wfdu_ben91
International 12th Man
His more of a pioneer then an alltime great. They've been many ODI opening batsman that have been better.
-
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.
What is an acceptable, or even good, strike rate for batsmen in ODIs?
- Thread starter Craig
- Start date
wfdu_ben91
International 12th Man
Smith and Gayle are already better ODI batsman then Knight, Ganguly and Jayasuriya. You could make an arguement that Trescothick is a better ODI Opening Batsman then Knight. Hayden, Gilchrist should be added to that list... Gambhir & Watson have the potential to be great aswell.
Craig
World Traveller
I remember a comment during the 2003 WC (IIRC) and the commentator said "the average doesn't matter so much, but the strike rate is the most important" and I went
Craig
World Traveller
What are we talking? ODIs? Wickets taken, economy rate etc.?
Sir Alex
Banned
That is purely a subjective thing. His performances of late have been indeed brilliant and overshadows the aforementioned two.
Streetwise
Banned
Hauritz is a better ODI batsman than Pietersen and Bell according to the superaverage.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, the other thing to consider is where they're batting. It's far more important for a number 7 or 8 to have a good strike rate than a good average, whereas a number four wants a good average.I remember a comment during the 2003 WC (IIRC) and the commentator said "the average doesn't matter so much, but the strike rate is the most important" and I went
Streetwise
Banned
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Indeed, it was a hypothetical example rather than a genuine query.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
ODIs, and bowlers with decent-to-good economy-rates.
And no, 4.76-an-over is not a decent economy-rate, it's a poor one.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Better than Knight and Jayasuriya perhaps, but certainly not close to Ganguly. Both have loads of their careers ahead of them and may worsen again in time.
You could, but it'd not be the case. Knight >> Tresscothick in ODIs.
Gilchrist is a little below any of those above names and Hayden was fit to rank with them for just a year, which puts him as a whole substantially below.
Rather unlikely but we'll see.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
I disagree. If every bowler in a side had an economy of 4.76, they would win most matches.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Not if every bowler in the opposition side had one of 4.3-an-over. This is every bit as much of a self-fulfilling prophecy as you always say my comparison of Twenty20-to-ODI economy-rates is.
If one accepts (as I do, given that all the evidence points that way) that ODI economy-rate increases of recent years have been down to a reduction in quality of bowling rather than a change in the attitude of batting (the alterations between the 1970s\80s and 1990s were down to such a thing), then you have to define things by the standards of the Pollocks, McGraths etc. <4-an-over is outstanding and the preserve of the best ODI bowlers; ~4-4.3 is a good economy-rate; ~4.3-4.5 is acceptable under some circumstances and not-that-good under others; anything too much over 4.5-an-over and a bowler has to have serious questions asked of whether they're ODI-standard. If a bowler concedes too much more than this over a lengthy period, he's unlikely to hold down a ODI place for all that long.
If one accepts (as I do, given that all the evidence points that way) that ODI economy-rate increases of recent years have been down to a reduction in quality of bowling rather than a change in the attitude of batting (the alterations between the 1970s\80s and 1990s were down to such a thing), then you have to define things by the standards of the Pollocks, McGraths etc. <4-an-over is outstanding and the preserve of the best ODI bowlers; ~4-4.3 is a good economy-rate; ~4.3-4.5 is acceptable under some circumstances and not-that-good under others; anything too much over 4.5-an-over and a bowler has to have serious questions asked of whether they're ODI-standard. If a bowler concedes too much more than this over a lengthy period, he's unlikely to hold down a ODI place for all that long.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
What evidence do you have to suggest this? Have you detailed pitchmaps showing that balls routinely pitched in a certain area used to be dot-balls and are now much more often scored off? Or are you just looking at what seems on face-value to be the case?
As I say - there is to my mind substantial evidence that the increases in scoring-rate of recent years is linked to bowling (less accuracy), not batting (more attempt to score). Those bowlers whose careers crossed the sea-change (Pollock, McGrath, Murali, Vettori to name a few) experienced no change in their economy-rates at all. Yet when bowlers with good economy-rates disappeared, their replacements had much poorer ones - and not just a bit, a lot. The only logical conclusion to me when looking at this is that the quality of bowling has declined. And not merely that - also the quality of selection, the ability of people to read the ODI game, has declined - these days people put far too much emphasis on trying to take wickets and far less on economy-rate. Some of the bowlers who have the potential to keep the rate in check are not even selected at the present time with the presently prevailing attitude.
As I say - there is to my mind substantial evidence that the increases in scoring-rate of recent years is linked to bowling (less accuracy), not batting (more attempt to score). Those bowlers whose careers crossed the sea-change (Pollock, McGrath, Murali, Vettori to name a few) experienced no change in their economy-rates at all. Yet when bowlers with good economy-rates disappeared, their replacements had much poorer ones - and not just a bit, a lot. The only logical conclusion to me when looking at this is that the quality of bowling has declined. And not merely that - also the quality of selection, the ability of people to read the ODI game, has declined - these days people put far too much emphasis on trying to take wickets and far less on economy-rate. Some of the bowlers who have the potential to keep the rate in check are not even selected at the present time with the presently prevailing attitude.
wfdu_ben91
International 12th Man
Half of Ganguly's ODI centuries were against minnows. Really, his no better then Herschelle Gibbs. Infact Gibbs is probably better.