Had something on my mind and wanted to see what you all think of it: more and more Test cricketers are getting rated according to their strike rate, rather than their averages. Virender Sehwag and Dale Steyn are two of the most prominent examples, who although they have good averages as well, the thing that makes them 'great' is their strike rates.
Remember that strike rate is captured in the average. Sehwag doesn't last for a lot of balls compared to a Dravid for example, but scores a lot in those balls and hence he still has a good average. Steyn gets wickets very frequently, but also has a high economy rate which gets captured when you combine the 2 for his average.
A good strike rate is great for attacking cricket, but what happens when things aren't going your way and you have to save a Test? You can see from Sehwag's poor record in the 3rd and 4th innings that his value drops a LOT. So he's a fantastic attacking player, but poor player when more defensive cricket might be needed.
Generally though you don't see this type of thought process for bowlers. It seems the assumption is that a low strike rate can never be bad. But should not the limitations that Sehwag faces apply to Steyn as well? What happens when a batsman in seeing the ball really well, has the measure of Steyn and the only way he'll get out is through his own mistake? ie. What happens when more defensive measures are in order? In that case, Steyn is just going to leak runs, and quickly. And a match could slip away from South Africa more quickly than if 2 steadier bowlers were on.
What do you guys think? I'm not saying bowlers with great strike rates are bad eg. I think Waqar always gets a raw deal in comparison to Wasim, and Waqar has the better strike rate, and of course Steyn is still the #1 quick in world cricket. I'm just saying that a great strike rate is not the be all and end all of bowling, a well rounded bowler should be able to be defensive as well.
Anyone agree? Am I on the wrong track? What do you guys think on the subject?
Remember that strike rate is captured in the average. Sehwag doesn't last for a lot of balls compared to a Dravid for example, but scores a lot in those balls and hence he still has a good average. Steyn gets wickets very frequently, but also has a high economy rate which gets captured when you combine the 2 for his average.
A good strike rate is great for attacking cricket, but what happens when things aren't going your way and you have to save a Test? You can see from Sehwag's poor record in the 3rd and 4th innings that his value drops a LOT. So he's a fantastic attacking player, but poor player when more defensive cricket might be needed.
Generally though you don't see this type of thought process for bowlers. It seems the assumption is that a low strike rate can never be bad. But should not the limitations that Sehwag faces apply to Steyn as well? What happens when a batsman in seeing the ball really well, has the measure of Steyn and the only way he'll get out is through his own mistake? ie. What happens when more defensive measures are in order? In that case, Steyn is just going to leak runs, and quickly. And a match could slip away from South Africa more quickly than if 2 steadier bowlers were on.
What do you guys think? I'm not saying bowlers with great strike rates are bad eg. I think Waqar always gets a raw deal in comparison to Wasim, and Waqar has the better strike rate, and of course Steyn is still the #1 quick in world cricket. I'm just saying that a great strike rate is not the be all and end all of bowling, a well rounded bowler should be able to be defensive as well.
Anyone agree? Am I on the wrong track? What do you guys think on the subject?