Strike Rates of Indian bowlers
vijay...@my-deja.com
and what struck me as startling was that the SRs for
the newer bunch of bowlers is pretty good, even while
their averages are pathetic.
There are just 19 bowlers with a career SR
below 72 (min. 20 test wickets - 58 bowlers)
Of these, 10 have played in this decade, and
6 made their debut in the 2000s.
M Nissar 25 28.28 48.4
S Sreesanth 60 32.01 56.4
C Sharma 61 35.45 56.8
RP Singh 40 39.10 58.2
IK Pathan 100 32.26 58.8
JM Patel 29 21.96 59.4
Z Khan 242 32.98 59.5
RMH Binny 47 32.63 61
N Kapil Dev 434 29.64 63.9
I Sharma 66 34.93 64
J Srinath 236 30.49 64
KD Ghavri 109 33.54 64.5
L Balaji 27 37.18 65
ND Hirwani 66 30.10 65.1
BS Chandrasekhar 242 29.74 65.9
Harbhajan Singh 355 30.94 65.9
A Kumble 619 29.65 65.9
MM Patel 34 36.17 70.4
A Kuruvilla 25 35.68 70.6
Their averages are nothing to write home
about, however (True for most Indian
bowlers - the best for 20 wickets or more is
Jasu Patel with 21.96. Nissar is next with 28.28)
Are the Indian bowlers today more agressive
and hence have better strike rates and higher
averages? Or are the batsmen more impatient?
Not sure if this trend of higher averages, lower
SR holds true across the spectrum.
Vijay
tendulkar.com
A: Scoreboard Pressure
B: Better Fielders
C: Neutral Umpires
D: Better Support from other bowlers (opening up more possibility to
tail-enders)
E: Result-oriented (No more playing Test matches to get batting
practice and declare at 300-4 in 150 overs)
Andrew Dunford
"tendulkar.com" <tendul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e00d63a-02be-4c90...@f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Blimey, talk about over-elaboration. They're simply better bowlers than in
the past.
Andrew
jzfredricks
deja.com> wrote:
Surely better SR *and* worse Average simply means the Economy is
worse. No?
shankar.data
Definitions:
SR = number of balls per wicket
Average = number of runs per wicket
This begs the question, if you need to pick between two bowlers
(Sreesanth and Bedi) assuming similar conditions and formats etc.
For the obvious inference:
Better bowler => better SR and better Average
Worse bowler => worse SR and worse Average
For the tricky part:
You pick Sreesanth if you are a high scoring batting team and the
batting team occupies the crease bulk of the time batting. (i.e You
have runs to spare and less time to get the opposition out)
You pick Bedi if your batting team is a low scoring team that occupies
the crease less of the time batting. (i.e You have not many runs to
get the opposition out but lots of time to get them out)
I am sure you can make a few such inferences that may result in you
picking a different bowler under different circumstances and formats
when the two bowlers are better in the two metrics.
Perhaps I should use a pace bowler with a better average and worse
strike rate to pick between Sreesanth and bowler X make it more real.
-sn
KingOfPain
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf99822f-8edf-44cb...@q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...<quote>
Surely better SR *and* worse Average simply means the Economy is
worse. No?
Not implying that the following is alien to you, but just posting here for
general use:
Let's say the bowler bowled B balls (O overs) to get W wickets and conceded
R runs.
SR = B/W
Avg = R/W
Econ = R/O = (R/B)*6 = (Avg/SR)*6
Avg = (Econ*SR)/6
SR = (Avg/Econ)*6
The 6 in all these equations comes from the unfortunate fact that Economy
Rate is calculated as per over while the
SR used # of balls.
So to answer your question, start with
Econ = 6*Avg/SR
better strile rate => SR is lower which increases the Econ.
worse average => Avg. is higher which also increases the Econ.
Therefore. you are correct. Econ rate increases due to each of these effects
which causes the bowler to have a bad Economy rate.
Cheers!
--
Vig
KingOfPain
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:868fte...@mid.individual.net...
> Blimey, talk about over-elaboration. They're simply better bowlers than
> in the past.
To be more specific, I think the support bowlers have been much better
recently. I am sure Javagal Srinath or Kapil Dev could really have used an
RP Singh or an Ashish Nehra as opposed to an Ankola or a Bangar.
Cheers!
--
Vig
John Hall
<b444545c-cc88-4ed7...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
"vijay...@my-deja.com" <vijay...@my-deja.com> writes:
>I was going through the performances of Indian bowlers,
>and what struck me as startling was that the SRs for
>the newer bunch of bowlers is pretty good, even while
>their averages are pathetic.
Could that be because a greater proportion of the recent bowlers are
quick bowlers than tended to be the case in the past? If you have a
quick bowler and a spinner with similar averages, you generally find
that the quickie is less economical in runs per over but has a better
strike rate. (There are plenty of exceptions, of course.)
--
John Hall
"I don't even butter my bread; I consider that cooking."
Katherine Cebrian
vijay...@my-deja.com
> In article
> <b444545c-cc88-4ed7-a4e1-679ad2322...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "vijaykum...@my-deja.com" <vijaykum...@my-deja.com> writes:
> >I was going through the performances of Indian bowlers,
> >and what struck me as startling was that the SRs for
> >the newer bunch of bowlers is pretty good, even while
> >their averages are pathetic.
>
> Could that be because a greater proportion of the recent bowlers are
> quick bowlers than tended to be the case in the past? If you have a
> quick bowler and a spinner with similar averages, you generally find
> that the quickie is less economical in runs per over but has a better
> strike rate. (There are plenty of exceptions, of course.)
> --
> John Hall
>
> "I don't even butter my bread; I consider that cooking."
> Katherine Cebrian
But then, quicker bowlers also happen to have lower
averages. This lot doesn't.
Even if we compare to other quicks like Kapil
and Srinath - the newer lot have lower strike
rates and higher averages.
Vijay