What Should Be The Economy Rate For Non-Bowlers

[eagles123]

This issue has been discussed at length on the Discord, and thought it would be interesting to do a poll to see what people thought.

The question is, in a Senior International level one day game, on Sunny/Flat, what should be the average economy rate of a batsman who is selected to bowl. For arguments sake, let's say reasonable summary bowling.

[DEVI]

It should be 13 to 15 runs per over because the main bowler itself giving easy runs as 13 to 15 runs at the critical stage of the match if the partnership builds

[boscorp]

I gave an answer but I do feel it's a bit of a tough question all the same as there are still a lot of variables to consider that could make a big impact on the non-bowlers run rate.
Their bowling style and tactical settings mainly although which bowling spells they fill and the state of the game can also make a difference. An attacking reasonable fast bowler compared to a defensive reasonable medium pacer on a flat in the sun would have a big difference in economy as an example. The state of the game when the non-bowler is used would also make a difference. If the batsmen are already under pressure chasing a high score or having a batting collapse due to the other better bowlers softening them up is another thought.
I would expect it to be an unsuccessful tactic on most occasions but not always. Having a dud bowler high in technique might be just the thing to break a long-standing partnership and spice the match up. I would definitely expect them to be more expensive with the run rate than the other bowlers in the match in the majority of matches whether on the winning or losing side.

[GA-James018]

I said 11-13 as a ballpark figure, since in real life cricket that seems to be the highest scoring rate any team at any level can consistently maintain over a long period of time. I would say even the worst bowlers would not go for more runs per over 'on average' than that, unless they were deliberately bowling badly.

That said, I agree with Boscorp that it's heavily situation-dependent. Luck also plays a major role. A couple of batters could swat full tosses straight to the fielder on the boundary, that on other days they would have hit for six, and that (along with the extra caution the batting team would need to take after losing wickets) could be the difference between the terrible bowler going for 8-9 an over and 15 an over.

[vietd]

What is the IRL equivalent of reasonable bowling summary? Is that like Khawaja bowling or more like Labuschagne or someone else?

[boscorp]

What is the IRL equivalent of reasonable bowling summary? Is that like Khawaja bowling or more like Labuschagne or someone else?

Good question, I've tried looking and there aren't many batsmen who haven't had a crack at bowling the odd part time over. Their economy rate on average is pretty low to my surprise.

[wolfberries]

I'm not sure that steve the club 4th XI bowler is going to rock up on a road against an International line-up and only go for 11 an over

[boscorp]

I'm not sure that steve the club 4th XI bowler is going to rock up on a road against an International line-up and only go for 11 an over

Can't bowl, can't catch? You must be talking about Scotty Muller. He calls himself Steve now.
Rod Marsh even had a crack at bowling against Pakistan, didn't take a wicket but kept the economy under 5. I doubt any called him a reasonable bowler even for a 4th XI side.

[GA-PowerBug]

Probably worth placing a variant of my discord comment in here as well:

The admin team have definitely taken note of this discussion. We are not stuck to the status quo when it comes to the ME and always want to improve the game. People being passionate is a good thing as it highlights care for the game.

There’s enough people who are involved with the discussion within the Admin team who are also unhappy with the current state of this particular issue (eg. me, I believe non-bowlers aren't punished enough).

However, this is not a priority. It’s not game breaking, and we’ve only got so many hours in the day/week to be able to work on this. So I apologise to those who want a change to come in tomorrow, next week or even for the start of next season, it won’t be that soon.

Unlike the discord however, this topic is specifically related to this problem, so feel free to keep discussing it. We are taking notes. I just ask that everyone is respectful to those who may see the situation differently to yourself.

[vietd]

Here's a list of players who have bowled 6 or more balls in an ODI sorted by worst economy rates.
Note there are some players who have conceded 6 off 1 ball that have been excluded from this list.

I have a NAT batsman with ordinary bowling summary. To be honest, I don't mind if he goes at 18 rpo on flat/sunny like Matthew Hayden on the list if he was bowling to NAT batsmen.

I imagine an atrocious summary bowler will go close to 24 per over for no other fact that some balls are simply too hard to hit for six but a batsmen should be able to hit a 4 off every ball or it'll be compensated by extras. An average runs per over that scales down to whatever we're getting between world class batsmen vs world class bowlers currently would be sensible to me.

The game probably does need to have bowlers bowl more wides if they are lowly skilled. Though seeing 9+ ball overs could be frustrating to see but more accurate of club cricket.

I appreciate the acknowledgement there could be an issue and that this is not top of the list.

[Jacko]

Would a "non-bowler" be defined as someone who wouldn't bowl in a div 1 YOD team?

Thinking someone with reasonable or below summary and should go for 15+

Maybe someone capable/reliable summary bowling the middle overs with the field back could go for 8-10

[GA-James018]

I couldn't help but notice that in that whole list, more than half of the listed bowlers only bowled a single over in their career, and everyone except the last one bowled 4 overs or less. That isn't exactly a good sample size to draw conclusions about the "average" economy rate. You will probably find a lot of other "bad" bowlers who bowled only a couple of overs in their career and went at 6-8 an over, or even less.

A counter-argument, of course, is that in real life cricket, very few bowlers who we would consider "reasonable" standard or below would ever bowl at international level at all, and if they did it would only be an over here or there, not potentially a whole spell as happens in FTP. You can picture a terrible bowler getting away with 6 singles off one over - that happens plenty often in real cricket. But you couldn't picture them going for 60 off 10 in a game. At some point the batters would want to take toll.

Still, I'm not seeing anything to support the idea that 18 to 24 runs per over should be the norm against bad bowlers. Sure, a high-quality batter who's well set and trying to smash every ball would probably be able to hit most if not every ball for a boundary, but that's not always the case. There'll be times when the batters have no need to force the pace and are happy to nudge singles for no risk, times when a batter isn't having a good day and swings and misses at a few, times when it's a poorer batter or one new to the crease and getting their eye in... As I said earlier, I think if you averaged out over a long time and all sorts of situations you could find on the cricket field, the economy rate would be much lower than some are suggesting.

[Jujoh]

This. Plus that in ftp there is little room for reasonable summary bowlers other than in the youths. There is potential for more ingame depth here but for now it means a ordinary bowler with high tech comes closest tot being a part-timer.
Where I think is also potential is more accuracy in performances within a game. What I mean is that since the outcome of every ball is a result of the same dice being rolled*, there is no trend throughout a game. A bowler can bowl a great over and then go for four boundaries before taking another wicket maiden. While irl a bowler might have a lucky over, but then get smashed. Or have a great game and keeps bowling the good line and length. And batsmen will also change their strategy each ball, if they have scored a boundary in the over they might be a bit more thoughtful and if they haven't they will go for the bad ball.
If this in game strategy could get a place in the ME we would also see better results for part timers. Getting some respect in the first over before the batsman decides to smash them. It would also set a good basis for more dynamic orders and Captaincy coming into play.

But... this is probably too big a change now and in the future.

[boscorp]

I've given it a crack in my div2 match tonight match 6908592
My batsmen has a bowling summary of average. Thats ordinary bowling, exceptional technique, world class power, exceptional endurance and world class experience. He is a RFM and his figures so far in this game are 5 overs for 57 runs. no extras.
My LFM bowler has a summary of spectacular. Has bowling at exceptional, technique is exceptional, capable power and outstanding endurance along with reliable experience. His first 5 overs include 2 maidens and a total of 10 runs. no extras.
I think the match engine is suitably punishing my batsman for bowling on this occasion. After 28 overs my opponent is scoring at a rate of 5.82.
I am playing a bot side so the end result will be interesting. The lack of extras is concerning as really that is probably the indication we should be seeing when this happens. No balls, wides and byes should probably account for 15 of those 57 runs in this game.
The other side ended up 5/313 and there were 2 extras.
My RFM batsman bowled 10 overs for 101 runs with no extras.
My LFM bowled 10 overs, 2 maidens, 1 for 48.
I think that looks ok considering its a domestic match.

[Jujoh]

Why should we see more extras for batsmen bowling? Bowling a legal delivery isn't difficult.