The impact of strike rate :halo: (for cricket fans unaware of it,[Only]*)
*
…
…
…
…]
Shoaib akhter’s 4 wickets in 11 overs (@econ = 3.27) were enough to restrict South Africa to a total score of 124 (in just 40 overs).
On the other hand M Ntini delivered better performance with 6 wickets in 21 overs (@econ = 2.80) but pakistan still managed to score 265 runs and a lead of 140+.
Similarly despite delivering a better performance than Shoaib, Mohammad Asif with his 5 wickets in 38 overs (@econ = 2.00) failed to retrict South Africa within 140. SA managed to score 331.
Pakistan in South Africa Test Series - 2nd Test http://content-pak.cricinfo.com/rsavpak/engine/current/match/250666.html
yes thats cause the economy is usually higher when a bowler is bowling for quick wickets (==>strike rate) and so is the run rate. Shoaib bowled for wickets and so more runs were scored against him.
A deadly bowler like Shoaib or Waqar can take quick wickets at better strike rates.
[Quote]
"Imran bhai kehtay theh keh runs ki parwah mat karo bus wicket lo kisi tarah"
Waqar Younis **
**( :) ) Wrong person to quote at this stage perhaps
^ If you look at bowling figures you will notice that it was Asif who was more expensive compared to Shoaib in that inning . The point is that you can't use one bowler as reference when comparing performance of "team".
I think the meaning of this thread can be encompassed in one line that umer.ashraf quoted
It is good to have a good economy rate but a good economy rate alone wont win you games. An economy of 4 and a strike rate of 16 is way better than an economy of 2 and SR 45.
*For people who are not familiar with a bowler's strike rate: It is the number of balls that it takes a bowler to get a wicket on average.
Economy rate: Is the number of runs a bowler gives away every over, on average.*
