Weightages for Average and Strike Rates

[Coronis]

i think alot of users put SR ahead or equal to average in test bowling

Yeah I don’t think this is true.

 

[Silver Line]

Mitchell Starc has a better Strike Rate in Tests than Glenn McGrath. Would you say Starc is ahead or equal to McGrath?

Lets use two simple scenarios :

A :
I can take 1 wicket in 5 overs ..
My SR is now 30 balls per wicket which is better than anyone in the history of the game ..But if I go at 10 an over , Ive given away 50 runs and the opposition has had some momentum..Have I really helped my team ?

B:
Now lets say I take 1 wicket in 10 overs , my SR is 60 balls per wicket , I go at 2 runs an over ..my bowling average is 20 , I have helped my team by building up dot balls , controlling the scoreboard plus I have taken a wicket ..Control is so important in Test cricket I rather have the second option .

Yes yes agreed, thats why i asked how do you mathematically weigh them if they are not 50% each

 

[Starfighter]

Yes yes agreed, thats why i asked how do you mathematically weigh them if they are not 50% each

100% average
0% strike rate

Or not far off, anyway

 

[silentstriker]

Mitchell Starc has a better Strike Rate in Tests than Glenn McGrath. Would you say Starc is ahead or equal to McGrath?

Lets use two simple scenarios :

A :
I can take 1 wicket in 5 overs ..
My SR is now 30 balls per wicket which is better than anyone in the history of the game ..But if I go at 10 an over , Ive given away 50 runs and the opposition has had some momentum..Have I really helped my team ?

B:
Now lets say I take 1 wicket in 10 overs , my SR is 60 balls per wicket , I go at 2 runs an over ..my bowling average is 20 , I have helped my team by building up dot balls , controlling the scoreboard plus I have taken a wicket ..Control is so important in Test cricket I rather have the second option .

Perhaps in that scenario, however, if you're supposed to be the wicket taking bowler and your average is low but you have a SR of 120, then that means the batsmen are seeing you off and scoring at the other end. Have you helped your team?

I think you can make extreme examples either way. For bowlers, getting wickets more often in Test cricket may be more important. Usually we are not comparing a bowler with an average of 20 and SR of 150 against a bowler with an average of 40 with an SR of 35. Neither of those bowlers exist. It's usually a bowler with an average of 22 vs 24 compared to an SR of like 60 vs 50.

 

[Silver Line]

100% average
0% strike rate

Or not far off, anyway

and for ODIs and T20s?

 

[GIMH]

100% average
0% strike rate

Or not far off, anyway

This is way too extreme, especially with bowlers.

 

[Bolo.]

This is way too extreme, especially with bowlers.

Without having any additional info, it's probably not too far from the truth. A good average can never be a bad thing.

Low SR (which comes with high ER) very frequently will be. Having a poor average in relation to your own attack, or playing in a team only good enough to go for draws is going to happen a lot, and a better ER is typically going to be more useful here

OFC, we tend to confine these analyses to better bowlers. And in that case, yup, way too extreme.

 

[OverratedSanity]

i think alot of users put SR ahead or equal to average in test bowling

And they're wrong to do so.

Yeah I don't think anyone does that. Average is very obviously a superior measure. It's strike rate vs economy rate where it becomes arguable which kind of bowler is more useful

 

[trundler]

Give equal weightage to strike rate and economy rate imo