeing as they bowl in the middle overs they should be <4.5
Allot of spinners also bowl at the death so an RPO of 4.5 is acceptable for both spinners and pace bowlers.
 

ReallyCrazy

Banned
I think an excellent strike rate for batting in ODIs has become 80+ (Tendulkar, Sehwag, Gilchrist, etc). A batting SR of 75-80 is good (Ponting, Ganguly, Lara). 70-75 is OK if you play as a #4 or #5 (Dravid, Kallis, Inzamam). Anything below 70 is poor.

For bowlers, I'd say that an econ rate of 4.6 or below will be good. But it depends what kind of bowler you are...if it's a strike bowler, they might be expensive...but they will more than make up for it by getting wickets. It's really cool how Murali, Pollock and McGrath have maintained econ rates below 4 even in this "batting era".
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
ReallyCrazy said:
I think an excellent strike rate for batting in ODIs has become 80+ (Tendulkar, Sehwag, Gilchrist, etc). A batting SR of 75-80 is good (Ponting, Ganguly, Lara). 70-75 is OK if you play as a #4 or #5 (Dravid, Kallis, Inzamam). Anything below 70 is poor.

For bowlers, I'd say that an econ rate of 4.6 or below will be good. But it depends what kind of bowler you are...if it's a strike bowler, they might be expensive...but they will more than make up for it by getting wickets. It's really cool how Murali, Pollock and McGrath have maintained econ rates below 4 even in this "batting era".
Gavin Larsen's record is quite incredible considering he too played in a high scoring era (91-2000) but unlike Mcgrath, Pollock or Murali, he wasn't a strike bowler. He didn't get wickets regularly like the others keep to keep the economy down. He did it simply with an uncanny ability to put each ball on a dime.

His ODI record shows you don't have to be a strike bowler to maintain incredible economy.....
O M R W Ave BBI 4w 5w SR Econ
Bowling 1061.2 90 4000 113 35.39 4-24 1 0 56.3 3.76
 

bryce

International Regular
answering the original qestion i would say a par batting s/r is 70 and par bowling rpo is 4.8
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
bryce said:
answering the original qestion i would say a par batting s/r is 70 and par bowling rpo is 4.8
Yep, I rated those figures around the average/goodish region
 

dudeurfriend

School Boy/Girl Captain
Yep
In batting
high 90's- Brilliant
Above 80's-Excellent
75-80-Good

In bowling
rate bet 3.5-4.00 -Great
4.00-4.5 - Excellent
4.5-4.9-Good
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
For a bowler you need to consider strike rate.

Nothing slows the run rate as much as taking wickets.
No, taking wickets has no effect whatsoever on the scoring-rate.
Only bowling accurately does that.
Taking wickets simply has an effect on the total.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
chaminda_00 said:
Allot of spinners also bowl at the death
Bowling spinners at the death or in the first 15 is a very, very unwise idea in the main, with the odd exception.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
zinzan12 said:
In the early years of international oneday cricket (1970s-late 80s) a batting strike of 65/100 balls was considered very good...(Gordon Greenidge for example was 64.92 for his career) and a economy rate for a bowler at that time was expensive if it was above 4.2 per over.

Things have certainly changed these days...

So what is considered Par these days??

IMO the following (given things even out with different pitches over time) apply these days....

BATTING STRIKE RATES

100 + Almost Freakish, (only Afridi of batsmen scoring over 1000 runs is above 100)
85-100 Extremely High (Gilchrist, Flintoff etc)
80- 85 Very good (Cairns, Gibbs etc)
70-80 Good (Fleming, Ponting etc)
65-70 Average/reasonable (Harris, Vaughan etc)
60-65 - Slowish(Sinclair, etc)
60> Poor/Can't hit the ball off the square (M.Richardson, Vincent etc)



BOWLING STRIKE RATES

4<- Absolute top bracket (Mcgrath, Murali, Larson etc)
4-4.25 Extremely Good (Warne, Bond, Gillespie etc)
4.25- 4.40 Very good (Vettori, Oram etc)
4.40-4.60 Good ( Mills, Tuffey etc)
4.60-4.80 Reasonable Average (Cairns, Lee etc)
4.80-5.00 Below Average ( Styris, Nel)
5-6 Poor/ Expensive ( Butler, Tendulkar)
6< Awful....(Drum etc)


Any thoughts on these guidelines??
For batting you can't really be under 70 - once you get down there you have to have a really, really good average (40 or all-but). If you're over 80 you're doing extremely well and over 90 you're doing exceptionally. But unless you're averaging 30 or nearly you're no use to anyone.
For bowling, if you're under 4 you're doing exceptionally. If you're between 4 and 4.2 you're doing very well indeed. If you're between 4.2 and 4.4 (providing you're not bowling at the death - ie regularly 2 or 3 overs in the last 10) you're doing just about OK. If you're bowling regularly at the death and you're under 4.3 that's very good.
For any bowler, once you go over 4.5 you're nowhere near good enough at the ODI level, and if you're not bowling at the death over 4.4 is very poor too.
And if you start going over 4.7 you really are a joke, unless your strike-rate is quite exceptional.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Richard said:
No, taking wickets has no effect whatsoever on the scoring-rate.
Only bowling accurately does that.
Taking wickets simply has an effect on the total.
Sorry, mate, but that's rididulous.

If a team has lost a few quick wickets, then if a batsman recieves a juicy long hop, he might think twice about attacking it.

My point is that the batting aggression changes.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Richard said:
No, taking wickets has no effect whatsoever on the scoring-rate.
Only bowling accurately does that.
Taking wickets simply has an effect on the total.
You do make some silly comments sometimes dont' you
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Tom Halsey said:
Sorry, mate, but that's rididulous.

If a team has lost a few quick wickets, then if a batsman recieves a juicy long hop, he might think twice about attacking it.

My point is that the batting aggression changes.
Maybe that used to be the case, but it sure ain't any more.
The only way to restrict the scoring is by bowling accurately.
Sure, a new batsman might think twice about driving on-the-up, but if you bowl a heap of crap, old batsman, new batsman, doesn't matter any more - they'll all go for it.
Taking wickets affects the potential score, of course - if your opposition are scoring at 5-an-over but they're all out by the 40th over you've obviously got a lower total on hand than if they've got 6 wickets still standing and have scored exactly the same number of runs.
 

Top