Bored Members - Guests | Media | White Bored | Interview | Bored Anthem - Songs | Boredwaani | Cartoons | Facebook | Twitter | Login

On economy rates and net run rates

by Golandaaz


I don't like statistics like "Economy Rate" and the obsession with "Net Run Rates".

I don't get it; especially in T20 cricket. I mean, I do get it; in the sense of what they mean; but I don't understand why they are so central in assessing a bowlers or a team's standing in relation to their peers, respectively.

6 runs per over or thereabouts is considered a decent "economy rate" for bowlers these days in T20 cricket and ODI cricket if you are Ashish Nehra,

But how does it reflect "economy"? When I think economical bowling I think of Even Chatfield from New Zealand. His figures, I agree deserve to be highlighted with a calculation of his economy.

To say that a spell of 4-3-49-0; where the 3 is the number of dot balls, has an economy rate of 12.25, is to suggest that a prostitute has something called a virginity factor. And the 3 days of abstinence of sex in a month is supposed to tell us something more about her.

The other statistic that bothers me is the Net Run Rate. Why so much focus on run scoring or preventing ability? Why, if all other things being equal, should 2 sides be separated based on the difference between run scoring and run preventing ability?

Why not a "Net Strike Rate"? Where we separate sides based on their frequency of taking and holding on to their wickets.

Why have we reduced bowlers to the level of prostitutes whose sole function is to pleasure their clients (also known as batsmen) and anything the bowlers themselves score; does not count at all.

Golandaaz blogs @ Opinons on Cricket where he teams up with Vidooshak to opine on cricket. Their facebook page is open for "likes".


6 comments:

Aditya said...

In cricket you win by scoring runs and especially in T20 you win by preventing the other teams by not scoring runs..the bottomline is you need not get a team out (take 20 wickets ala test matches) to win a game..and wickets are aplenty in T20..when a team batting goes for runs they are bound to loose wickets in a heap, so they should be banished for that?

Example: Team A : 145/3(20 overs) and Team B 146/5(16 overs) as per your analysis team A profits in from the game (points aside)

and for a live example the MI vs PWI game where MI chased down the target of the last ball, by your method PWI would be at a huge loss as they took 3 wickets only but bowled very well to stifle down the runs!

straight point said...

To say that a spell of 4-3-49-0; where the 3 is the number of dot balls, has an economy rate of 12.25, is to suggest that a prostitute has something called a virginity factor. And the 3 days of abstinence of sex in a month is supposed to tell us something more about her.

one of the most original lines i have read in a while... tho that does not mean i agree with you...

in a world where batsmen are given license to throw everything without the fear of losing wickets... everything that can be highlighted should be for bowlers...

Golandaaz said...

Aditya, thanks for your comments boss.

In cricket, you ca also win by taking wickets but the NRR completely discounts wickets

Golandaaz said...

SP,

thanks sir.

Govind Raj said...

T-20 is so loaded in favor of batsmen. A bowler could have a very decent spell of 3-7-13-1.

In the last over, there is a misfield of first ball and an overthrow of second ball. Then a catch is dropped on the boundary that goes for 6 and the fourth ball ends in an inner edge go for a four.

Fifth ball a bouncer is called wide by the Umpire because the batsman is just 4'11'. The next ball, a low full toss goes for a 4 through slips and the totally distraught bowler bowls a length ball hit for a six.

Now the analysis will read...
4-3-42-1 ! That is Cricket T-20.

Sometimes I want to seriously injure the Batsman if his name is not Virendar Sehwag !

Aditya said...

I meant in Limited overs cricket, if you have wickets in hand you go and try to hit runs, if a team takes wickets regularly they won't score 180+ in a T20, no? thats what I wanted to say.