Am I missing something?

[Swervy]

No, the average scores don't relate to individual economy-rates.

Eh?...surely if you have 5 bowlers with econ rates of over 5, then you are likely to go for over 250 as a team....if you have 5 bowlers with an econ rate of 4.5, surely (with extras added in etc) you will probably restrict the opposition that bit better.

So surely average team scores do relate to econ rate!!!!

 

[Jamee999]

Richard thats ludicrous.

Every bowler has an econ. rate of 1 with extras added in that is about 55

Evey bowler has an econ. rate of 2 with etc. is 105 etc. etc.


So it is a huge difference

 

[Neil Pickup]

And team scores in ODIs don't relate to strike rates either, I suppose?

 

[Craig]

D'you mean in India? The TVS Cup where he went at about 6.6-an-over or something?
His only decent tournaments have been the bowler-dominated Bank Alfalah Cup, WC2003 and a couple of other offshire tournos. Then he was OK for most of the Pakistan games, home and away.
He's been back to his normal poor self against South Africa.
4.47-an-over mightn't be absymal, but it certainly is bad.

Sorry I have to disagree. To me every bowler should aim at econ's of 4.5 an over or lower and then you might have to make exceptions on when he/she bowled and the type of pitches.

On a green seamer I wouldnt call 4.5 an over great.

 

[Pace Setter]

If every bowler did that, it'd be around 225 as the teams score.

In almost every game, teams exceed that.

You have to take into account that the 5th/6th/ part time bowlers will usually go for a lot more runs than the team average. 4.47 for a frontline bowler is a touch on the poor side, or at least average, even in this batsman's era.

 

[Prince EWS]

But NZ dont have part timers. They have six bowlers of about the same quality in ODIs.

 

[Pace Setter]

But NZ dont have part timers. They have six bowlers of about the same quality in ODIs.

All with similar economy rates?

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes, Ide say they would all have similar economy rates.

C Cairns 4.78
K Mills 4.47
J Oram 4.47
S Styris 4.86
D Tuffey 4.60
D Vettori 4.39

Six bowlers with economy around 4.5 also give them the option of cutting someone out if they bowl poorly.

 

[marc71178]

4.47 for a frontline bowler is a touch on the poor side, or at least average, even in this batsman's era.

You'd be surprised how few players have an Eco of lower than that...

 

[Swervy]

Just thought I'd put these up, the stats for the PWC Top 10 ODI Bowlers over the last 25 games each player has played in:

Pollock econ 3.42, ave 27.59 SR 48.7
Murali 3.35,16.65,29.7
Lee 4.47,20.17,27.0
Vaas 3.78,21.29,33.7
McGrath 3.73,19.33,31.0
Gillespie 3.86,25.87,40.1
Flintoff 3.61,20.25,33.6
Ntini 4.53,21.11,27.9
Oram 4.32,32.51,45.1
Anderson 4.50,22.02,29.3

I would say an econ rate of 4.5 or under these days has got to be considered pretty good, under 4 and you are top notch

 

[marc71178]

However the logic behind the ratings makes the use of a restricted period not that useful (since by definition they've bowled well recently to be at the top)

 

[Richard]

You'd be surprised how few players have an Eco of lower than that...

Which simply says how many poor bowlers there are around ATM.

 

[Richard]

the logic behind the ratings

Please, believe me, what you refer to is very poor.
There are inconsistencies galore in the system.

 

[Swervy]

Which simply says how many poor bowlers there are around ATM.

bot Richard , you were questioning why Oram is ranked ninth....the rankings are an indication of performance relative to other players..so it doesnt really matter that there are so many poor bowlers around, relative to the rest Oram is ranked 9th

 

[Richard]

Even so, Oram's recent performances have been breathtakingly poor.
There have been some who have been much more flattered by their stats recently.
I am simply questioning the integrity of what I see as a flawed rating. I simply do not believe a constant system can possibly produce these results.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Oram was the pick of the NZ bowlers in the Pakistan series by a margin - hence the rating.

 

[Richard]

But the two series either side of that he's been about as bad as anyone will ever be.
And when he actually had reasonably good figures for a couple of tournos in a row, he didn't get ranked so high.
Just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Langeveldt]

And when he actually had reasonably good figures for a couple of tournos in a row, he didn't get ranked so high.
Just doesn't make any sense.

Probably hadnt played enough games to qualify?

 

[Swervy]

he had a pretty slow start to his ODI career as a bowler as well...could the last few games have pushed those first few games out of the way...also some of the players who were previously ranked around 10th 11th etc might not have done much recently and might have slipped down a bit...i dont know

 

[marc71178]

Please, believe me, what you refer to is very poor.
There are inconsistencies galore in the system.

What I referred to was the fact that the ratings pay great attention to recent performances, so it's highly likely that the top 10 will have good economy over their recent games.


And I repeat, if it's so inconsistent and as bad as you make out, when will you produce your ranking system?

And if it's so bad, how has it got such universal recognition?