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

[Redbacks]

Interesting to see how the figure change if you chop it to games against either India, RSA or Aus

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

 

[Richard]

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.

Don't neccessarily have to be spinners - just bowlers who're used at the right time.

Expecting someone to do so while bowling almost exclusively in the powerplays and at the death (or now, both at once) is just unreasonable.

Of course it is - and bad captaincy (how often do we see bowlers like Flintoff, Bracken and Bond bowling pretty much exclusively in Powerplays and at the death?) has also played its part in the lack of bowlers with outstanding ERs of late. Ian Bradshaw was probably the best example of that - with good handling he'd easily have finished his career with a rate of barely over 4-an-over.

Polly and McGrath were superhuman. You might as well say that a good batsman averages over 90 because Bradman did it.

Not really - Pollock and McGrath were merely excellent, Bradman was indeed superhuman, in that there has never been another remotely like him. There've been several like Pollock and McGrath and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect there to be at least 1-2 around at almost any point.

 

[Richard]

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.

It's not just about opening batsmen, and even if it was, there is no way one blanket stereotype can be applied to anything. Different needs are required for different hours.

 

[Furball]

Of course it is - and bad captaincy (how often do we see bowlers like Flintoff, Bracken and Bond bowling pretty much exclusively in Powerplays and at the death?) has also played its part in the lack of bowlers with outstanding ERs of late. Ian Bradshaw was probably the best example of that - with good handling he'd easily have finished his career with a rate of barely over 4-an-over.

Flintoff bowls at the death because he is (or at least was) the best death bowler around.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, Richard's got a weird theory about bowling your best bowlers in the middle of an innings.

 

[Richard]

Flintoff bowls at the death because he is (or at least was) the best death bowler around.

That's fair enough - bowling all of his other overs in the Powerplays is just stupid. He should bowl ~6-7 overs in "normal" circumstances for mine, then ~3 overs at the death.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, Richard's got a weird theory about bowling your best bowlers in the middle of an innings.

I have? News to me. I've always said the bowlers best suited to bowling in the middle should bowl there. The "middle of the innings" (basically can take that as being whichever overs 11-40 aren't Powerplay ones) is the one time when bowlers have the chance to be genuinely, properly economical. It seems stupid to me to toss that away and instead bowl crap bowlers who go for ~4.5-an-over, then bowl your best bowlers at the death and in the Powerplays (both mobile and first-10-overs) when, in all likelihood, they'll get smashed the same way your crap bowlers will.

Personally I'd make the most of the best time to be bowling. That doesn't mean don't bowl a good death bowler at the death (Flintoff can actually contain to ~5-5.5-an-over at the death and has many times, which is very good) and instead bowl a crap death bowler there (for instance Mascarenhas who'd likely go for ~8-9-an-over), but it does mean bowl the bowlers in the non-Powerplay mid-innings who can return some real, proper economy by bowling there.

Too many captains try to keep what they feel is a "cushion" of having their best bowlers to bowl in the Powerplays and at the death, and they end-up failing to utilise their prime assets.

 

[Furball]

I have? News to me. I've always said the bowlers best suited to bowling in the middle should bowl there. The "middle of the innings" (basically can take that as being whichever overs 11-40 aren't Powerplay ones) is the one time when bowlers have the chance to be genuinely, properly economical. It seems stupid to me to toss that away and instead bowl crap bowlers who go for ~4.5-an-over, then bowl your best bowlers at the death and in the Powerplays (both mobile and first-10-overs) when, in all likelihood, they'll get smashed the same way your crap bowlers will.

Personally I'd make the most of the best time to be bowling. That doesn't mean don't bowl a good death bowler at the death (Flintoff can actually contain to ~5-5.5-an-over at the death and has many times, which is very good) and instead bowl a crap death bowler there (for instance Mascarenhas who'd likely go for ~8-9-an-over), but it does mean bowl the bowlers in the non-Powerplay mid-innings who can return some real, proper economy by bowling there.

Too many captains try to keep what they feel is a "cushion" of having their best bowlers to bowl in the Powerplays and at the death, and they end-up failing to utilise their prime assets.

Fair enough, I wouldn't be bowling Flintoff much in the powerplay overs at all.

And I definitely agree with you about the middle overs period. One of the things that makes ODIs unwatchable (for me) is crap bowlers being brought on, the field being set back offering easy singles just about anywhere (particularly down the ground, this area really annoys me) and batsmen milking the bowling for 5 or 6 runs an over without taking any risks whatsoever.

 

[doesitmatter]

w.r.t ODI's...Good strike rate depends on how good your bowlers are..What i mean is Steve Waugh in his career had a strike rate of 70+ or he could have scored at upper 60's still Aus would have won..he never had to score crazy fast as he knew the bolwers would take care if the score to defend is decent and in the same token Sachin/Lara can never go below 85...btw i am leaving out players who score fast anyhow like the likes of Viv etc...

 

[Psycho Macaque]

I cannot agree that a S/R of sub-80 is acceptable in the modern age. The two new balls could change the complexity of ODI batting but ATM, something like 75 is poor. It's simple mathematics, really. 250 is, for the most part, considered a below par score. The equivalent of 250 to a batsman's S/R is 83.3. If you're batting in the top three, you should be nearing 90.

 

[Dan]

Craig

I cannot agree that a S/R of sub-80 is acceptable in the modern age. The two new balls could change the complexity of ODI batting but ATM, something like 75 is poor. It's simple mathematics, really. 250 is, for the most part, considered a below par score. The equivalent of 250 to a batsman's S/R is 83.3. If you're batting in the top three, you should be nearing 90.

The strike rate isn't necessarily consistent throughout the whole innings, though.

Striking at around 80 is acceptable throughout the first 40 overs - that gives you just under 200 - and then your lower order accelerates and puts on 80+ in the last 10.

Gives you a score of 272, which should be competitive more often than not.

 

[smash84]

good point

 

[Stapel]

I cannot agree that a S/R of sub-80 is acceptable in the modern age. The two new balls could change the complexity of ODI batting but ATM, something like 75 is poor. It's simple mathematics, really. 250 is, for the most part, considered a below par score. The equivalent of 250 to a batsman's S/R is 83.3. If you're batting in the top three, you should be nearing 90.

If a decent opener, with a properly increased chance to really keep his wicket intact for a while, strikes at 70, all is fine. Obviously, he should accelerate if he survives until the later part of the innings. So his rate should indeed average towards 80 then. But to state that a top three batsman should be nearing 90 is a bit of nonsense. It the top three's task to lay a platform, either for themselves or for the middle order. Such a platform can indeed be constructed by fast runs, but also by keeping wickets in hand.

Considering the last 10 years, (minimum of 1000 ODI runs), there are only 18 batsmen with a strike rate over 90. Of those 18, only 6 average over 35.

 

[Psycho Macaque]

Craig




The strike rate isn't necessarily consistent throughout the whole innings, though.

Striking at around 80 is acceptable throughout the first 40 overs - that gives you just under 200 - and then your lower order accelerates and puts on 80+ in the last 10.

Gives you a score of 272, which should be competitive more often than not.

Craig?

You're essentially relying on your lower order to be able to come in and hit from the off and always get a quick score. It doesn't always happen. Each batsman has a responsibility to be posting more than 200 in 40 overs.

200 in 40 overs is a joke and the sort of rationale that helped the likes of England look horrendous in the WC2011.

We are on about individual batsmen, aren't we?

 

[Psycho Macaque]

If a decent opener, with a properly increased chance to really keep his wicket intact for a while, strikes at 70, all is fine. Obviously, he should accelerate if he survives until the later part of the innings. So his rate should indeed average towards 80 then. But to state that a top three batsman should be nearing 90 is a bit of nonsense. It the top three's task to lay a platform, either for themselves or for the middle order. Such a platform can indeed be constructed by fast runs, but also by keeping wickets in hand.

Considering the last 10 years, (minimum of 1000 ODI runs), there are only 18 batsmen with a strike rate over 90. Of those 18, only 6 average over 35.

Oh, there's no way I can agree with that. Top three to lay a platform? Have you been plucked out of 1992. The world changed, man. People moved on. They decided to think out of the box. Pitches got truer. Powerplay overs increased. The top three's job is to make the most of Powerplay overs, not block 40/60 that the likes of IR Bell and AN Cook do. And IJL Trott. As I mentioned in my previous post, maybe it'll change with the inception of two new balls. But for the last 10 or more years it's been get after the ball, hell for leather, and don't waste the overs when the field is restricted. It's 'missionary position', the way England have always gone about things.

 

[Spark]

You have noticed that England have been winning lately right?

The idea that you must strike at 90 is just so far-fetched it isn't funny.

 

[theegyptian]

Conditions dictate everything. English conditions generally dictate caution early on. The first 15 overs in Asia are generally the best time to score runs quickly.

 

[Psycho Macaque]

You have noticed that England have been winning lately right?

The idea that you must strike at 90 is just so far-fetched it isn't funny.

Winning in conditions condusive to the early 90's style of play - i.e. block the hell out of it and hope that our pop-gun bowlers extract enough movement.

 

[Stapel]

Oh, there's no way I can agree with that. Top three to lay a platform? Have you been plucked out of 1992. The world changed, man. People moved on. They decided to think out of the box. Pitches got truer. Powerplay overs increased. The top three's job is to make the most of Powerplay overs, not block 40/60 that the likes of IR Bell and AN Cook do. And IJL Trott. As I mentioned in my previous post, maybe it'll change with the inception of two new balls. But for the last 10 or more years it's been get after the ball, hell for leather, and don't waste the overs when the field is restricted. It's 'missionary position', the way England have always gone about things.

As a matter of fact I have only been watching ODI's since 2006..... Before that time, I didn't know ODI's existed .Not sure what you are on. What I see is England closing in on the #1 ODI spot with Bell, Cook & Trott......

And as facts show, hardly any players strike over 90 while having some sort of decent average. According to your own logic, Pietersen, Tendulkar, Gayle, Gambhir, Smith, Hayden and Clarke (to name a few) do not make the cut to bat at the top......

Of course..., anyone would like to have a Gilchrist or Sehwag. But they are exceptional.

 

[Psycho Macaque]

Yeah, we're winning ATM. I personally don't like the make-up of the team at all. I'm possibly having to change my mind due to the new ball at each end may have evened things up. 90 was a bit of a sweeping statement - upward of 85. I don't think there's an excuse to waste so many Powerplay balls for a top three player and hence they should be getting on with it. I recognise our top three are more likely to struggle because there aren't many sides that will have to consistently cope with the conditions that we do - my problem is when they're faced with pristine batting conditions they don't do anything different and, quite possibly, can't do anything different.

Let's not forget that these games are friendlies. They mean nothing. Who cares if you're #1 in the world in ODIs - like football the big championships render anything but winning it meaningless. I'm sure Aus couldn't have given less of a stuff that they were still #1 after the WC.