Aceptable econmy rates in ODIS

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not sure what you're getting at here. I meant Marc and I for the most part.

In general I disagree with making wholesale judgements on any players based purely on stats.

 

[marc71178]

Alright Marc, give me what define acceptable. I want to know this one.

Look at match conditions etc.

Someone who plays predominantly on wickets with small boundaries and quick outfields may well be happy with 5.5, but 5.5 in other places is not good.

Think of it this way.

A team scores 330 in 50 overs - the bowler who conceded 45 from his 10 overs has done well.

A team scores 130 in 50 overs - now the 45 from 10 doesn't look good.

It is impossible ot be subjective.

 

[Craig]

Not sure what you're getting at here. I meant Marc and I for the most part.

I just didnt know what you meant 8D :saint:

 

[Richard]

OK, a few thoughts:
1, 5-an-over is too expensive at any time. Any full-time bowler should be disappointed to have gone for 5-an-over in any one-day game. To accept 5-an-over, for me, is an acceptance of mediocrity.
2, no, you can't just judge bowlers on statistics, but an economy-rate for 5 overs or more is usually a fair reflection of how accurate someone has bowled. For me, I only ever give credit for wickets that have been taken with what I would call good deliveries.
3, bowling has always to be taken in context. Anything over 4-an-over in what I'd call favourable conditions is too expensive (eg seamers in typical English, Kiwi conditions or fingerspinners in typical Sri Lankan). 4.4-an-over is perfectly acceptible for someone bowling in typically unfavourable conditions (eg fingerspinners in England). For someone regularly bowling in the last 10 overs, an extra 0.1-an-over is added to the acceptible and good.
4, yes, the one-day game in the 70s and 80s is not far from incomparable to that of '92 onwards. But Garner's record would still probably be about 3.7-an-over if he bowled today if you ask me.
5, James Kirtley is not a good one-day bowler IMO. He has played ODIs for a long while now, I never thought he should have been selected in the first place as his List-A economy-rate is over 4.6-an-over. And his ODI record is dreadful, no two ways about that.
6, Waqar Younis is nowhere near the one-day bowler he used to be. Since he took the Pakistan captaincy his accuracy has just gone to pot. Take a look at his county record last season. An international bowler should be going at less than 4-an-over in OD and 3-an-over in FC cricket, when he gets into domestic stuff. Waqar went at at about 0.8-an-over more than that. I was very disappointed in him.
7, Simon Jones' one-day credentials are, for me, summed-up by the fact of 5 one-day games in 5 seasons at the club (excluding 2003, as he didn't play First-Team cricket), and the record that accompanies it. I don't think he'll ever be a good one-day bowler, but eventually he'll play another one-day game and we'll see if anything has changed from 4 years ago (the last time he played a List-A one-day game).

 

[Craig]

Good to see you here Richard.

 

[Richard]

Good to see you here Richard.

Incidentally - when did you become a Glamorgan member?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

6, Waqar Younis is nowhere near the one-day bowler he used to be. Since he took the Pakistan captaincy his accuracy has just gone to pot.

I agree to an extent, but his economy rate was 4.57 before the captaincy was given to him and since it has been 5.05. That's a big difference, but his initial economy was still not acceptable by the standards of some people. Interestingly, his SR went down by almost 2 points in that period.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Incidentally - when did you become a Glamorgan member?

If you are referring to his signature, it's for a virtual management league we have on Cricket Web called World Club Cricket.

 

[Richard]

If you are referring to his signature, it's for a virtual management league we have on Cricket Web called World Club Cricket.

Ah, thank you, that clears that up.

 

[marc71178]

5-an-over is too expensive at any time. Any full-time bowler should be disappointed to have gone for 5-an-over in any one-day game. To accept 5-an-over, for me, is an acceptance of mediocrity.

5 an over is in a lot of cases well below the average scoring rates in one day cricket. To go for 5 an over is not bad, and can be acceptable in any score over 250 from 50 overs.

For someone regularly bowling in the last 10 overs, an extra 0.1-an-over is added to the acceptible and good.

Only 0.1? that seems a very tight thing, and your suggesting if someone bowls 5 of the last 10 overs, they should only concede an extra half run than they did in the first 5 they bowled!

I think you should AT LEAST 1 an over on.

 

[Richard]

5 an over is in a lot of cases well below the average scoring rates in one day cricket. To go for 5 an over is not bad, and can be acceptable in any score over 250 from 50 overs.



Only 0.1? that seems a very tight thing, and your suggesting if someone bowls 5 of the last 10 overs, they should only concede an extra half run than they did in the first 5 they bowled!

I think you should AT LEAST 1 an over on.

Too much thought about individual games. A decent bowling-attack should be disappointed to concede 250 (on any pitch) anyway, but just to have the mentality "250 is a decent score - less than 5-an-over is good" is misreading. Any bowler with a career economy-rate of 5-an-over is very, very poor indeed.
When I talk about 0.1-an-over and 0.2-an-over I mean in a career, and in a career that's a lot. The difference between 4.3-an-over and 4.4-an-over after 100 ODIs is massive.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Hey! Richard what do you think of Ajit Agarkar?

what the hell is going on?
in all of london/manchester i have never met more than about 5 sensible 14-20 yr olds and here bucketloads who actually know what they are talking about...
ofcourse then there is marc who is 24 and a little crazy and childish

 

[Richard]

Hey! Richard what do you think of Ajit Agarkar?

what the hell is going on?
in all of london/manchester i have never met more than about 5 sensible 14-20 yr olds and here bucketloads who actually know what they are talking about...
ofcourse then there is marc who is 24 and a little crazy and childish

Actually I thought Agarkar was a good bowler for a long while, I kept thinking "he can get that economy-rate down, he can" but I kept being confounded. I have more or less given-up hope on him.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

well, you may as well know, so did i

but every since i found out AAAS[agit agarkar appreiation socety]
my hopes in him have fallen dismally, they [aaas] think he is a great allrounder like Kapil Dev..So i laughed Anti-AAAS, nothing against agarkar himslef just the **** who stalk him...

 

[Neil Pickup]

You misinterpret the AAAS, Jay :P

Regarding economies of 5 an over - look at the India v WI one-day series. Keeping it down to 5 an over would have been a wonderful achievement there.

Look at Balaji's figures..

 

[marc71178]

Too much thought about individual games. A decent bowling-attack should be disappointed to concede 250 (on any pitch) anyway, but just to have the mentality "250 is a decent score - less than 5-an-over is good" is misreading.

How many sides concede 250 in an ODI? Most. Therefore 5 is not as bad as you make out.

When I talk about 0.1-an-over and 0.2-an-over I mean in a career, and in a career that's a lot. The difference between 4.3-an-over and 4.4-an-over after 100 ODIs is massive.

IF someone bowls 10 overs a game, the difference over a career is still only 100 runs in 100 ODI's.

That is nothing.

A misfield gives the extra 0.1.

 

[marc71178]

they [aaas] think he is a great allrounder like Kapil Dev.

If you bothered to follow the history of the AAAS, you'd realise what it's all about.

We do not think he's a great player at all!

 

[gibbsnsmith]

i know what its about and it aint far cos hes not THAT bad but youre just maing a mockery of his name

 

[marc71178]

I fail to see how our praising of him is making a mockery?

 

[gibbsnsmith]

you know very well how!

*sighs* kids these days...