Bowling Average vs Bowling Strike Rate: The Two Key Bowling Stats Explained
What bowling average and bowling strike rate measure, how they differ, why some bowlers have great averages but poor strike rates, and how to use both stats together to evaluate a bowler's true quality.
Two numbers capture most of what matters about a cricket bowler's effectiveness: bowling average (how many runs are conceded per wicket taken) and bowling strike rate (how many balls are bowled per wicket taken). Together they answer the two fundamental questions about any bowler: when they do take wickets, how cheaply did they bowl to get them; and how often do those wickets actually come? A bowler who takes wickets cheaply but infrequently is valued differently from one who takes wickets frequently but expensively.
Bowling Average: Runs Per Wicket
Bowling average = Total runs conceded ÷ Total wickets taken. A bowler who has conceded 2,000 runs and taken 100 wickets has a bowling average of 20.00. A lower bowling average is better — it means wickets cost fewer runs. The all-time Test bowling average record is held by George Lohmann (England, 1886–96) at 10.75 in 18 Tests, though his era comparison is limited. Among bowlers with 200+ wickets, Sydney Barnes (16.43) and Clarrie Grimmett (24.21) represent the extremes. In the modern era, averages below 20 are exceptional; 25–30 is solid for a regular Test wicket-taker.
Bowling Strike Rate: Balls Per Wicket
Bowling strike rate = Total balls bowled ÷ Total wickets taken. A bowler who has bowled 3,000 balls and taken 100 wickets has a bowling strike rate of 30.00. A lower strike rate is better — it means wickets come more frequently. Note that 'bowling strike rate' works inversely to 'batting strike rate': for batters, higher is better; for bowlers, lower is better. Strike rate of 40–50 in Tests is elite; 55–65 is solid; above 70 suggests a bowler who is economical but not highly productive.
When Average and Strike Rate Tell Different Stories
The gap between bowling average and strike rate reveals important things about a bowler's style. A defensive spinner who bowls 25 overs per wicket but concedes only 3 runs per over has a strike rate of 150 but an average of 75 — very cheap, but rarely decisive. Conversely, an aggressive swing bowler taking a wicket every 35 balls but at 35 runs each (economy rate 6.0) has a good strike rate but a mediocre average. Real examples: Jimmy Anderson had a career economy under 3.00 in Tests with a strike rate around 57 — combining tight economy with consistent wicket-taking. Harbhajan Singh had periods where his average climbed while his strike rate remained acceptable, suggesting he was bowling tight but needed more overs to dismiss batters.
How to Use Both Stats Together
The most useful way to evaluate a bowler uses all three rate stats together. A bowler with a low average, low strike rate, and low economy rate is the rarest and most valuable type — they take wickets cheaply and frequently. The mathematical relationship between the three: bowling average = bowling strike rate × economy rate ÷ 6. So a bowler with a strike rate of 42 and an economy of 3.00 will have an average of 21.00. This formula shows why you cannot independently optimise all three: improving economy (bowling more defensively) typically increases strike rate (fewer wickets), which can push average either way depending on the interaction. Great bowling combines aggression with control — the hardest skill in the game to develop consistently.
Frequently asked questions
Which is more important in Test cricket — a low bowling average or a low bowling strike rate — and do the greatest Test bowlers excel in both or specialise in one?
The relative importance of bowling average versus strike rate in Tests depends on the team context and the bowler's role, but the greatest Test bowlers tend to excel in both simultaneously rather than specialising, and the historical record supports average as the slightly more important single metric for overall quality. Why average edges out strike rate as the primary metric: bowling average directly reflects the cost of each wicket. A wicket that costs 25 runs has contributed something concrete to the opposition's run total; a wicket that costs 40 runs has come at a significant price. Teams score a total number of runs before being dismissed, and the bowling average represents the bowler's contribution to limiting that total per wicket. Strike rate tells you how often, but average tells you at what price — and in a game where total runs decide outcomes, price per wicket has a direct connection to result. Why strike rate matters too: a bowler with an average of 22 but a strike rate of 80 is taking wickets at one every 80 balls (roughly 13 overs per wicket). In a five-day Test where 450+ overs may be bowled, such a bowler might take 5–6 wickets per innings if bowled extensively — which is excellent. But a bowler with an average of 22 and a strike rate of 40 takes the same wickets at half the intervals, generating more dismissal pressure and allowing captains to be more aggressive with field placements. The greatest combined performers: Malcolm Marshall (average 20.94, strike rate 46.8) and Dale Steyn (22.95, 42.3) are the clearest examples of bowlers who dominated both metrics simultaneously. Joel Garner and Curtly Ambrose had sub-21 averages with strike rates below 55. These bowlers were dominant because their wickets were both cheap and frequent. Specialists who excelled in one: Glenn McGrath's average (21.64) was better than his strike rate (51.9) relative to peers — he was remarkably economical and slightly less frequently dominant than the West Indies fast bowlers above him. Shane Warne had an excellent average (25.41) and a strike rate (57.4) that reflected his slower approach to setting batters up. Neither specialised exclusively — both were outstanding in both metrics by any historical standard.