Ideal T20 figures- or do they mean much?

[Arjun]

This is another discussion coming out of the Michael Clarke for T20 issue, about what's ideal for T20. It's not just Pup, but also a whole lot of Indian and possibly English and Lankan selections, which are highly questionable. What would you consider good enough, or very good, among T20 stats?

For a batsman, an average over 25 would be just right, while over 30, he's quite good. He should strike at least over 120, and something over 130 is quite hot. It's difficult to put up a big score, so a few over 50 should help. Likewise, a bowling average under 22 is acceptable, and under 20, serious, and under 16, seriously good. Strike rates will also count, and under 24 will fit the bill, and under 20, top stuff. Then again, things may change from match to match, ground to ground.

Yet, we find several international and Champions League T20 teams carrying (apparent) misfits with them. While some misfits struggle but still stay in the team for other reasons, some others step up from largely unimpressive statistics and establish themselves as their teams' top players. Conversely, very strong-on-stats T20 teams have floundered or not gone the distance. Do T20 stats really mean much, then?

 

[Himannv]

In T20's I firmly believe that the only stat that really matters is the strike rate. Any team can win a match on any given day if they have a whole list of sloggers in their side. Its not really a bowlers game so i dont think any stat matters for them as long as they can get it in the blockhole and read what the batsman may do.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In T20's I firmly believe that the only stat that really matters is the strike rate. Any team can win a match on any given day if they have a whole list of sloggers in their side. Its not really a bowlers game so i dont think any stat matters for them as long as they can get it in the blockhole and read what the batsman may do.

Umar Gul has a SR of almost 150. He's not exactly a batsman. The SR has to be in context surely. And if the average is under 20, I don't think the SR qualifies someone as a good bat to have in the side.

 

[Himannv]

Umar Gul has a SR of almost 150. He's not exactly a batsman. The SR has to be in context surely. And if the average is under 20, I don't think the SR qualifies someone as a good bat to have in the side.

You have a point. However a batsman who averages under 20 can just as easily score 40 runs in 20 balls by simply throwing the bat at everything which may not work all the time but may win his team one game. A higher strikerate is more indicative of such a player. A higher average but lower strike rate isn't really what T20 teams need.

To digress, Umar Gul may score 15 runs in 10 balls which is a reasonably useful contribution in a T20 when compared with 30 runs from 50 balls from batsman X when a total score of 120 is considered well below par. Considering that 15 runs in 10 balls is his contribution, 11 Umar Guls will score 165 runs in 114 balls. 11 versions of batsman X on the other hand will struggle to even score past 100 considering their strike rate although their average may be much higher.

 

[bryce]

It is hard to judge because alot of players are still very inexperienced, over time though you will be able to read alot into the T20 statistics. Also alot of bits & pieces players can have very undefined roles, and it is just a matter of them having game time to see what sort of contributions they are able to make. Alot of misfits are often multi-skilled cricketers who's skill sets allow them to suceed in longer forms of the game, but not T20. Say an allrounder who is a defensive batsman and a one-dimensional medium pacer. Kallis almost fit this same criteria and he sure looked like a misfit in his first IPL season, yet over time he showed that he was good enough to adapt his game to suit the format. Hopes also almost fits this bill(though not defensive with the bat, just very inconsistent) and alot of people would call him a T20 misfit.

I think with regards to specialist batsmen, if they only average 20 then they need to be striking at 130 minimum.
With bowlers maintaining an RPO under 7 will make you a success no matter what any other statistics say.
However if your RPO is over say 7.50 you need to be striking around every 25 balls or less.

 

[marc71178]

I'd say a strike rate of 25 is a bit too high, seeing as that's less than 1 wicket per match.

 

[Craig]

If a bowler can aim for around 6 an over then that is pretty good, whilst a batsmen should be aiming for a S/R of over 100.

 

[Furball]

It is hard to judge because alot of players are still very inexperienced, over time though you will be able to read alot into the T20 statistics. Also alot of bits & pieces players can have very undefined roles, and it is just a matter of them having game time to see what sort of contributions they are able to make. Alot of misfits are often multi-skilled cricketers who's skill sets allow them to suceed in longer forms of the game, but not T20. Say an allrounder who is a defensive batsman and a one-dimensional medium pacer. Kallis almost fit this same criteria and he sure looked like a misfit in his first IPL season, yet over time he showed that he was good enough to adapt his game to suit the format. Hopes also almost fits this bill(though not defensive with the bat, just very inconsistent) and alot of people would call him a T20 misfit.

I think with regards to specialist batsmen, if they only average 20 then they need to be striking at 130 minimum.
With bowlers maintaining an RPO under 7 will make you a success no matter what any other statistics say.
However if your RPO is over say 7.50 you need to be striking around every 25 balls or less.

Hopes is a T20 misfit because his bowling is fodder in T20s. He's a serviceable option in ODIs because he bowls at a reasonable pace and is quite consistent in line and length. Used properly (ie when the batsmen go into defensive mode), he's more than capable of going through some pretty economical overs and maybe nicking off a wicket here or there.

In T20, there's not really a period of the game where batsmen are looking to build rather than hit, so a guy who bowls at Hopes' pace and who doesn't really do anything with the ball other than land it in a consistent area is a prime target for batsmen to line him up and simply smash him.

 

[Shri]

Stats don't matter in T20s and can't be used as guidelines, for the time being. Maybe after a decade the sample size will become large enough and the format serious enough for statsguru discussions. T20 = uncertainty atm.

 

[slugger]

B McCullum has played the most Int 20/20 30 matches 30 inn avg 31 str 124

that probably is the current bench mark

 

[Pup Clarke]

Hopes is a T20 misfit because his bowling is fodder in T20s. He's a serviceable option in ODIs because he bowls at a reasonable pace and is quite consistent in line and length. Used properly (ie when the batsmen go into defensive mode), he's more than capable of going through some pretty economical overs and maybe nicking off a wicket here or there.

In T20, there's not really a period of the game where batsmen are looking to build rather than hit, so a guy who bowls at Hopes' pace and who doesn't really do anything with the ball other than land it in a consistent area is a prime target for batsmen to line him up and simply smash him.

 

[Furball]

Hopes is slightly faster than medium pace but isn't particularly sharp.

If you're going to bowl 80mph then you need to be able to have some sort of variation, if you're just going to land it on a length in T20 you will get battered.