Acceptable economy rates in FC cricket

[hourn]

In longer form of cricket, RPO is the third prioirity a long way after average and wickets taken.

I'd rather see someone get 5/120 of 25 overs than 2/65 of 25.

In the short term though it is obviousbly a different story.

 

[chris.hinton]

I don't think Economy Rate is that good a thing to base on in FC Cricket - you need 20 wickets to win a game, not 20 overs delivered for 30 runs.

Also, by that definition Mushtaq Ahmed had an unacceptable 2003 County season!

100 wickets and it was unacceptable i find that you talk rubbish Marc

 

[Neil Pickup]

100 wickets and it was unacceptable i find that you talk rubbish Marc

Suggest that you find a dictionary and look up "context".

And read the rest of the thread.

And see Marc's views on SR vs ER for, erm, well, two years?

 

[marc71178]

100 wickets and it was unacceptable i find that you talk rubbish Marc

I'm referring to the fact that he conceded more than 3 an over, so is considered unacceptable in some quarters.

Imagine what his eco would be if he tossed it up....

 

[Craig]

That depends on his accuracy and how he controlled and how good the batsmen where. If you flight the ball you can be more accurate, or it can go haywire. Just like bowling it flat.

 

[Richard]

I agree with a lot of this thread, everyone has got the points somewhere or other - under 3-an-over is the rate any decent bowler should be aiming for in FC-cricket of any kind; economy in FC-games comes second to wicket-taking and even if you go for 4.5-an-over it's not of massive importance if you take 6 for 90 from 20.
Mushtaq Ahmed in 2003 should have been a little disappointed to be as expensive as he was, but not too disappointed because he took 100 wickets. For me, though, Mushtaq is a much, much better bowler when he's being economical than when he's going for a few. For most bowlers that's the case, but for Mushie it's especially so IMO.
Regarding Ntini, however, I think many English people who don't watch enough World cricket will have got the wrong impression. Ntini is not a wayward bowler who will always take wickets - he's in fact the exact opposite. Ntini for the last 2 or 3 years has been one of the most accurate bowlers going around, and he just had a bad tour of England - NatWest and Npower Test Series', even if he got 10 wickets at "England-batsman-hook-a-holic" Lord's. In Pakistan he was back to his normal self.
Some people have tried to use Craig's words "acceptible economy-rate" as him meaning bowlers going at over 3-an-over can't be that good. I really struggle to believe that people can be this desperate to discredit a name.

 

[luckyeddie]

It's not just Craig either, it's universally accepted that going for only 3 an over is very good, under that is outstanding.

Harmison's ER in tests currently stands at 2.91:P

 

[Craig]

An anomly in the system?

 

[marc71178]

How can it be when it's simply calculated by dividing one number by another, both of which are facts?

Maybe it's a flaw in your theory?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Some more anomalies:

R Clarke 2.06
A Flintoff 2.62
AF Giles 2.66
RL Johnson 2.87
RJ Kirtley 2.62
GP Thorpe 1.60
ME Trescothick 2.60

CE Cuffy 2.57
CH Gayle 2.42
WW Hinds 2.98
CL Hooper 2.45
M Nagamootoo 2.55
DB Powell 2.75
D Ramnarine 2.42
BC Lara 2.80

SM Katich 2.74
DS Lehmann 2.26
DR Martyn 2.87
RT Ponting 2.58
SR Waugh 2.64

L Balaji 2.73
SB Bangar 2.70
R Dravid 1.95
W Jaffer 1.63
VVS Laxman 2.38

Abdul Razzaq 2.86
Mohammad Hafeez 1.79
Shahid Afridi 2.97

RP Arnold 2.66
PA de Silva 2.79
HDPK Dharmasena 2.47
KHRK Fernando 2.76
ST Jayasuriya 2.52
HP Tillakaratne 2.05
DNT Zoysa 2.85

Enamul Haque 2.76
Mohammad Rafique 2.55
Rajin Saleh 2.90

N Bojé 2.60
AC Dawson 2.78
CH Henderson 2.83
G Kirsten 2.51
L Klusener 2.62
RJ Peterson 2.33
CM Willoughby 2.50

GB Brent 2.30
ADR Campbell 2.54
GW Flower 2.73
GJ Whittall 2.67

NJ Astle 2.21
CZ Harris 2.74
MJ Horne 2.36
JDP Oram 2.66
MH Richardson 1.70
PJ Wiseman 2.99

Fifty-five anomalies?

 

[Richard]

I regard some of these as good, accurate bowlers and some as not so.
Sometimes statistics will back-up my view, sometimes not. If not I'll amend my view when I feel appropriate and anyone who does not is a darned fool.

 

[Rik]

Harmison's ER in tests currently stands at 2.91:P

Another look in the book for that word "context" again...

 

[luckyeddie]

Another look in the book for that word "context" again...

Just demonstrating 'black' and 'white' are merely shades of grey (contextually speaking)

 

[Rik]

Just demonstrating 'black' and 'white' are merely shades of grey (contextually speaking)

Hey that's not context...that's more like convex

 

[Craig]

How can it be when it's simply calculated by dividing one number by another, both of which are facts?

Maybe it's a flaw in your theory? [/QUOTE

lol.

I was being sarcastic and it was very tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Brett Lee used to b the same..although now he's much more economical

Brett Lee 1999-2000
7 Tests - 42 Wickets - Ave 16.07 - Econ 2.95 - SR 32.69

Brett Lee 2001-2003
28 Tests - 89 Wickets - Ave 36.52 - Econ 3.61 - SR 60.70

Much more economical, now?

 

[Don Ricardo]

Economy rate in tests means very little

An opening bowler could bowl wide of off stump repeatedly and the batsman be content to leave him, which may lead to a good ER, but does not constitute good bowling, or accurate bowling for that matter.

 

[Neil Pickup]

We're not disputing that... just that fact (and it is a fact) that Lee has not become more economical.