-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Aceptable econmy rates in ODIS
- Thread starter Craig
- Start date
gibbsnsmith
State Vice-Captain
too bad, eh...
But what i dont get, is that its still carrying on arent you bored yet?
But what i dont get, is that its still carrying on arent you bored yet?
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Marc doesn't get bored easily. He's a Giles fan.gibbsnsmith said:
gibbsnsmith
State Vice-Captain
still!
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Recently there have been far too many 250s, and more. The standard of bowling in one-day-international-cricket has denegrated in the last 4 years.marc71178 said:
For a good bowler, 100 runs is a massive amount. A good bowler should be aiming for 40 or less from 10 overs.
Perhaps one of the reasons totals have increased is bowlers have been encouraged to settle for mediocrity.
Craig
World Traveller
But Richard that is also down to quick outfields and hard pitches.
Still Bond, Pollock, Donald (before he retired), Tuffey, Vettori, Warne, Muralitharan, Bichel (yes he is just accurate enough), Gillespie, McGrath, Ntini, Gough, Caddick (before his retirement), Colleymore, Walsh, Ambrose (before their retirements), Srinath, Vaas, Wasim Akram, Saqlain (before he lost the plot) and Mushtaq Ahmed (before he was dropped), Blackwell were still able to be accurate enough on these type of wickets.
Still Bond, Pollock, Donald (before he retired), Tuffey, Vettori, Warne, Muralitharan, Bichel (yes he is just accurate enough), Gillespie, McGrath, Ntini, Gough, Caddick (before his retirement), Colleymore, Walsh, Ambrose (before their retirements), Srinath, Vaas, Wasim Akram, Saqlain (before he lost the plot) and Mushtaq Ahmed (before he was dropped), Blackwell were still able to be accurate enough on these type of wickets.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes, quick outfields haven't helped either.Craig said:
No matter how fast, slow, green or dry a pitch, accuracy remains the same. It is still as hard to score off accurate bowling (unless batsmen use their feet) as it is on the next pitch. Obviously when the ball is moving around it's harder still, but good bowlers should never just think "oh, well, it's a good pitch" - if they've been smacked around (ie gone for 5-an-over), they have probably done something wrong.
Yes, watersheds change too (ie going for 39 when everyone else has gone for less than 28 is disappointing for a good bowler), but someone should invariably be disappointed if they go for 45 off 10 overs, even if everyone else went for 60. Not as disappointed as if everyone else went for 30, no, but still disappointed.
If you don't set high standards, you'll never attain them.
No-one is going to get it right all the time, and it's unrealistic to expect every bowler I rate to go at less than 4-an-over, but for me a good one-day bowler should never go for more than 4.5-an-over over his career, and even that's only if he's playing in unfavourable conditions and bowling at the death. If he's in good conditions never bowling in the last 10, he should aim for 4.2-an-over.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Reon King, Cameron Cuffy, Gavin Larsen, Andy Flintoff, Jacob Oram...Craig said:
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Just confirms the lunacy of judging players purely on statistics, really...marc71178 said:
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I've had enough experience bowling to guys who can bat to know that this is absolute rubbish. I've had it happen to me several times where, on a good deck, three simultaneously reasonable deliveries on a top-of-off stump line-and-length were dispatched to three different parts of the ground. I've also had several occasions where I've done the same on a slightly less bat-friendly wicket and watched as the ball has taken the edge or been blocked. Same with other players I know. If your logic is to be believed, the higher economy rates of players on the sub-continent vs the lower economy rates of seamers in England is a total co-incidence.
In my experience, the only ball which almost guarantees you won't be hit away is the bottom-of-the-bat yorker. Let's see anyone bowl those consistently.
It depends on so many things that you cannot be absolutist about it. By your logic, Ashish Nehra should be disappointed with taking 0/57 in the World Cup final, despite the mayhem going on around him.
http://www-aus.cricket.org/link_to_...INALS/AUS_IND_WC2003_ODI-FINAL_23MAR2003.html
As anyone who watched the match knows, he was part of the reason Australia didn't make 380-390 as he bowled superbly the whole day. He didn't drop his bundle like the rest of the Indian bowlers and bowled several yorkers which Rick Ponting, even seeing the ball like a football as he was that day, was unable to get away for more than a single or two. But by your statement he should be 'disappointed'? Whatever you're on in order to come to that conclusion, I want two.
There's a subtle difference between 'high' and 'unrealistic'. Aiming for 40 off ten overs is a good thing but that must be tempered by the relativity of the situation; if you're bowling on a decent deck in Ahmedabad and Sachin is on the rampage, you'll have to accept that anything short of 50 off ten overs would be a supreme effort with 55 being par. Similarly on a seaming minefield in Sydney against the same team, 30 off ten overs might be par. It simply depends on the conditions and the opposition.
Whether the economy rate is the most important measure of a bowler's effectiveness is a matter open to debate too. I dispute it, personally. I hate to be elitist about this but, it's easy to assume it is if you've never played against guys who can really bat. In my experience, nothing should be taken for granted against good players.
You do realise how ludicrous this sounds, don't you? Players sacrifice so much to get to the stage where they are good enough to play for their country, not to mention not knowing if they will be picked at all, whether they'll ACTUALLY be good enough and work damn hard to maintain physical fitness. Then there is all the personal sacrifices they make in terms of family, other careers, etc. Then once they get into the team, they have to fight like mad to make sure they stay there against tough opposition, hostile media, other players vying for their position, etc.
So do you then honestly believe that having strived for nothing but excellence for all of their playing career, having struggled, sacrificed and toiled beyond the mental and physical means of others less gifted, that having finally reached their goal, they'd "settle for mediocrity"?
Mate, I've played only for the South Australian U/19's side and to get there, I had to work harder than I'd ever thought was reasonable. I poured everything (mind, body and spirit) into getting to where I did and that's still WAY below where the top players are at. So I think you can understand why I would think your statement defies logic.
Last edited:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I've bowled to a few guys who can bat, too (I don't know who the best you've bowled at are, but Matt Maynard and Chris Rogers are probably the best for me, and only in the nets). But I'm only late-60s in mph, so that's rather different to being early-80s. However, you don't need to play to learn; I have also watched plenty of cricket, enough, I would say, to judge accurately.Top_Cat said:I've had enough experience bowling to guys who can bat to know that this is absolute rubbish. I've had it happen to me several times where, on a good deck, three simultaneously reasonable deliveries on a top-of-off stump line-and-length were dispatched to three different parts of the ground. I've also had several occasions where I've done the same on a slightly less bat-friendly wicket and watched as the ball has taken the edge or been blocked. Same with other players I know. If your logic is to be believed, the higher economy rates of players on the sub-continent vs the lower economy rates of seamers in England is a total co-incidence.
In my experience, the only ball which almost guarantees you won't be hit away is the bottom-of-the-bat yorker. Let's see anyone bowl those consistently.
It depends on so many things that you cannot be absolutist about it. By your logic, Ashish Nehra should be disappointed with taking 0/57 in the World Cup final, despite the mayhem going on around him. As anyone who watched the match knows, he was part of the reason Australia didn't make 380-390 as he bowled superbly the whole day. He didn't drop his bundle like the rest of the Indian bowlers and bowled several yorkers which Rick Ponting, even seeing the ball like a football as he was that day, was unable to get away for more than a single or two. But by your statement he should be 'disappointed'? Whatever you're on in order to come to that conclusion, I want two.
There's a subtle difference between 'high' and 'unrealistic'. Aiming for 40 off ten overs is a good thing but that must be tempered by the relativity of the situation; if you're bowling on a decent deck in Ahmedabad and Sachin is on the rampage, you'll have to accept that anything short of 50 off ten overs would be a supreme effort with 55 being par. Similarly on a seaming minefield in Sydney against the same team, 30 off ten overs might be par. It simply depends on the conditions and the opposition.
Whether the economy rate is the most important measure of a bowler's effectiveness is a matter open to debate too. I dispute it, personally. I hate to be elitist about this but, it's easy to assume it is if you've never played against guys who can really bat. In my experience, nothing should be taken for granted against good players.
You do realise how ludicrous this sounds, don't you? Players sacrifice so much to get to the stage where they are good enough to play for their country, not to mention not knowing if they will be picked at all, whether they'll ACTUALLY be good enough and work damn hard to maintain physical fitness. Then there is all the personal sacrifices they make in terms of family, other careers, etc. Then once they get into the team, they have to fight like mad to make sure they stay there against tough opposition, hostile media, other players vying for their position, etc.
So do you then honestly believe that having strived for nothing but excellence for all of their playing career, having struggled, sacrificed and toiled beyond the mental and physical means of others less gifted, that having finally reached their goal, they'd "settle for mediocrity"?
Mate, I've played only for the South Australian U/19's side and to get there, I had to work harder than I'd ever thought was reasonable. I poured everything (mind, body and spirit) into getting to where I did and that's still WAY below where the top players are at. So I think you can understand why I would think your statement defies logic.
And believe me, you've got to be pretty good (sort of Tendulkar-in-good-form standard), even on the most batsman-friendly pace-and-bounce of pitch (ie not too slow and not too fast), to consistently hit a bowler consistently bowling at the top of off for more than 4-an-over if you don't use your feet.
If you ask me, every Indian bowler should be devestated with the World Cup final. Just because 57 is better than 87 is no excuse. If everyone had gone for 57, India would still have been chasing nearly 300 (assuming there were a normal number of leg-byes) and would have been decidedly second-favourites.
Maybe I'm unrealistic about settling for mediocrity, naturally I have never experienced the ride up the cricket feudalism (the best I've done is Exeter Seconds), but if someone keeps telling you that under 5-an-over's OK, you'll start to believe it.
The only other explanation for the sudden increase in scoring-rates in the last 2 years or so in one-day-cricket is the batsmen have suddenly got better, and I don't really think that's likely. So unless bowlers have lowered their standards, there is only one explanation: medium-fast bowlers (who can stop batsmen using their feet by having the 'keeper stand-up) have been alienated, and bowlers of fast-medium who can be attacked by the use of feet have been preferred, so accuracy has been degraded in use, and your only chance is if you get a pitch which enables you to move the ball.
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
OT: Are you playing for Exeter at present?Richard said:
I can't add anything here to what Corey's already said.
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That means nothing to meRichard said:
. I've just started at Exeter Uni and am getting involved with coaching the juniors (I'm qualified and CRB-checked, before any even thinks about it!) at Exeter CC over the coming year(s).