Batting and bowling strikerates: how much do they matter?

[subshakerz]

Strikerates are often overlooked as a statistical measure of assessment compared to averages. Is this fair?

For batsmen, a higher strikerate would seem to indicate a more aggressive player, but with all other factors equal, does it matter if one has a SR of 55 versus one of 45? Is there an ideal SR for a top level ATG? Does it become a liability at any point?

For bowlers, having an exceptionally low SR almost always comes with a higher ER, like the case for Waqar, Steyn and Rabada. But if the MO of the ATG bowler is to take a wicket over the course of a spell by setting up a batsman, does a higher SR matter at that point?

 

[shortpitched713]

Strikerates are often overlooked as a statistical measure of assessment compared to averages. Is this fair?

For batsmen, a higher strikerate would seem to indicate a more aggressive player, but with all other factors equal, does it matter if one has a SR of 55 versus one of 45? Is there an ideal SR for a top level ATG? Does it become a liability at any point?

For bowlers, having an exceptionally low SR almost always comes with a higher ER, like the case for Waqar, Steyn and Rabada. But if the MO of the ATG bowler is to take a wicket over the course of a spell by setting up a batsman, does a higher SR matter at that point?

That's just the math. If two bowlers have the same average, then the one with the lower strikerate will have the higher ER, and vice-versa the one with the lower ER will have the higher strike rate.

Here's what that math ends up meaning for members of a bowling attack though, because whether having a low SR or low ER is better depends on your role:

Case 1) All of the members of the bowling attack have the same / similar averages:
It doesn't matter if you as an individual member of that attack have a low strike rate or a low economy. Your team mates area all equally capable of getting wickets cheaply as you are, so you should play in the way that comes best to you. West Indies pace quartet at it's peak could be an example of this, but it doesn't need to be a great attack, just any "balanced" attack in terms of averages, this will apply.

Case 2) Some of the members of the attack have significantly better averages than others:
If you are the lowest average bowler by far, then you should be the strike bowler. Generally don't waste balls, and try to keep the stumps in play ( McGrath is known for using the "corridor" outside off, but he kept the ball suffocatingly close to them even when not aiming at them, always makes the batsman wary of the one the jags back, and draws false strokes ).
If you are the 4th bowler usually in the attack, and have the highest average, then your job should be the "stock" bowler, keeping it tight. Make sure not to miss your length, and bowl to a more defensive field. Even if you aren't picking up wickets regularly, frustrating the batsman should be your job.
The example of this sort was Pakistan, when Waqar Younis serving as the perfect spearhead. He was best served using the style that he did, attacking the stumps and picking up wickets as quickly as possible, because after Wasim there was a BIG jump in the averages of his third seamer / spinner.

TL;DR : For team spearheads a lower strike rate is better than lower economy, but this effect is lessened if your teammates are closer in quality to you.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The answer to both these is: Depends on the overall team balance.

Generally speaking in Test cricket I think an ideal (career) batting strike-rate is around 65, but it's useful to have 1 or 2 Sehwags or McCullums that bat quicker. Obviously ideally this needs to change in certain match situations, but we're talking about overall strike-rates.

Bowling-wise depends entirely on the overall makeup of the attack, and generally you want a mixture of both

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The answer to both these is: Depends on the overall team balance.

Generally speaking in Test cricket I think an ideal (career) batting strike-rate is around 65, but it's useful to have 1 or 2 Sehwags or McCullums that bat quicker. Obviously ideally this needs to change in certain match situations, but we're talking about overall strike-rates.

Bowling-wise depends entirely on the overall makeup of the attack, and generally you want a mixture of both

65 is high. McCullum's was 64.6.

Normally top 3 will be lower (although Sehwag and Warner are exceptions) and later on higher with a dasher from 5-7 like Pant or CDG.

Steve Smith's is 59, Root's 55, Kohli's 55, Williamson's 51 (day 1 in NZ makes for slow scoring).

45-48 will mean 3 an over with extras included. Low to mid 50s is good.

 

[TheJediBrah]

65 is high. McCullum's was 64.6.

Normally top 3 will be lower (although Sehwag and Warner are exceptions) and later on higher with a dasher from 5-7 like Pant or CDG.

Steve Smith's is 59, Root's 55, Kohli's 55, Williamson's 51 (day 1 in NZ makes for slow scoring).

45-48 will mean 3 an over with extras included. Low to mid 50s is good.

Yeah, but 65 at the same average would be better

 

[Burgey]

Normally top 3 will be lower (although Sehwag and Warner are exceptions)

Ponting at 58 at number three is comparatively nice and high, but Warner (north of 70) and especially Sehwag (>80 - 80 ffs!!!!!!!!!!!) are insane tbh.

I wonder what Bradman's was. Crcinfo doesn't have it listed which is understandable I guess.

 

[trundler]

Ponting at 58 at number three is comparatively nice and high, but Warner (north of 70) and especially Sehwag (>80 - 80 ffs!!!!!!!!!!!) are insane tbh.

I wonder what Bradman's was. Crcinfo doesn't have it listed which is understandable I guess.

High 60s according to Charles Davis which given the high over rate, slow scoring era is pretty much Richards-esque.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Batting strike rates should be reported as runs per over instead of runs per 100 balls.

 

[shortpitched713]

I don't think batting strike rate matters as much as bowling. With the obvious exception of some extremes of slow or fast scoring ( i.e. Shahid Afridi ). If you're maximizing your own scoring, then who gives a **** really?

The only exception I think should be lower order batsmen ( 7 and 6 ) should have the ability to accelerate their scoring. This is because if they're having a good knock, they can definitely get into situations where they could run out of batting partners, which obviously is a detriment to the team's total. So for them they should be able to get the damage in relatively quickly when in among the tail enders.

I guess theoretically then for a tailender, they should try to place a premium on their wicket instead of run scoring, to get the strike over to their better batting partner. However in practice the ability for many true tailenders to do anything meaningful with defensive batting technique is pretty limited, so it ends up becoming a bit of a moot point.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Batting strike rates should be reported as runs per over instead of runs per 100 balls.

Harsh if your mate is hogging the strike

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

It makes literally no difference.

 

[subshakerz]

65 is high. McCullum's was 64.6.

Normally top 3 will be lower (although Sehwag and Warner are exceptions) and later on higher with a dasher from 5-7 like Pant or CDG.

Steve Smith's is 59, Root's 55, Kohli's 55, Williamson's 51 (day 1 in NZ makes for slow scoring).

45-48 will mean 3 an over with extras included. Low to mid 50s is good.

That is good reasoning. Test cricket is good with a run rate of comfortably over 3 so I do tend to think a batsman with early to mid 50s is ideal.

 

[subshakerz]

That's just the math. If two bowlers have the same average, then the one with the lower strikerate will have the higher ER, and vice-versa the one with the lower ER will have the higher strike rate.

Here's what that math ends up meaning for members of a bowling attack though, because whether having a low SR or low ER is better depends on your role:

Case 1) All of the members of the bowling attack have the same / similar averages:
It doesn't matter if you as an individual member of that attack have a low strike rate or a low economy. Your team mates area all equally capable of getting wickets cheaply as you are, so you should play in the way that comes best to you. West Indies pace quartet at it's peak could be an example of this, but it doesn't need to be a great attack, just any "balanced" attack in terms of averages, this will apply.

Case 2) Some of the members of the attack have significantly better averages than others:
If you are the lowest average bowler by far, then you should be the strike bowler. Generally don't waste balls, and try to keep the stumps in play ( McGrath is known for using the "corridor" outside off, but he kept the ball suffocatingly close to them even when not aiming at them, always makes the batsman wary of the one the jags back, and draws false strokes ).
If you are the 4th bowler usually in the attack, and have the highest average, then your job should be the "stock" bowler, keeping it tight. Make sure not to miss your length, and bowl to a more defensive field. Even if you aren't picking up wickets regularly, frustrating the batsman should be your job.
The example of this sort was Pakistan, when Waqar Younis serving as the perfect spearhead. He was best served using the style that he did, attacking the stumps and picking up wickets as quickly as possible, because after Wasim there was a BIG jump in the averages of his third seamer / spinner.

TL;DR : For team spearheads a lower strike rate is better than lower economy, but this effect is lessened if your teammates are closer in quality to you.

Nice description. Makes sense as Ambrose is his late career had a great average but low SR, mostly because teams could play him out and milk the other bowlers.

In essence, having a better SR with similar average is only a real advantage based on the weaknesses of the rest of the attack.

 

[shortpitched713]

It makes literally no difference.

It does. RPO and Strike Rate measure different things, and shouldn't be considered equivalent. A bowler's RPO includes extras, and a batsman's SR only includes the runs he scores.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think batting strike rate matters as much as bowling. With the obvious exception of some extremes of slow or fast scoring ( i.e. Shahid Afridi ). If you're maximizing your own scoring, then who gives a **** really?

The only exception I think should be lower order batsmen ( 7 and 6 ) should have the ability to accelerate their scoring. This is because if they're having a good knock, they can definitely get into situations where they could run out of batting partners, which obviously is a detriment to the team's total. So for them they should be able to get the damage in relatively quickly when in among the tail enders.

I guess theoretically then for a tailender, they should try to place a premium on their wicket instead of run scoring, to get the strike over to their better batting partner. However in practice the ability for many true tailenders to do anything meaningful with defensive batting technique is pretty limited, so it ends up becoming a bit of a moot point.

I think there is a difference for openers as well. An opener can set the tone of the innings by being extra attacking and allow the others to bat at a measured pace.

For positions 3-5, I think have a somewhat good SR of 55 or so is ideal. The problem is if its too high is that it doesnt help in building big partnerships as the person on the other end cant keep up.

Late order makes sense to have a higher SR as well as you mentioned, to counterattack.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

It does. RPO and Strike Rate measure different things, and shouldn't be considered equivalent. A bowler's RPO includes extras, and a batsman's SR only includes the runs he scores.

I'm not saying to measure batting strike rates as the amount of overs a player is in for.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think batting strike rate matters as much as bowling. With the obvious exception of some extremes of slow or fast scoring ( i.e. Shahid Afridi ). If you're maximizing your own scoring, then who gives a **** really?

The only exception I think should be lower order batsmen ( 7 and 6 ) should have the ability to accelerate their scoring. This is because if they're having a good knock, they can definitely get into situations where they could run out of batting partners, which obviously is a detriment to the team's total. So for them they should be able to get the damage in relatively quickly when in among the tail enders.

I guess theoretically then for a tailender, they should try to place a premium on their wicket instead of run scoring, to get the strike over to their better batting partner. However in practice the ability for many true tailenders to do anything meaningful with defensive batting technique is pretty limited, so it ends up becoming a bit of a moot point.

I tend to think the opposite though. Batting SR matters more than bowling SR simply given the dynamics of scoring pressure and time in the game.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'm not saying to measure batting strike rates as the amount of overs a player is in for.

Well, regardless of how much of the strike each player faces, you can have a situation where your overall RPO is very high but neither batsmen are scoring runs. That is, if there are a bunch of extras. A batsman's strike rate does well to avoid the confusion of equating it with an RPO, because those two things ARE different.

 

[trundler]

Well, regardless of how much of the strike each player faces, you can have a situation where your overall RPO is very high but neither batsmen are scoring runs. That is, if there are a bunch of extras. A batsman's strike rate does well to avoid the confusion of equating it with an RPO, because those two things ARE different.

He means strike rate should just be represented as a run rate. 50 would be 3, 60 would be 3.6 and so on.

 

[Xix2565]

Strikerates are often overlooked as a statistical measure of assessment compared to averages. Is this fair?

Is this really the case by anyone but those uninterested in having a big detailed conversation?

And as to the thread title, you kind of need to make the scope smaller and more specific to have a discussion on how much strikerates really matter in the specific cricket circumstances. Otherwise this is just too broad of a question to have any better answer beyond "They do matter, just need context".