Batting strike rates vs Bowling strike rates

[PlayerComparisons]

.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

It is a cliche but you have to take 20 wickets to win, so bowling is more important (although high battimg s/rs give a team more time/runs to win).

Bowlers with poor strike rates (70+) might tie up an end, but are aren't going to win matches in the modern era (for example, Vettori). In the past when spinners only conceded 2 runs per over they could be ATGs (e.g. Tayfield) with poor strike rates, but not in today's faster scoring era.

Batters who score slowly (sub 45) can still be match or series winners (e.g. Pujara in Australia). They can break opposition bowlers, so it doesn't matter so much if a team scores quickly or slowly.

 

[mr_mister]

Bowling in tests
Batting in ODIs

 

[Starfighter]

Not a tremendous fan of either as they are much more contextual than many people realise.

 

[honestbharani]

The simplest way to consider this is -

Bowling SR tells you how fast you can get your wickets.
Batting SR tells you how fast you can get your runs.

Test and FC cricket results are dictated by wickets primarily, so how fast you can get your wickets matters more there.
LO cricket results are dictated by runs primarily, so how fast you can score your runs matters more there.

 

[honestbharani]

Not a tremendous fan of either as they are much more contextual than many people realise.

Honestly, almost all cricket stats are contextual as its probably the most conditions dependent sport I follow.

 

[ZK$]

I think bowling strike rates are very important. Someone like Steyn is going to win you more games than Pollock would even though both average about the same.

I don’t think batting strike rates are very important. It is impressive though when guys like Viv and Gilchrist average around 50 at those ridiculous strike rates.

 

[Starfighter]

Honestly, almost all cricket stats are contextual as its probably the most conditions dependent sport I follow.

Yeah, but people consider those things more elsewhere. And strike rates are also dependent on things like the strategic approach to the game. Put an older bowler in the modern game and their strike rate will improve, or vice versa, because the approach to batting has changed.

 

[Xix2565]

I mean what relevant context matters for this question though, where everything is considered when an answer is given? Maybe if it was a more specific, nuanced question about something I can see the need to talk about context but as far as the format is concerned one stat is more relevant than the other in the quest of victory.

 

[subshakerz]

In tests, all these SRs operate on a normal range, batsmen between 40 to 60 and bowlers between 50 to 60. If you are outside this range, it matters more if you are a bowler as there are many more batsmen who can make it up if you are on the slow side. I think there is a much closer correlation between a modern day bowler having a good average and lower SR than there is for a batsman's average and SR.

A bowling lineup of low SR bowlers will make much more of a difference than a batting lineup of high SR bats and vice versa.

 

[Jayro]

There seems to be no contest bw the two.