What is an acceptable, or even good, strike rate for batsmen in ODIs?

[Richard]

What evidence do you have for what you are saying Richard?

Didn't I just say?

Neither can be proven.

Of course they can't - I was merely asserting that the idea I suggest has more going for it in my book than any other idea does.

 

[Richard]

Half of Ganguly's ODI centuries were against minnows.

Not even close, and even if they were centuries are frankly fairly irrelevant because there is so much more to a good innings than whether it was a century or not.

Really, his no better then Herschelle Gibbs. Infact Gibbs is probably better.

Ganguly is miles better than Gibbs who truly was a flat-track and substandard-side bully.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Not even close, and even if they were centuries are frankly fairly irrelevant because there is so much more to a good innings than whether it was a century or not.

Ganguly is miles better than Gibbs who truly was a flat-track and substandard-side bully.

Centuries are the pinnacle of batsmanship as far as top-order batsman are concerned. Ask any International batsman, the difference between a good and a great batsman is one who converts starts into 100s. Not to say that an innings can't be good, if it's not a 100.

Ganguly played the majority of his career on flat subcontient tracks whilst Gibbs played in seam-friendly South African conditions, so I don't know where you got the flat-track and substandard-side bully comment from, unless you mixed their names up.

 

[Richard]

Centuries are the pinnacle of batsmanship as far as top-order batsman are concerned. Ask any International batsman, the difference between a good and a great batsman is one who converts starts into 100s. Not to say that an innings can't be good, if it's not a 100.

That might in some cases apply to Test cricket (even there it's a stereotype and to blanketly apply it is illogical and will lead to misreading of a player's capability) but it certainly doesn't to ODIs. In ODIs 70 off 60 balls or even 75 is an infinitely better knock than 100 off 120. Centuries are something that a batsman should often expect to have to sacrifice the chance to make in order to avoid wasting deliveries, and thus they're not of tremendous relevance in ODIs.

Ganguly played the majority of his career on flat subcontient tracks whilst Gibbs played in seam-friendly South African conditions, so I don't know where you got the flat-track and substandard-side bully comment from, unless you mixed their names up.

I know where "inability to actually look at conditions and capability only to go with completely misguided stereotypes" comes from, so I'll leave that at that.

 

[Craig]

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.

What is the cut off then, 4.50 an over? Otherwise that leaves only Vettori, Muralitharan, Swann, Hopes, Botha, Ajmal, and Afridi. Mendis is on the list as well.

This is what I found (I filtered out Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Ireland etc.):

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

It's a bit flawed because that rules out the likes of Harbhajan Singh, Bond, Johnson, or Steyn, because their economy rate is closer to 5 an over, but are match winners with the ball?

 

[marc71178]

It's another of these joke theories which have no basis in real cricket because the game has evolved (and isn't played by robots)

 

[Furball]

Richard's admitted in another thread that he hasn't watched many ODIs lately, so perhaps if he did he might realise that his theory is just a little bit daft.

 

[Craig]

Like anything though, there is a context to it all. If you are bowling on nothing but roads and the batting team is racking up 320+ scores, does it make the bowler look bad if he is the only one going for less then 6 an over, or even 5 an over? These days, with the last 10 overs, and when most teams will take the batting power play, going for less then 6 an over is actually good, right?

 

[Furball]

Like anything though, there is a context to it all. If you are bowling on nothing but roads and the batting team is racking up 320+ scores, does it make the bowler look bad if he is the only one going for less then 6 an over, or even 5 an over? These days, with the last 10 overs, and when most teams will take the batting power play, going for less then 6 an over is actually good, right?

Nah, good bowlers should still be aiming for less than 5 an over, however I think Richard's theories on acceptable economy rates are too stringent and don't reflect the evolution of the ODI game over the past 5 or so years.

But yeah, you're right, context is important. It's why I've always rated Bracken's performance in that Johannesburg game as one of the best I've seen.

edit: if we're saying 80 is the bare minimum acceptable strike rate for batsmen, which IMO isn't unreasonable to expect in this day and age, then conversely, any bowler conceding less than 4.8 an over is doing a damn good job.

 

[Craig]

Nah, good bowlers should still be aiming for less than 5 an over, however I think Richard's theories on acceptable economy rates are too stringent and don't reflect the evolution of the ODI game over the past 5 or so years.

But yeah, you're right, context is important. It's why I've always rated Bracken's performance in that Johannesburg game as one of the best I've seen.

edit: if we're saying 80 is the bare minimum acceptable strike rate for batsmen, which IMO isn't unreasonable to expect in this day and age, then conversely, any bowler conceding less than 4.8 an over is doing a damn good job.

Yeah I agree. I have always believed that anything less 4.50 (that is the very best) is very good, but really, to take in account strike bowlers and guys who can and do win games for your team. Bond's economy rate is 4.63 an over (from the link that I posted), and yet if he is fit, he would make almost every team's ODI XI. The game has changed a lot, 6 or 7 years ago, a score of 320-330 would of been safe, almost assured of victory, now even 350 isn't safe. In the last few ODIs, the Australians have cashed in big time during the batting PP.

 

[Richard]

Richard's admitted in another thread that he hasn't watched many ODIs lately, so perhaps if he did he might realise that his theory is just a little bit daft.

I didn't say I hadn't watched any in the last 7 years, merely the last ~8-9 months.

 

[Richard]

Nah, good bowlers should still be aiming for less than 5 an over, however I think Richard's theories on acceptable economy rates are too stringent and don't reflect the evolution of the ODI game over the past 5 or so years.

Advances such that bowlers who returned a certain economy-rate 10 years ago were still returning the same economy-rate 2 years ago?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

That might in some cases apply to Test cricket (even there it's a stereotype and to blanketly apply it is illogical and will lead to misreading of a player's capability) but it certainly doesn't to ODIs. In ODIs 70 off 60 balls or even 75 is an infinitely better knock than 100 off 120. Centuries are something that a batsman should often expect to have to sacrifice the chance to make in order to avoid wasting deliveries, and thus they're not of tremendous relevance in ODIs.

No, centuries are just as important in ODI's as they are in Tests, especially in big run-chases. It's not a matter of wasting delieveries, but giving the team's innings stability so that everyone can bat around him with more fluency and freedom - which sets up a big score.

Take Tim Paine's 111 vs England. It was off 148 balls faced, but he anchored the innings beautifully and batted until the 40th over, allowing others around him to play with freedom and by the time Paine is out, 200 is on the board with 10 overs left and plenty of wickets in hand. Australia end up getting 300 and winning the match easily.

Compare that to Watson's 69 vs Pakistan at the SCG, an innings as beautifully pleasing as you'll ever see and striking at well over 100 until the very latter part of his innings. However, he gets out in the 20th over, trying to slog Afridi over midwicket - only to get caught on the boundary. Australia are 1-100. What happens if Australia lose acouple of quick wickets? Being 3-120 or something and having to completely rebuild?

In context which innings is better?

 

[Shri]

Welcome back.

 

[Richard]

No, centuries are just as important in ODI's as they are in Tests, especially in big run-chases. It's not a matter of wasting delieveries, but giving the team's innings stability so that everyone can bat around him with more fluency and freedom - which sets up a big score.

Take Tim Paine's 111 vs England. It was off 148 balls faced, but he anchored the innings beautifully and batted until the 40th over, allowing others around him to play with freedom and by the time Paine is out, 200 is on the board with 10 overs left and plenty of wickets in hand. Australia end up getting 300 and winning the match easily.

Compare that to Watson's 69 vs Pakistan at the SCG, an innings as beautifully pleasing as you'll ever see and striking at well over 100 until the very latter part of his innings. However, he gets out in the 20th over, trying to slog Afridi over midwicket - only to get caught on the boundary. Australia are 1-100. What happens if Australia lose acouple of quick wickets? Being 3-120 or something and having to completely rebuild?

In context which innings is better?

That is one case study - I could name you several hundred in the other direction, as well as several hundred similar ones.

There is absolutely no way that a ODI century can as-a-rule be said to be better than a 70\80. Context is everything in Tests; in ODIs it varies so much there is no rule to have exceptions to.

 

[Burgey]

No, centuries are just as important in ODI's as they are in Tests, especially in big run-chases. It's not a matter of wasting delieveries, but giving the team's innings stability so that everyone can bat around him with more fluency and freedom - which sets up a big score.

Take Tim Paine's 111 vs England. It was off 148 balls faced, but he anchored the innings beautifully and batted until the 40th over, allowing others around him to play with freedom and by the time Paine is out, 200 is on the board with 10 overs left and plenty of wickets in hand. Australia end up getting 300 and winning the match easily.

Compare that to Watson's 69 vs Pakistan at the SCG, an innings as beautifully pleasing as you'll ever see and striking at well over 100 until the very latter part of his innings. However, he gets out in the 20th over, trying to slog Afridi over midwicket - only to get caught on the boundary. Australia are 1-100. What happens if Australia lose acouple of quick wickets? Being 3-120 or something and having to completely rebuild?

In context which innings is better?

Watson got out slogging at the scg because Marsh was batting as fluently as my 88 year old grandmother would, and Watto had to have a dip to compensate for his partner'sbeing a 'tard.

 

[Furball]

Advances such that bowlers who returned a certain economy-rate 10 years ago were still returning the same economy-rate 2 years ago?

Name the bowlers in question. I'm not looking through statsguru for the one bowler who might prove your theory.

 

[Richard]

I thought I already did earlier - Pollock, Vaas, McGrath, Muralitharan, Vettori. All going for ~4-an-over or less in ~1999 (and earlier still in the case of all bar Vettori) and still doing it as late as 2006/07, when most of those who'd replaced the likes of Donald, Ambrose, Wasim Akram etc. were being pasted for >5-an-over.

 

[Uppercut]

I think spinners could match that kind of economy. Players like Harbhajan, Vettori, Ajmal and Warne still have excellent economy rates for any era, it's the wicket-taking where they're really behind Murali. Expecting someone to do so while bowling almost exclusively in the powerplays and at the death (or now, both at once) is just unreasonable. Polly and McGrath were superhuman. You might as well say that a good batsman averages over 90 because Bradman did it.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

That is one case study - I could name you several hundred in the other direction, as well as several hundred similar ones.

There is absolutely no way that a ODI century can as-a-rule be said to be better than a 70\80. Context is everything in Tests; in ODIs it varies so much there is no rule to have exceptions to.

It's an example, because we're talking about Opening Batsman. You said that an innings of 100 off 120 may not be as good as an innings of 70 off 60, which is ridiculous. The team's got a better chance of posting a score of 300+ if one of their openers bats til the 40th over, as opposed to getting out for 70 off 60 in the 20th over because you can't rely on every other batsman scoring runs - that's just not cricket.