Should there be a minimum strike-rate requirement for all Pakistani batsmen going forward?

[Savak]

Watching the Australia Bangladesh game, i mean all batsmen who have played and batted have had a strike rate of 100 and a lot above 120-150. End result is we are seeing Australia score 380 and Bangladesh getting decently close to 320 plus.

We on the other hand have Imam, Babar Azam, Hafeez, Malik, Sarfaraz e.t.c. all players who can at best strike at 75-80 plus. You cannot have such low 90's type batsmen in the side anymore.

Something the future selectors and team managements need to consider and look into. All domestic batsmen vying for a spot in the national team must have a SR of 100. This is the only way to encourage future generation of players to expand their stroke play and play outside their comfort zones

 

[Kianig89]

Exactly the team management and thick tank need.to set individual and small goals for player like scoring boundary (4) every 10 balls each batsman taking atleast 6 singles every 10 balls in that way they can built a team but what do they do is just knock the bat and hit shots on throw downs

 

[kingusama92]

Kohli has a SR of 93 in ODIs.

 

[asfandyar]

100+ for openers, 90+ for 3,4,5, 110+ for 6,7,8

 

[Abdullah719]

Kohli doesn't have a SR of 100.

 

[hafizexpress]

No, setting these requirements put pressure on the players and could possibly force some to change their natural game. Just don't pick players that are not suitable for the team and the modern game.

 

[saeedhk]

This is what we need but as always, Pakistan management and think tank are brainless. They don’t have guts to introduce such criterion as it will end careers of people like Imam.

 

[jeetu]

Team like Pakistan needs batsman like Babar and Imam who are consistent scorer. But team cannot afford more such players at top order. Rest among top 5 needs to picked at 90+ SR , no 6-7 should have 100+ SR. Its the combination which will get 275-325 runs on regular basis depending on pitch.

 

[DrSchultz]

All players who face more than 20 balls should keep strike rate above 80. Above 35 balls 90+ and after 50 balls 100+.

 

[Majid Khan]

There was a time when scoring runs quickly was a desirable (‘Nice to have’) quality for a batsman, but in today’s modern cricket it’s true to say that scoring runs quickly is a ‘Must have’ requirement.

The problem is though scoring runs CONSISTENTLY (by that I mean 50s and 100s , not just quickfire 25s) is also a ‘Must have’ - how else do you chase 300 run totals, as strike rate becomes irrelevant if your batsmen are only playing cameos and scoring quarter-centuries (25s) and throwing their wickets away.

So yes in an ideal world , batsmen should not be selected unless they have the potential to play like Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli or Warner - but not every team has that luxury.

The limitations with most Pakistani batsmen over the years is those who can score quickly are not doing this through proper batting , but high risk hitting/slogging - and these guys need about 3 lifes to even get to 50. Where as those who can bat well enough against good bowling and score runs consistently like Babar, Imam, Azhar Ali to a lesser extent, these guys don’t score quickly enough and strike rate is a problem.

It’s a tough nut to crack.

I think you have more potential trying to coach an orthodox batsman like Babar, Imam and Haris Sohail who already have a good range of strokes trying to improve their strike rate with more intent, then expecting a Fakhar Zaman or Asif Ali to tighten up these techniques, cut down on risky shots and learnt to bat consistently to score 50s/100s in different conditions.

 

[asfandyar]

No, setting these requirements put pressure on the players and could possibly force some to change their natural game. Just don't pick players that are not suitable for the team and the modern game.

"Put pressure on them"? Are you serious? They are professionals with set targets. If they can't manage the pressure of targets, then they should start looking for other jobs.

 

[asfandyar]

Team like Pakistan needs batsman like Babar and Imam who are consistent scorer. But team cannot afford more such players at top order. Rest among top 5 needs to picked at 90+ SR , no 6-7 should have 100+ SR. Its the combination which will get 275-325 runs on regular basis depending on pitch.

Who says there aren't batsmen in Pakistan who can average 40+ with 100+ SR? In a country this big, you are bound to find gems more often than other countries such as NZ and SA. The systematic, merit-based approach adopted by the latter means far fewer Pakistani players of substance make it to the top.

 

[AdamM97]

I don’t mind low SR batsman as long as Pakistan can rely on him and if he is a match winner.

 

[Pete Rose]

How are strike rates an issue when we have been posting scores of 300 plus quite regularly.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

Last completed ODIs - Strike Rates

England 322

Roy 233
Bairstow 25
Stokes 90
Malan 100
Buttler 83
Livingston 116
Ali 116
Curran 114
Rashid 86
Wood 67
Topley 100

India 329

Rohit 100
Dhawan 120
Kohli 70
Pant 126
Rahul 39
Hardik 146
Krunal 75
Thaku 143
Kumar 60
Krishna 0
Nataranjan 0


South Africa 341

de Kock 93
Makram 115
Bavuma 90
vd Dussen 162
Miller 185
Klaasen 122
Phehlukwayo 60
Rabada 100

Pakistan 324

Imam 50
Fakhar 125
Babar 94
Rizwan 0
Danish 64
Shadab 57
Asif 70
Faheem 92
Shaheen 33
Haris 20
Hasnain 240

Who is teaching Pakistani batsmen to bat with these strike rates?

 

[UzmanBeast]

Strike rates are not a confusing concept to understand.

A good, talented batsman is able to convert his start into an innings where he accelerates past the number of balls consumed. The output per ball he plays is greater than 1 if we're looking for strike rates above 100.

Pakistani batsman have no destructive ability, and have zero shot selection to find the boundary rope. The likes of Babar and Imam will get their 100s from time to time, but you'll see them out at 101 (113) and the usual sorts. Someone like Jason Roy, David Warner, Rohit Sharma, Jonny Bairstow, and more are able to get to their 50 from about 60 deliveries, and then accelerate to a hundred and put their teams in a commanding position.

It takes genuine talent to operate at a strike rate above 100 and not collapse as a batting side.

The lack of talent in Pakistan is the biggest reason why we even struggle to post 250+ in ODIs, and 150+ in T20s.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

I don’t mind low SR batsman as long as Pakistan can rely on him and if he is a match winner.

Low SR cannot win a match. Maybe there are some odd games where you are chasing 230 and this is possible, but by and large you will not be winning your side any white-ball games by playing at a low SR.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

Strike rates are not a confusing concept to understand.

A good, talented batsman is able to convert his start into an innings where he accelerates past the number of balls consumed. The output per ball he plays is greater than 1 if we're looking for strike rates above 100.

Pakistani batsman have no destructive ability, and have zero shot selection to find the boundary rope. The likes of Babar and Imam will get their 100s from time to time, but you'll see them out at 101 (113) and the usual sorts. Someone like Jason Roy, David Warner, Rohit Sharma, Jonny Bairstow, and more are able to get to their 50 from about 60 deliveries, and then accelerate to a hundred and put their teams in a commanding position.

It takes genuine talent to operate at a strike rate above 100 and not collapse as a batting side.

The lack of talent in Pakistan is the biggest reason why we even struggle to post 250+ in ODIs, and 150+ in T20s.

I am sorry these two arguments are extremely lazy:
1. Pakistan is blessed with the most talent
2. Pakistan has no talent

It is made by people with no supporting argument.

If Pakistan had no talent, why would it win cricket games at all? Why would it beat 4 good teams in a row in the world cup or win champions trophy or beat teams home and away, how would it go toe to toe with England in England, continue to win T20 series in hard places (another lazy argument: other teams don't focus on T20s - as if they play an elite game to lose), why would they sometimes cross into top 4 or 5 or be top of the world in tests and T20s? That too, playing away from home too.

Please!

 

[Civil]

We need to milk singles better too. Deflect and go. This is a crucial component in strike rate.

Boundaries are necessary and they will come, bowlers will give some boundary balls and stroke play will get you some.. but over reliance on boundaries, chokes things up and creates bad shots.

Aus eng and Ind batsman are so good at this in ODIs.

 

[UzmanBeast]

I am sorry these two arguments are extremely lazy:
1. Pakistan is blessed with the most talent
2. Pakistan has no talent

It is made by people with no supporting argument.

If Pakistan had no talent, why would it win cricket games at all? Why would it beat 4 good teams in a row in the world cup or win champions trophy or beat teams home and away, how would it go toe to toe with England in England, continue to win T20 series in hard places (another lazy argument: other teams don't focus on T20s - as if they play an elite game to lose), why would they sometimes cross into top 4 or 5 or be top of the world in tests and T20s? That too, playing away from home too.

Please!

With regards to the modern day batting requirements, Pakistan has no batsmen with the talent to sustain high strike rates consistently without flopping repeatedly.

If Pakistan had batting talent, we'd be able to chase 300+ targets, and the records show that we do not fare well in chases at all.

There are some talented guys on the team, and Pakistan mostly wins games because players play to their limits. However, if you read the rest of my argument, I was specifically talking about players capable of operating at high strike rates.

The supporting argument is perhaps seen in the chase against South Africa. Nobody can stand during a run chase, especially one that is above 300. It is not a good sign for the team if we are not able to compete in high scoring games.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

With regards to the modern day batting requirements, Pakistan has no batsmen with the talent to sustain high strike rates consistently without flopping repeatedly.

If Pakistan had batting talent, we'd be able to chase 300+ targets, and the records show that we do not fare well in chases at all.

There are some talented guys on the team, and Pakistan mostly wins games because players play to their limits. However, if you read the rest of my argument, I was specifically talking about players capable of operating at high strike rates.

The supporting argument is perhaps seen in the chase against South Africa. Nobody can stand during a run chase, especially one that is above 300. It is not a good sign for the team if we are not able to compete in high scoring games.

Yes. Pakistan is terrible at chasing. I'd however argue that this has more to do with team psyche and less with scoring rate. They would regularly bottle up chases under 200 with players like Inzi, yousuf, Anwar and others in the team. Players like Fakhar, Babar, Sharjeel, Haris, Faheem are all capable enough to score at 100+. The same England team under another captain had way lower strike rates than when Morgan took over with an entirely different philosophy and confidence.

Currently Pakistan is 10th amongst recognized teams in 300+ chases (to prove your point) and slightly better at 6th in <200 chases (to prove my point). Just poor chasers overall.

However, I should also point out Pakistan has a good record of chasing 300+ scores at home - pity they don't play that many matches at home and also, don't concede 300+ as much as much as some other teams. Overall a mixed bag.

All 3 charts are attached. Not sure if you'll be able to see them though. @mods help.

 

[zulfiqar]

Having a bar for entry of a minimum strike rate might be too restrictive, but I know where Savak is coming from. When it comes to scoring quickly, the sense of urgency just isn't there. This suggests to me that the management/coach does not advocate for batting quicker. I remember an interview where Misbah answered a question regarding why we don't bat aggressively, and he responded something along the lines of "we would love to but don't have the personnel."

I think that line of reasoning is a bit flawed and I see myself agreeing more with Corridor of Uncertainty's point of view that these guys can score at good strike rates when they want to but just need the team's strategy to demand that from them. For example, there is no reason why Babar cannot accelerate his game in ODIs the same way he does in T20s - it's more an issue of the coach/team demanding it from him.

 

[UzmanBeast]

Yes. Pakistan is terrible at chasing. I'd however argue that this has more to do with team psyche and less with scoring rate. They would regularly bottle up chases under 200 with players like Inzi, yousuf, Anwar and others in the team. Players like Fakhar, Babar, Sharjeel, Haris, Faheem are all capable enough to score at 100+. The same England team under another captain had way lower strike rates than when Morgan took over with an entirely different philosophy and confidence.

Currently Pakistan is 10th amongst recognized teams in 300+ chases (to prove your point) and slightly better at 6th in <200 chases (to prove my point). Just poor chasers overall.

However, I should also point out Pakistan has a good record of chasing 300+ scores at home - pity they don't play that many matches at home and also, don't concede 300+ as much as much as some other teams. Overall a mixed bag.

All 3 charts are attached. Not sure if you'll be able to see them though. @mods help.

View attachment 108408

View attachment 108409

View attachment 108410

Team spirit and confidence are too vague to measure. Capability can be measured with much more ease.

For example, Imam's career strike rate in ODIs is about 80. Babar is at about 88. In T20s, Babar's strike rate is barely above 130.

Fakhar has the best strike rate among the players on the team, at about 97.

The likes of Imam, who have a career strike rate well below 100, are highly unlikely to bat at high strike rates because they are not capable of doing that.

Talent plays a major factor in the way players can adapt to different game situations, and how wide their skillset actually is. When people have a limited skillset and play every game the same way, that's when you run into problems as the plans will fail more often than not.

Players need to push themselves, once they reach 50 and have wickets in hand, they need to dominate the other team.

 

[globalcitizen]

A naturally aggressive and busy cricketer will have higher strike rate. These characteristics cannot be forced or mandated by team management.

There could be multiple reasons for someone to not play at a higher rate, could be lack of form, lack of fitness, or you are given a certain role because of overall batting strength

Players like bevan and Dhoni had high strike rate because of their running between wickets(amazing fitness) and an odd boundary

Players like gayle sehwag Gilchrist had high rates because of natural abilities

All other type of players fall can still have higher strike rates if those conditions are satisfied as mentioned above

Of course openers will naturally have higher strike rate. But I think any team which also has a middle and lower order which can bat with higher gears generally will chase bigger scores

Coming to Pakistan, based on my observation it's more to do with roles, fitness and overall weak middle to lower order force them to play like that.

 

[Hasan123]

It’s not just looking at strike rate. Pakistan selectors need to look at batters who can play 360 degrees versus pace and spin.