Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
No.zinzan12 said:You do make some silly comments sometimes dont' you
If you think about it - and I've tried to expand in the post ^^^^ - it makes perfect sense.
No.zinzan12 said:You do make some silly comments sometimes dont' you
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 ballchaminda_00 said:Allot of spinners also bowl at the death so an RPO of 4.5 is acceptable for both spinners and pace bowlers.
If the new batsman had to adjust to the conditions, would the run rate not decrease?Richard said: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.
Richard said: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.
no, he reads the match reportszinzan12 said:Have you ever watched a cricket game??
zinzan12 said:Have you ever watched a cricket game??
I do both, actually.bryce said:no, he reads the match reports
Well then, there you have it.Richard said:A new batsman might think twice about driving on-the-up.
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 exampleSwervy said: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
hey I wasnt contradicting anything you were saying at all....well i didnt mean to..or whatever..yeah...(shut it Swerves)zinzan12 said: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 wasn't suggesting you were contradicting anything. And, yes I remember the days when even 220 was a real struggle for the team batting 2ndSwervy said: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
Border was a bit better than those figures suggest...Swervy said: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
It's a might - and in my experience, it still happens far more than it doesn't.Tom Halsey said:Well then, there you have it.
erm..dont know exactly what your point is..Richard said: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.
Personally I don't think you can isolate them.zinzan12 said:However this the purpose of this thread was just to deal with Batting Strikerates and Bowling economy rates.
So what's that if it's not the scoring rate?Richard said:No, taking wickets has no effect whatsoever on the scoring-rate.
Taking wickets simply has an effect on the total.
1 run in 10 over difference for bowling at the death?Richard said: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.
Richard said:No.
If you think about it - and I've tried to expand in the post ^^^^ - it makes perfect sense.