Strike rates

It appears that the most focused aspect of batting currently surrounds strike rates. The advent of T20, T10, The Hundred have accelerated the demand for scoring quicker and quicker. It makes sense to a degree, but nonsense on many levels also. I wouldn’t normally be that direct, but the laziness around strike rates and coaching of it baffles me.

The mini set out below would be my simple interpretation. Please add your own thoughts.

Which is the most important factor? Strike rate? Context? Scoring Runs?

Strike rate - proactive / boundary seeking / scoring off lots of deliveries

Context - the game / match situation awareness / decision making clarity

Scoring Runs - primary purpose / game value for team / knolwedge of strengths

Is the focus on strike rate taking note of the game? If applied with context, yes. If applied simply because it’s demanded, not necessarily. Quick runs or weight of runs? Does a high strike rate always have the impact desired?

Is the focus on context taking note of the game? 100% yes. That is all it is. Context is the game. The best have the ability to play the game in front of them not the game in their head.

Is the focus on scoring runs taking note of the game? If applied with context, yes. If applied for oneself, not necessarily. We’ve all seen batters occupy the crease for personal gain over the teams needs.

The balance of strike rates, context and scoring runs needs careful management and attention. 

I used to play for a team that had a goal week in week out that our target at the end of the first twenty overs should be sixty runs. It drove me bonkers… It didn’t factor in:

-         The quality of the opposition bowlers

-         The playing conditions (pitch / weather)

-         Were we setting a target or chasing a target?

-         What was historical par for twenty overs on that ground?

-         Add your own…

Therefore, the context to the plan was minimal at best as it ignored a bank of information that could have been used to ensure clear plans were established weekly.

And I’ll return to strike rates. When teams turn up at grounds, do they know beforehand what the average score is on that ground? If so, their starting point re strike rates should start there. If the average score is three hundred in a fifty over game, we know that a team strike rate of one hundred is relevant. What are the playing conditions today? Will this factor into the probable par score? Are we playing a batter strength or bowler strength team? Are we setting a target or chasing? If we’re chasing we have the ability to frame our plans with absolute clarity. If we’re setting a target how soon within the innings will we know what par might be? We certainly won’t know before a ball has been bowled, even with a bank of information.

How often do teams turn up at games and state a target score without factoring in information to support the target score? The home team on the same ground will have a decent idea. The away team?

An example. I was asked to coach a club several years ago that were bottom of their league at the mid-point of the season. I wasn’t too aware of their season to date so looked up their first half of the season results. When I first met the team, I asked two questions. 1. How many times had they batted their allotted overs so far that season and 2. How could they win the league from the position they were currently in? The answer to question one was quite simple. They hadn’t yet. In response to question two they thought I was mad.

To address question one, we abandoned aggression in the first ten over power play. Instead we focused on batting well within the last ten overs. The team started batting for fifty overs and competing. The team barely survived by virtue of one point on the final day of the season.

I undertook a study of every game played that season by every team and discovered:

-         No team bowled out within fifty overs batting first, won a game unless they bowled the opposition out, irrespective of strike rates, individual or collective.

-         Teams that batted second that weren’t bowled out won all but one game. Therefore the winning teams strike rate was relevant to the target chased.

I coached the team again the next season, but before I had agreed I had organised a trip to Amsterdam which coincided with the final weekend. I was sat on a boat on the final Saturday morning of the season when my mobile phone rang. It was the captain. We had a brief chat before he asked, “do you remember what you said to us the first time you coached us”? I did. I asked him why he asked. He said, “you asked us how we might win the league from this position” – I remembered obviously, and he continued, “and we’re top of the league going into the final game”.

It wasn’t strike rates, it was learning about game context and some simple core approaches that ensure teams compete from one week to the next. My simple view is that I want to see our best batters batting within the last ten overs. The last ten overs are when games are won and lost. A game is never won in the first ten, but often lost. I know T20 is different, but again, is a match ever won in the first six overs?

Many years ago I watched a team chasing 330 in fifty overs bowled out for 240 in thirty overs. A better strike rate than the team batting first but a loss by 90 runs. Context? Planning? Pointless?

And a key thing to remember is, development and club cricket is different than pro cricket. Pro cricketers practice their skill almost daily. Development is especially about learning. Club cricketers have many other commitments beyond practicing. You can’t expect to play like pros so why adopt their approach?

By all means build your strike rates, but ask yourself, did my innings today a) help the team and b) provide me with a great deal of fulfilment. If yes, all well and good. If no?



Oh, and by the way, the team lost the final game of the season! There is no magic…