Batting and bowling strikerates: how much do they matter?

[shortpitched713]

I tend to think the opposite though. Batting SR matters more than bowling SR simply given the dynamics of scoring pressure and time in the game.

In Cricket Web the assumption is that we are talking about Test cricket, unless stated otherwise.

Are you talking about Limited Overs internationals, or Test cricket? Because I think everyone is well aware of the importance of fast scoring batsmen / economical bowlers in ODI/T20 cricket, but Test cricket is what I was referring to in my posts.

 

[Xix2565]

I tend to think the opposite though. Batting SR matters more than bowling SR simply given the dynamics of scoring pressure and time in the game.

Why would it be more important than bowling SR? It's not like bowlers have unlimited time either to take wickets.

 

[shortpitched713]

He means strike rate should just be represented as a run rate. 50 would be 3, 60 would be 3.6 and so on.

Yeah, but this could be misleading for the reason I mentioned. You could have two batsmen facing 3 balls each, each with an RPO of 2.0, and 6 runs have gone off the over due to 4 extras. But on the scoresheet the batsmen's RPOs and bowlers RPOs aren't matching up overall, which can be confusing. Better to just keep the measures for bowlers and batsmen completely separate, knowing of course that the raw conversion to approximate is simple enough.

 

[subshakerz]

In Cricket Web the assumption is that we are talking about Test cricket, unless stated otherwise.

Are you talking about Limited Overs internationals, or Test cricket? Because I think everyone is well aware of the importance of fast scoring batsmen / economical bowlers in ODI/T20 cricket, but Test cricket is what I was referring to in my posts.

Still talking about tests. A team that takes a day and a half to score 300 may ensure a draw where a win may have been on offering. Slow scoring seems instinctively more detrimental than taking longer to bowl a team out.

 

[shortpitched713]

Still talking about tests. A team that takes a day and a half to score 300 may ensure a draw where a win may have been on offering. Slow scoring seems instinctively more detrimental than taking longer to bowl a team out.

Another reason the lower / lower middle order bats should have a high strike rate. Once you're assured a healthy first innings total, you should be accelerating the scoring.

But in competitive situations there is also the opposite as well, where you're batting for time to save a draw on the 5th day. So they can balance out in some respect, and there is a situational component to what your batting strike rate should look like in any given match.

And how often your team puts you in one or the other situation can dictate things more than your "natural" play style.

 

[subshakerz]

Another reason the lower / lower middle order bats should have a high strike rate. Once you're assured a healthy first innings total, you should be accelerating the scoring.

But in competitive situations there is also the opposite as well, where you're batting for time to save a draw on the 5th day. So they can balance out in some respect, and there is a situational component to what your batting strike rate should look like in any given match.

And how often your team puts you in one or the other situation can dictate things more than your "natural" play style.

True, but how often do teams need to save a draw compared to trying for outright victory? If the batsmen from 1-6 are scoring at 3.5 an over regularly I just fancy that team's chances more even if the opposition averages the same.

I think having watched cricket, the speed of scoring has a psychological effect on the opposition more so than the time a bowler takes to get the opposition out.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Yeah, but 65 at the same average would be better

Definitely

 

[Fuller Pilch]

BJ Watling had a very low strike rate for a no 6 (42 - less than Pujara at 44), but it worked really well for NZ as he'd either be in with a top order player or with those lower in the order to blaze away (CDG s/r 80, Southee 82).

 

[subshakerz]

if we assume on a team level, a high bowling SR of 60 for a bowling attack means they bowl out the team in 100 overs, morning of Day 2. Still plenty of time in the game. Whereas if a batting lineup has a collective slow SR of 45, it would take them between mid Session 1 to tea on Day 2 to score a competitive total between 300-400 which is a fair chunk of the game. So I think batting SR is more consequential on a team level outside of the extremes.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

In Cricket Web the assumption is that we are talking about Test cricket, unless stated otherwise.

btw i think this has slightly changed since you were last around this place, you do sometimes have to guess from contextual clues now

something about diversity of formats

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Yeah, but this could be misleading for the reason I mentioned. You could have two batsmen facing 3 balls each, each with an RPO of 2.0, and 6 runs have gone off the over due to 4 extras. But on the scoresheet the batsmen's RPOs and bowlers RPOs aren't matching up overall, which can be confusing. Better to just keep the measures for bowlers and batsmen completely separate, knowing of course that the raw conversion to approximate is simple enough.

Who cares if they match

 

[Xix2565]

if we assume on a team level, a high bowling SR of 60 for a bowling attack means they bowl out the team in 100 overs, morning of Day 2. Still plenty of time in the game. Whereas if a batting lineup has a collective slow SR of 45, it would take them between mid Session 1 to tea on Day 2 to score a competitive total between 300-400 which is a fair chunk of the game. So I think batting SR is more consequential on a team level outside of the extremes.

More time taken to get wickets naturally tends to more runs being given away, and taking up time to score runs increases the risk of not being able to take wickets later on with reduced time. Also good/bad bowling will affect batting more than the other way around, so I don't get where this idea that batting SR is more consequential comes from. It's not like batters can mind control bowlers to bowl net throwdowns in Test matches all the time. Bowlers on the other hand possess more control in what they can offer that the batters then have to try and score off.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Sehwag's test str rate is higher than Hayden's Odi str rate.
And Hayden was an aggressive batsman

Sehwag was just crazy.

 

[subshakerz]

More time taken to get wickets naturally tends to more runs being given away, and taking up time to score runs increases the risk of not being able to take wickets later on with reduced time. Also good/bad bowling will affect batting more than the other way around, so I don't get where this idea that batting SR is more consequential comes from. It's not like batters can mind control bowlers to bowl net throwdowns in Test matches all the time. Bowlers on the other hand possess more control in what they can offer that the batters then have to try and score off.

You missed the point. In the hypothetical, it is assumed that the bowling averages are the same as well as the total scored by the batting XI, the only variables being bowling and batting SRs. So a fairly competitive score will end up taking fairly longer for a low batting SR team than taking 10 wickets at a high SR

And it is very common for opposition bowlers to bog down a team and reduce their runs over a longer innings. Happens all the time in tests compared to a team racing to a score and getting bowled out quickly.

 

[shortpitched713]

Who cares if they match

OCD sorts everywhere crying.

 

[shortpitched713]

True, but how often do teams need to save a draw compared to trying for outright victory? If the batsmen from 1-6 are scoring at 3.5 an over regularly I just fancy that team's chances more even if the opposition averages the same.

Well I will grant that draws are significantly less common these days than they were in the past. So the value of defensive cricket generally, and defensive batting in particular has decreased. I think this is in no small part due to the scoring system of the WTC, where you literally only get 1/3 instead of 1/2 value for a draw. So where in the past a home side with a lead in a series, for example could just prepare dead pitches, to "secure" the series, but now there's incentive against that because you're literally just gimping your team's chances of going to the WTC Final with such defensive tactics.

Still, given that in Test cricket, regardless of how hopeless of a match situation you're in with the bat, you can switch to "never give up, never surrender" mode, with the prospect of some positive points at the end, means that defensive batting will always have it's place.

 

[Xix2565]

You missed the point. In the hypothetical, it is assumed that the bowling averages are the same as well as the total scored by the batting XI, the only variables being bowling and batting SRs. So a fairly competitive score will end up taking fairly longer for a low batting SR team than taking 10 wickets at a high SR

And it is very common for opposition bowlers to bog down a team and reduce their runs over a longer innings. Happens all the time in tests compared to a team racing to a score and getting bowled out quickly.

I mean I'm not particularly convinced by this argument that it shows anything broad or generally applicable about which SRs are more important. It feels far too contrived to say batting SR is more consequential because of it.

 

[Xix2565]

So the value of defensive cricket generally, and defensive batting in particular has decreased.

I don't think the value of it has decreased, just the difficulty in maintaining it on pitches where good bowling will get rewards more often than not.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Well SL showed the value of defensive batting. Run rate of 3.06 gave them 550 off 180 overs, while Australia had run rates of 3.30 and 3.68 but only lasted 110 and 41 overs (c. 150 overs) for 330 and 150.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well SL showed the value of defensive batting. Run rate of 3.06 gave them 550 off 180 overs, while Australia had run rates of 3.30 and 3.68 but only lasted 110 and 41 overs (c. 150 overs) for 330 and 150.

What? How did you reach that conclusion? Nothing to do with scoring rates. They just made more runs per wicket. You think if Aus batted at 3.06 they would have made 550 in each innings?

The point of this comparison is assuming that the output of runs is equal, which strike rate is better. Of course if you're going to make twice as many runs per wicket at a slightly slower strike rate that is better.