The Strike Rate - Best measure of a fast-bowler's ability?

[MenInG]

Currently -

Rabada ahead but a few Pakistanis in there.

How come likes of Bumrah etc are not in this list?

 

[Robert]

Combination of average and strike rate IMO.

You also have to consider the era. The great Alan Davidson had a miserly economy rate and low average, but struck every sixty-something balls - but that was in the 'sixties when the wickets became covered, and I don't think there were new balls every ninety overs or so - the bowlers had to keep going with the old one.

 

[sweep_shot]

Both strike rate and average are important.

Strike rate = How many balls per wicket on average.
Average = How many runs conceded per wicket.

Bowlers who excel in both are the best bowlers.

 

[Ab Fan]

Some bowlers leak a lot of runs too even though their strike rate is excellent. Ultimately, the best outcome is always a combination of average and strike rate. If you don't go for a lot of runs and capable enough to bowl long spells, that's as good as having low strike rate but still leaking a lot of runs during the same time.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Everyone in their right mind would choose Wasim/Mcgrath over Waqar so definitely Average is way more important than strike rate provided that your strike rate isn't too bad (which usually isn't the case) .

 

[Justcrazy]

You need both kind of bowlers , If I am a captain I would like to have two strike bowlers at least and one steady bowler.

 

[pratiktc]

Everyone in their right mind would choose Wasim/Mcgrath over Waqar so definitely Average is way more important than strike rate provided that your strike rate isn't too bad (which usually isn't the case) .

Waqar avg is also better than Wasim

 

[MenInG]

Another point to ponder:

 

[cricketjoshila]

Ambrose McGrath Wasim Hadlee Imran etc are not on that list. But they are certainly better than number of bowlers on that list.

At the end of the day, X team has to score more than Y team to win a match.

A team bowled out for 250 in 80 overs and another for 300 in 70 overs.

The other team has to score 300 plus to get a lead or win.

 

[wrongun]

Combination of average and strike rate IMO.

You also have to consider the era. The great Alan Davidson had a miserly economy rate and low average, but struck every sixty-something balls - but that was in the 'sixties when the wickets became covered, and I don't think there were new balls every ninety overs or so - the bowlers had to keep going with the old one.

Conditions of play a huge factor here, as you say. Is is the style and skills of cricket at the time.

SR massively favours bowlers from the pre covered pitches era and the modern era where they don't face batsmen with many defensive skills at all (often). You won't see a fast bowler from the 1980s or 1990s in the atg SR charts. Or 60s & 70s for that matter either. (maybe Waqar the lone hand?)

SR tells you something about a bowler. Ability to strike- yes. But also how aggressive they were. Underneath that may be how they were used- were they useless in some conditions or in long spells so were never USED that way by their captains?

But average matters in telling of a well rounded bowler and works better across era imo.

 

[ads101]

Think SR is overrated. A lot of bowlers can get wickets bowling badly. I remember there was an ashes match where Finn bowled awful despite broad and Anderson bowling decent, yet he ended up with a 5fer as the australian batsmen hit out at the end to set a declaration and he got wickets. A bowler that bowls with a good economy rarely bowls badly though, he might simply just be unlucky not to get wickets. Or the pressure he creates allows his bowling partner to benefit picking up wickets (as they target him).

For example Abbas and Hasan have similar bowling averages. Abbas has a much higher SR than Hasan, Hasan has a much worse economy rate than Abbas. Which is the better bowler over their career? It's been Abbas by a landslide IMO. And when you are leaking runs easily, you are letting down your bowling teammate who will struggle to keep pressure. Hasan Ali has a higher SR than Mcgrath too, who is probably the best fast bowler of all time. So I don't think it's the best stat.

Average is the best indicator really. But I do think SR is overrated, I'd much rather have a bowler who is hard to score off and keeps the pressure on.

 

[introvert]

Strike rate without considering conceded runs context is useless.

Only thing it suggests is that a bowler's wicket taking ability which depending on match situation may be vital or not.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Strike rate is good. Very fast bowlers don't bowl that many overs. If they dismiss 3 tailenders in 3 overs That strike rate will go up dramatically. This can be misleading. Overall a good metrics to judge a pacer in Tests if they have played a sufficient number of Tests. If we use 25 wicket minimum requirement Axar patel will be at no.1 with a strike rate of 33

 

[jnaveen1980]

Rabada's strike in India 92 in Pakistan 84