Does strikerate matter in judging a test bowler?

[Hit Wicket]

Average, quite obviously is the most important parameter because cricket is a game of taking as many wickets as you can while conceding as less runs as you can - of course one has to be careful while judging fast bowlers and spinners here on the same scale. However, if the average is in a similar range, I would personally go for a bowler with a better strike rate because it speeds up the contest and leaves more chances for a result in the match.

If a bowling side has a huge last innings total to defend, as it happens quite frequently in tests, where the batting side is playing for a draw then the importance of strike bowlers is paramount. At that point the bowling side does not care about the runs scored but taking 10 wickets in 100 overs is the crux.

 

[NasserFan207]

you mean like Pakistan's attacking batting these days

Misbah is responding to the defensive bowling which is being served up round the world, and is just taking advantage of the defensive lines/fields with his batting tactics. Its actually very smart.

 

[Ikki]

Short answer 'Yes' with an 'If'; long answer 'No' with a 'But'.

 

[Furball]

Assuming a particular bowling average, the better the SR, the worse the ER. Both are important, and you could argue in favour of either as being more important. SR means you'll keep the game moving, and help your fellow bowlers by exposing fresh batsmen more quickly; ER means you can keep control of the opposition and help your fellow bowlers by increasing pressure.

Those who favour a good SR might regard a maiden over where you don't take a wicket as a bad thing. Those who favour a good ER might say the opposite.

I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on.

But what is obviously far and away more important than either is bowling average.

I think I'd lean towards the low SR/high ER bowler, as the number 1 enemy in a Test is time.

 

[Uppercut]

My counter argument to that would that 100/5 is a dire situation irrespective of whether in happens in 20 overs or 40 overs. While batting however 200/2 in 30 overs means the bowlers are demoralized, fielding is less attacking compared to a situation when you have the same score in 70 overs. That's my feeling on that.

Hmm, you really think it's easier to bat against an attack that's been in the field for 40 overs than one that's been in the field for 70 overs?

I remember when Dravid was owning vs. England in the summer the commentators kept pointing out that by eating up lots of deliveries he was forcing bowlers to come back and bowl third and fourth spells, making things easier for the rest of his team. Seemed logical enough to me but no doubt if he was scoring that many runs more quickly they'd find a reason to claim his high strike rate was making it easier for his team-mates too. I'm dubious. Something doesn't add up.

As for bowlers, Cribb pretty much nailed all of the tangibles in the first post. And I suspect the intangibles pull in the same direction- if you're facing a 20-averaging bowler you'd rather he had a low strike rate but if you're facing a 40-averaging bowler you'd rather he had a high economy rate.

 

[Hurricane]

In answer to the thread title - normally SR does not need to be looked at because most bowlers economy rates are about the same so you can infer the SR from the average. However there are some bowlers like Ewen Chatfield and that Bapu Nadkarni character (is that his name - the most accurate spinner in history) who get a mediocre average and a high SR and for that reason you need to look at SR sometimes.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Between two bowlers with the same average, strike rate simply indicates as to what kind of bowler each is, rather than showing which one is better. The bowler with a lower strike rate, on a good day, would generally get a better return. The bowler with a higher strike rate would be a far more consistent performer as he would be able to fall back on his low economy rate to build pressure more easily on days where wickets aren't coming easily.

No argument as to which is ***cr to watch though.

 

[smash84]

vintage high SR in this one

Waqar Younis The Aggressor - YouTube

 

[MrPrez]

Average shows the bowlers level of ability. SR shows the bowlers style. You also can't compare the SR of a spinner and a pacer as they have seperate rolls in terms of time.

Give me a low SR, high economy pacer for the new ball every time!

 

[smash84]

give me a low Economy rate and low SR bowler for the new and old ball every time

 

[Ikki]

Wickets win matches. Two bowlers who bowl the same amount, have the same average but different ER/SR, you'd go for the one who is faster IMO. Some games, it won't matter; other games it will. But you'll always rather be safe in case it rains.

 

[Cabinet96]

Having a low strike rate and high economy can make the other bowlers less effective IMO. If one bowler is going at 4-5 an over then the batting side only have to go at about 2-3 an over at the other ends. You can't win a test by scoring at 2-3 an over so if everyone is bowling tightly, you'll have to take risks. What's worked so well for England recently is creating pressure. One of the reasons Steve Finn was dropped was because he was releasing the pressure.

 

[MrPrez]

You need a balance - bowlers who can keep it tight, and bowlers that can take wickets. Thankfully, Steyn does both for us.

 

[Shri]

Steyn goes for runs at times. Not often but yeah we have seen him bowl expensive spells before. Not McGrath-esque.

 

[MrPrez]

Lets put it this way - would you have taken Donald or Pollock if you had the opportunity? (Purely for bowling, pretend they bat, field, lead equally)

 

[Neil Pickup]

How many times do you have to choose between a Donald and a Pollock, though?

I think the point raised earlier where England were picking between Finn and Bresnan due to Finn's high ER (read propensity to bowl crap) is much more relevant here. This is a debate that seems to be heading towards considering the composition of a Test attack - and the fact that you can't afford bowlers who send down four-balls every over if you want to end up a good side.

 

[kyear2]

So which is more important, lower average or strike rate. As discussed earlier, bowlers with the very low strike rates tend ho have higher E/R as they tend to maintatin fuller more attacking lengths.
But who would most people choose Waqar (very low s/r, but relatively high e/r) or Ambrose (very low avg, but relatively high s/r). Attack and give away some runs or control the batsmen and take wickets with pressure?
We tend to rate batsmen with higher strike rate higher that those who bat more slowly, should we also do the same with bowlers.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

So which is more important, lower average or strike rate. As discussed earlier, bowlers with the very low strike rates tend ho have higher E/R as they tend to maintatin fuller more attacking lengths.
But who would most people choose Waqar (very low s/r, but relatively high e/r) or Ambrose (very low avg, but relatively high s/r). Attack and give away some runs or control the batsmen and take wickets with pressure?
We tend to rate batsmen with higher strike rate higher that those who bat more slowly, should we also do the same with bowlers.

Not a great comparison as Ambrose is clearly the better bowler of the two without even touching on strike rate.

 

[smash84]

awta

 

[Nomanculture]

It should be a combination of SR and economy IMO. That means it basically comes down to the bowling average.