Cricketing Queries
- Thread starter age of the fall
- Start date
sohum
Executive member
Here's an interesting question... does bowling strike rate include no balls, or not?
I remember figuring it out at some point, but I don't remember.
I remember figuring it out at some point, but I don't remember.
No balls aren't counted in scorecards as a delivery bowled by a bowler, and so subsequently aren't included in the strike rate.
Which makes sense - you can't take wickets off a no-ball, so why should they count as a potential wicket-taking delivery.
They are counted in the balls faced by a batsman though, as a batsman can score runs off a noball.
ZoraxDoom added 1 Minutes and 19 Seconds later...
You can be stumped off a wide. And despite that, a wide isn't counted in the bowler's strike rate - my guess is it's for the same reason above, and that a stumping off a wide is fairly uncommon anyways.
Which makes sense - you can't take wickets off a no-ball, so why should they count as a potential wicket-taking delivery.
They are counted in the balls faced by a batsman though, as a batsman can score runs off a noball.
ZoraxDoom added 1 Minutes and 19 Seconds later...
Nope. You can't. You can only be runout off a noball. Which is attributed to the fielder.
You can be stumped off a wide. And despite that, a wide isn't counted in the bowler's strike rate - my guess is it's for the same reason above, and that a stumping off a wide is fairly uncommon anyways.
sohum
Executive member
They aren't counted as a bowled delivery, but they are definitely kept track of. And they are attributed as a ball faced by a batsman.
Depends on if the strike rate measures legal balls bowled per wicket or just balls bowled per wicket. Imagine the extreme case, where a bloke bowls 9 no-balls and then takes a wicket with his 10th ball, the only valid ball. Should his strike rate be 1 or 10? Extrapolating this out further, I think strike rate would be an inaccurate measure for bowlers who are consistently inaccurate.
Of course, international cricketers typically aren't that bad at bowling no balls so it doesn't make a huge difference. But when I checked out the stats using Cricinfo series averages', I seem to remember finding otherwise--that no balls are actually accounted for in the strike rate.
Stumpings off wides are fairly common, imo. A lot of stumpings happen because bowlers are cognizant enough to throw it down leg or something when they see the batsman coming down the track.
No-balls counted in a bowler's strike rate? Odd
When I keep stats, I count the no-ball as a ball faced by the batsman, yes, but when doing strike rates I only use the legal deliveries bowled. You can't say it takes a bowler 60 deliveries to take a wicket when about 5 of them won't count as legitimate deliveries, and thus can't have wickets taken off them.
Wides, there could be an argument for putting it in the bowler's strike rate. But the fact that the only way you're going to take a wicket with a wide is by a stumping does make it a bit rarer.
As for Stumpings/Runouts...I have maintained that if the ball comes off the bat or pad, it's a runout. If the non striker is run out at the striker's end without any contact (trying to steal a bye), it's a run out. Otherwise it's a stumping.
The proper definition is probably more like if a batsman is attempting a run, it's a runout, but if his foot goes out of the crease in an attempt to play a shot, it's a stumping. But I used the above when scoring/umpiring for simplicity's sake, especially in situations where they walk down and try and tap the ball and run but miss.
When I keep stats, I count the no-ball as a ball faced by the batsman, yes, but when doing strike rates I only use the legal deliveries bowled. You can't say it takes a bowler 60 deliveries to take a wicket when about 5 of them won't count as legitimate deliveries, and thus can't have wickets taken off them.
Wides, there could be an argument for putting it in the bowler's strike rate. But the fact that the only way you're going to take a wicket with a wide is by a stumping does make it a bit rarer.
As for Stumpings/Runouts...I have maintained that if the ball comes off the bat or pad, it's a runout. If the non striker is run out at the striker's end without any contact (trying to steal a bye), it's a run out. Otherwise it's a stumping.
The proper definition is probably more like if a batsman is attempting a run, it's a runout, but if his foot goes out of the crease in an attempt to play a shot, it's a stumping. But I used the above when scoring/umpiring for simplicity's sake, especially in situations where they walk down and try and tap the ball and run but miss.
Themer
Chairman of Selectors
Its a run out if the batsmen makes a conscious effort to attempt to get a run or comes out of his crease looking for the run. Tbh there is barely any difference really.
Probably. I play mostly tape ball cricket in small parking lots, and it isn't of the best quality. You get a lot of occasions where a batsman wanders down the pitch, swings, misses, sets off for the run, tries to get back. Or where they walk down the ground and try and tap the ball and sprint. Or where the keeper is standing far back, so they miss the ball, go for a run, turn back, and the throw comes in.
Just easier to class them all as stumpings tbh.
But at higher levels it's probably on whether or not they attempted the run.
Just easier to class them all as stumpings tbh.
But at higher levels it's probably on whether or not they attempted the run.
ferg512
International Coach
Can someone tell me when the batsmen leaves it when is it a dead ball or not. This is just confusing me.
riz7khan12
Panel of Selectors
i'm not sure if this has been asked before but, if a batsman scores a double hundred in one innings is that recorded as 2 hundreds in his stats?
it's only dead if the ball hits the batsman and the batsman didn't attempt a shot. So its counted as a dot ball and no runs can be scored of it.
it's only dead if the ball hits the batsman and the batsman didn't attempt a shot. So its counted as a dot ball and no runs can be scored of it.
sami ullah khan
Panel of Selectors
^As per my info, it is considered a single hundred.
AbhishekS
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Location
- Mumbai, India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Yes. Whether a 200, 300, 400 or anything more, its considered as a single hundred till now.
P
pcfan123
Guest
Yea the same way you don't get credit for a 50 if you make a hundred. Its hundred only
