Does strikerate matter in judging a test bowler?

[subshakerz]

I was wondering about this question after looking at Dale Steyn's amazing strikerate compared to his peers and those before him. But then, how useful an indicator is this in measuring a bowler vs. a conventional measure like average? Is the tendency to pick up a wicket quickly more valuable than the cost of your wicket? What do you think?

 

[Prince EWS]

Assuming average as workload as constants - the better a bowler's strike rate, the more influence he will have over the fortunes of an attack overall. So you want your better bowlers in terms of average to have high economy rates and low strike rates, and your support bowlers to be the opposite.

This is why it's a factor when judging the greats; they were all better than the mean standard of the rest of their attack (freak West Indies lineup possibly withstanding). Third and fourth bowlers in attack, assuming their averages won't change, are better off being economy-based with higher strike rates though as it minimises their effect and allows the better bowlers to count for more.

 

[Burgey]

It's useful, yeah.

 

[Jono]

Yes

 

[ankitj]

Certainly think average is more important because that's what would affect the score the opposition will get to. SRs are good to look at and go "oh wow" at

 

[smash84]

Certainly think average is more important because that's what would affect the score the opposition will get to. SRs are good to look at and go "oh wow" at

i think this is it

 

[Teja.]

Yes, Assuming averages are around constant (Say an ATG standard), Someone with a superior SR(Say about 10 lower) should be picked.

 

[smash84]

lol

 

[GIMH]

Certainly think average is more important because that's what would affect the score the opposition will get to. SRs are good to look at and go "oh wow" at

A low SR affects the oppo's score as well, though. If you have a bowler with a low strike rate then you're more likely to skittle sides.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Yes and no, if they go at a run a ball but have a low strike rate then they slightly defeat the object.

 

[Ruckus]

It's important, but more to do with the kind of intangible qualities in a game. I think it's pretty similar to asking if a batsman's SR is important. Often a batsman with a relatively high SR can help demoralise bowlers and change the momentum of the game more than someone with a lesser SR. Similarly, a bowler with a low SR can also often induce a collapse because of the pressure posed by wickets falling in relatively few balls (i.e. quickly in time).

Overall though, something like SR is going to be far less important in test cricket, where there is minimal time constraints, than the bowling average.

 

[DingDong]

there needs to be a single stat that takes in s/r, e/r avg and opposition to give a meaningful number u can compare to others. s/r by itself is useless

 

[ankitj]

My counter argument to that would that 100/5 is a dire situation irrespective of whether in happens in 20 overs or 40 overs. While batting however 200/2 in 30 overs means the bowlers are demoralized, fielding is less attacking compared to a situation when you have the same score in 70 overs. That's my feeling on that.

 

[Ruckus]

My counter argument to that would that 100/5 is a dire situation irrespective of whether in happens in 20 overs or 40 overs. While batting however 200/2 in 30 overs means the bowlers are demoralized, fielding is less attacking compared to a situation when you have the same score in 70 overs. That's my feeling on that.

Yeh that's true, but I guess I was saying a situation of being 100/5 is more likely to occur if you have a bowling attack with a low SR bowler than one with high SR bowler. Even if the bowling average is the same, wickets falling for the same amount of runs but in quicker time will create a sense of pressure much more than if they fall more slowly. It's sounds like a kind of paradox if you are comparing two bowlers with the same average, but I think the difference would lie in how it improves the performance of the other bowlers in the team (or, put another way, weakens the performance of the opposition batsmen). Obviously there are other factors that can come into play though. Comparing these things is never simple!

 

[Spark]

Very handy. Test cricket is about partnerships and breaking them.

 

[ankitj]

Very handy. Test cricket is about partnerships and breaking them.

You can simply say, preserving wickets and taking wickets. Why obfuscate

"Need partnerships" is one of those phrases that is kinda empty. All you are saying is don't get out.

 

[zaremba]

Assuming a particular bowling average, the better the SR, the worse the ER. Both are important, and you could argue in favour of either as being more important. SR means you'll keep the game moving, and help your fellow bowlers by exposing fresh batsmen more quickly; ER means you can keep control of the opposition and help your fellow bowlers by increasing pressure.

Those who favour a good SR might regard a maiden over where you don't take a wicket as a bad thing. Those who favour a good ER might say the opposite.

I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on.

But what is obviously far and away more important than either is bowling average.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Assuming a particular bowling average, the better the SR, the worse the ER. Both are important, and you could argue in favour of either as being more important. SR means you'll keep the game moving, and help your fellow bowlers by exposing fresh batsmen more quickly; ER means you can keep control of the opposition and help your fellow bowlers by increasing pressure.

Those who favour a good SR might regard a maiden over where you don't take a wicket as a bad thing. Those who favour a good ER might say the opposite.

I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on.

But what is obviously far and away more important than either is bowling average.

For me personally, at the same average a bowler with a lower SR is better and more pleasing to watch than one with a lower ER.

 

[NasserFan207]

Low strike rate bowlers like Steyn tend to bowl very attacking, full lines, which is why they tend to have higher economy rates. In modern test cricket, I would say low strike rates are far more important just because there are so few of them around.

Ideally you want a balance of low strike rates/high economy rates and high strike rates low economy rates but there's a disproportionate number of 'defensive' bowlers around compared to attacking ones, so the attacking ones are more valuable.

I would say the reason for that in the modern game is the advent of more attacking batting in test cricket.

 

[smash84]

you mean like Pakistan's attacking batting these days