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

[Richard]

You do make some silly comments sometimes dont' you

No.
If you think about it - and I've tried to expand in the post ^^^^ - it makes perfect sense.

 

[squiz]

Allot of spinners also bowl at the death so an RPO of 4.5 is acceptable for both spinners and pace bowlers.

Rarely will you see a spinner bowling in the last 5-10 overs, it's more than likely a paceman trying to bowl yorkers every ball

 

[kof98]

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.

If the new batsman had to adjust to the conditions, would the run rate not decrease?

 

[Richard]

The only way it'll decrease is if the new batsman has a less aggressive intent than the one dismissed.
And that rarely happens these days.

 

[Zinzan]

The only way it'll decrease is if the new batsman has a less aggressive intent than the one dismissed.
And that rarely happens these days.

Have you ever watched a cricket game??

 

[bryce]

Have you ever watched a cricket game??

no, he reads the match reports

 

[cbuts]

they also have to be adjusted for conditions. nz batters are always gonna be slower than the aussies, south africans, indians etc but our bowlers would be up there with the best in terms of rpo. just our conditions

 

[Richard]

Have you ever watched a cricket game??

no, he reads the match reports

I do both, actually.
It tends to be the best way.

 

[Swervy]

Probably irrelevent but...

I always thought Allan Border was a great ODI batsmen (and still do)....just goes to show figures dont show the true story

273 ODI's, 3 100's, 39 50's,ave 30.62 SR 71.40

 

[Tom Halsey]

A new batsman might think twice about driving on-the-up.

Well then, there you have it.

 

[Zinzan]

Probably irrelevent but...

I always thought Allan Border was a great ODI batsmen (and still do)....just goes to show figures dont show the true story

273 ODI's, 3 100's, 39 50's,ave 30.62 SR 71.40

He was a very good ODI player.....His seemingly modest record is simply a reflection of the era he played in. If you'd read my intial post on this thread, you'll notice a started by showing how much batting strikerates and bowling ecomomies have changed over the years. I used Greenidge as an example

 

[Swervy]

He was a very good ODI player.....His seemingly modest record is simply a reflection of the era he played in. If you'd read my intial post on this thread, you'll notice a started by showing how much batting strikerates and bowling ecomomies have changed over the years. I used Greenidge as an example

hey I wasnt contradicting anything you were saying at all....well i didnt mean to..or whatever..yeah...(shut it Swerves)

It doesnt seem that long ago since a 4rpo target was deemed pretty good,and chasing 250 in 50overs was nigh on impossible..well when I say not long ago...25 years isnt that long ago in the whole scheme of things is it

 

[Zinzan]

hey I wasnt contradicting anything you were saying at all....well i didnt mean to..or whatever..yeah...(shut it Swerves)

It doesnt seem that long ago since a 4rpo target was deemed pretty good,and chasing 250 in 50overs was nigh on impossible..well when I say not long ago...25 years isnt that long ago in the whole scheme of things is it

Hey, I wasn't suggesting you were contradicting anything. And, yes I remember the days when even 220 was a real struggle for the team batting 2nd

 

[Richard]

Probably irrelevent but...

I always thought Allan Border was a great ODI batsmen (and still do)....just goes to show figures dont show the true story

273 ODI's, 3 100's, 39 50's,ave 30.62 SR 71.40

Border was a bit better than those figures suggest...
He had a horrible start to his career, averaging just 18.47 after his first 18 matches (amazing to think it took him 2 years to play those 18 matches, too...) - and during the middle (1981\82-1983\4) and towards the end (1987\88-1993\94) he was batting at six, which was a little puzzling given that, after his poor start, he averaged nearly 34 in the top five (and just 24 at six).
But no, Allan Border was never an especially brilliant one-day player (domestic one-day average ain't flash, either). Once again, though, it's a case of you need to look a bit deeper than the surface crust - and he certainly wouldn't have played 273 ODIs if he was totally useless.
I would ask, personally, whether he'd have played on quite so long if he hadn't been Test-captain and there hadn't been this obsession in Australia about having the same captain in both game-forms (no coincidence that they've done much best in ODIs since they've split the captaincy - when Stephen Waugh, another slightly overrated one-day player due to his magnificent Test exploits, captained the team that won WC99 he'd only had 1 series as Test-captain; Ponting still had a year to go before taking over the Test-captaincy when he did the same in WC2003; and one of Australia's worst spells in ODIs was when Stephen Waugh was captain of both sides. I'm hopeful that Ponting will have similar experiences now they've been stupid enough to drop both Bevan and Lehmann), because he certainly wasn't anywhere near as good as some of his time.

 

[Richard]

Well then, there you have it.

It's a might - and in my experience, it still happens far more than it doesn't.

 

[Swervy]

Border was a bit better than those figures suggest...
He had a horrible start to his career, averaging just 18.47 after his first 18 matches (amazing to think it took him 2 years to play those 18 matches, too...) - and during the middle (1981\82-1983\4) and towards the end (1987\88-1993\94) he was batting at six, which was a little puzzling given that, after his poor start, he averaged nearly 34 in the top five (and just 24 at six).
But no, Allan Border was never an especially brilliant one-day player (domestic one-day average ain't flash, either). Once again, though, it's a case of you need to look a bit deeper than the surface crust - and he certainly wouldn't have played 273 ODIs if he was totally useless.
I would ask, personally, whether he'd have played on quite so long if he hadn't been Test-captain and there hadn't been this obsession in Australia about having the same captain in both game-forms (no coincidence that they've done much best in ODIs since they've split the captaincy - when Stephen Waugh, another slightly overrated one-day player due to his magnificent Test exploits, captained the team that won WC99 he'd only had 1 series as Test-captain; Ponting still had a year to go before taking over the Test-captaincy when he did the same in WC2003; and one of Australia's worst spells in ODIs was when Stephen Waugh was captain of both sides. I'm hopeful that Ponting will have similar experiences now they've been stupid enough to drop both Bevan and Lehmann), because he certainly wasn't anywhere near as good as some of his time.

erm..dont know exactly what your point is..

Border WAS a great ODI batsman,in my time of watching him (1980 onwards) I saw him play several great intelligent innings,that invariably won the game for Australia.It might have been only a 30 or 40 or so,but still vital

 

[marc71178]

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

Personally I don't think you can isolate them.

 

[marc71178]

No, taking wickets has no effect whatsoever on the scoring-rate.

Taking wickets simply has an effect on the total.

So what's that if it's not the scoring rate?

No matter how many times your theory about wickets not affecting the scoring rate being proven wrong (as in pretty much every ODI) - you stick to it.

 

[marc71178]

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.

1 run in 10 over difference for bowling at the death?

And 4.5 rules out just about every bowler, seeing as most scores are well over 250 now.

 

[marc71178]

No.
If you think about it - and I've tried to expand in the post ^^^^ - it makes perfect sense.

If the game were played in some parallel universe.