Topic: Average vs Strike Rate (Read 5220 times)

AJ2014 · « **on:** February 19, 2019, 11:49:30 PM »

For me,
Batting : Average
Bowling : Strike Rate
Would like know how you guys think about.

Chad · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2019, 01:07:46 AM »

Average and Economy Rate for myself. Personally feel more accomplished getting an ER below 2 an over than going at more than 6 an over but getting a couple of wickets. (Normally am one of the more experienced bowlers in the side, so will have to set the tone with tight bowling)

Batting wise, I tend to be in with just over half the innings left to go, so strike rate isn't always important - but don't want to get too bogged down. The way I see it is if you guys don't get bowled out, you should really aim to have a SR above 70, unless you're batting on a tough wicket and opening/have lost early wickets, in which case you're batting to make sure your team gets the full innings worth of deliveries to score from

LateBloomer · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2019, 01:15:16 AM »

Too many variables for it to be a clear cut choice between batting average and strike rate. Especially at amateur level

Calzehbhoy · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2019, 07:52:20 AM »

For me it�s trying to score as many runs as I can before the inevitable brain fart and trying not to bowl too many crap balls.

If those two things go well the average and strike rate will take care of themselves.

dt-second-hand-cricket · « **Reply #4 on:** February 20, 2019, 08:42:51 AM »

batting wise - i look at runs per game rather than average, i noticed as i got older and kept more - batting at 7/8 whereas when i was younger i was an opener that my average went up even though i was probably scoring about 35% of the runs i did when i was younger - so i look at how many i've scored per number of innings - doesn't matter if i'm not out or not

bowling wise - on the odd occasion i am forced to bowl - trying to go for less than 20 an over!!!!

Buzz · « **Reply #5 on:** February 20, 2019, 10:01:22 AM »

I play forty over games, what matters is scoring hundreds (well 75+ scores really). If someone scores a ton, their team usually wins.

It takes about 30+ overs to score an average hundred, so having a few people who can bat consistently for more than 20 overs is the most important thing.

Not strike rate but reflected in a decent 30+ average...

WalkingWicket37 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 20, 2019, 10:19:01 AM »

Batting - average

What's better for the team - someone with an average of 40+ at a strike rate of say 70, or someone with an average of 5 but a strike rate of 250...

Bowling - harder to call

I look at economy more than anything. If bowling first did I go below the innings run rate? If yes I bowled well, if no I didn't do a good job.
If defending a score I want to keep my economy below the required run rate to try and win the game.

Again, what's better:
8 overs 0-15 and successfully defending a low score or 8 overs 3-50 in a losing effort?

AJ2014 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 20, 2019, 10:51:05 AM »

Think taking wickets makes feel good about contributing to the team, otherwise bowling tight is the way to go, most of the times they will come to spinners, therefore bowling correct line and length is essential.
Last season I was the most economical bowler, we promoted, so even not getting many wickets i still fell good

LateBloomer · « **Reply #8 on:** February 20, 2019, 11:43:18 AM »

Quote from: WalkingWicket37 on February 20, 2019, 10:19:01 AM

Batting - average

What's better for the team - someone with an average of 40+ at a strike rate of say 70, or someone with an average of 5 but a strike rate of 250...

Bowling - harder to call

You've gone to an extreme there, not sure there is anyone on the planet with SR 250 and average of 5

A fairer dilemma would be say

1. SR of 150, average of 25 vrs
2. SR of 100, average of 35 vrs
3. SR of 50, average of 45

Ive played with batsmen in each category. I was SR 85ish average 34 ish last season

What I will say is that the bottom stats might be handy in lower club or village cricket where the pitches might be suspect or a tail might start at 6. When you start to play a higher level of limited overs cricket on better pitches a SR of 50 is most definitely not acceptable when batting first.

I bat 3 or 4 and Id much rather have the 1. stats listed above batting before me than number 3.

With bowling I think if you keep the runs down chances will come. Obviously an attacking strike bowler is great to have in your arsenal but give me 3 or 4 line and length merchants any day. Set the field properly and take your catches

WalkingWicket37 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 20, 2019, 02:42:17 PM »

@LateBloomer yes my example was extreme, but deliberately so.

My question was essentially "would you rather have someone assured score a few, or someone come in who may bludgeon a few quickly but fails more often than not"

Having played at a reasonable level, batsmen with a strike rate of 50 simply don't get a game in the win/lose format. They can however be very valuable in timed/draw matches.

As far as bowling goes, a strike bowler is a luxury, someone who can keep it tight is a necessity.

SD · « **Reply #10 on:** February 20, 2019, 03:06:51 PM »

I don't think that much has changed in that the best way of keeping the run rate down is to take wickets. I would much rather have a low strike rate over a low economy rate whatever the format

WalkingWicket37 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 20, 2019, 03:19:15 PM »

Quote from: SD on February 20, 2019, 03:06:51 PM

I don't think that much has changed in that the best way of keeping the run rate down is to take wickets. I would much rather have a low strike rate over a low economy rate whatever the format

And the best way to take wickets is build pressure by restricting runs and force the batsman into a mistake

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 20, 2019, 03:37:14 PM »

Quote from: dt-second-hand-cricket on February 20, 2019, 08:42:51 AM

so i look at how many i've scored per number of innings - doesn't matter if i'm not out or not

Probably the best way to actually look at it. Gives your true value to the side with no �If only� scenarios

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 20, 2019, 03:37:49 PM »

Quote from: WalkingWicket37 on February 20, 2019, 03:19:15 PM

And the best way to take wickets is build pressure by restricting runs and force the batsman into a mistake

Only if the format suits simply bowling dry. Bowling dry won�t help you win a draw game

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 20, 2019, 03:42:11 PM »

Quote from: WalkingWicket37 on February 20, 2019, 02:42:17 PM

@LateBloomer

Having played at a reasonable level, batsmen with a strike rate of 50 simply don't get a game in the win/lose format. They can however be very valuable in timed/draw matches.

An example of why the game is losing players too. There is no place for a group of players so they are lost from Jnr to snr level as they have no place

Author Topic: Average vs Strike Rate (Read 5220 times)

AJ2014

Average vs Strike Rate

Chad

Re: Average vs Strike Rate

LateBloomer

Re: Average vs Strike Rate

Calzehbhoy

Re: Average vs Strike Rate

dt-second-hand-cricket

Re: Average vs Strike Rate

Buzz

Re: Average vs Strike Rate

WalkingWicket37

Re: Average vs Strike Rate

AJ2014

Re: Average vs Strike Rate

LateBloomer

Re: Average vs Strike Rate

WalkingWicket37

Re: Average vs Strike Rate

SD

Re: Average vs Strike Rate

WalkingWicket37

Re: Average vs Strike Rate

ProCricketer1982

Re: Average vs Strike Rate

ProCricketer1982

Re: Average vs Strike Rate

ProCricketer1982

Re: Average vs Strike Rate