Bowling Average Explained: What the Number Actually Measures
The bowling average formula (runs conceded divided by wickets taken), what it tells you about a bowler's efficiency, how bowling average compares to bowling strike rate and economy rate as measures of bowling quality, why bowling average is considered the primary measure of bowling greatness in Test cricket, the historical benchmarks, and why the same average means very different things in different eras.
The Formula and What It Means
Bowling average = runs conceded ÷ wickets taken. A bowling average of 25 means the bowler conceded an average of 25 runs per wicket across their career. A lower bowling average is better — a bowler who takes wickets very cheaply (25 runs or fewer per wicket) is significantly more efficient than one who takes wickets at 35 runs each. The bowling average represents the 'cost' of each wicket: it answers the question 'on average, how many runs did the bowling side have to concede to get one dismissal from this bowler?' A bowler with a 20 average is getting wickets twice as cheaply as a bowler with a 40 average, which in the economy of Test match cricket is transformative.
Historical Benchmarks
In Test cricket, bowling averages below 25 are considered excellent for pace bowlers; below 20 is elite. George Lohmann (England, 1886-1896) holds the all-time Test bowling average record at 10.75 — an average so extraordinary it reflects both his quality and the early-era opposition he faced. Among modern (post-1950) pace bowlers, the elite averages cluster between 20-25: Malcolm Marshall 20.94, Joel Garner 20.97, Curtly Ambrose 20.99, Glenn McGrath 21.64. Shane Warne (leg-spin) averaged 25.41 across 708 wickets — a remarkable combination of volume and quality. Bowling averages above 35-40 at international level represent modest effectiveness relative to the runs conceded.
Era Inflation and Deflation
Bowling averages are not directly comparable across eras because run-scoring levels change significantly over time. In the 1880s-1910s, batting averages were much lower (more difficult pitches, no LBW protection outside leg stump, different bat manufacturing), which meant wickets were cheaper — producing lower bowling averages. In the 1950s-1970s, batting averages rose (better pitch preparation, protective equipment reducing intimidation effectiveness). In the modern era (2010s-2020s), T20-influenced batting and pitches prepared for results (flatter batting pitches to force a result in Tests) have pushed bowling averages up. A bowler averaging 27 in the 2020s is statistically comparable to a bowler averaging 22 in the 1980s — the absolute number without era context can mislead.
Frequently asked questions
What bowling average is considered good in different formats?
The format benchmark for 'good' bowling average differs significantly. In Tests: below 25 is good for pace bowlers, below 30 is above average, 30-35 is moderate. In ODI cricket, bowling averages are naturally higher (batting is more aggressive and scores are higher): below 30 is excellent, 30-35 is good, above 40 is poor. In T20Is, bowling average is a less useful primary statistic — economy rate (runs per over) is more relevant in a format where the game's pace means getting wickets is secondary to controlling boundaries. A T20I bowler who concedes 7 per over but takes a wicket every 12 balls is valuable; one who concedes 5 per over but takes wickets every 20 balls may be less impactful despite the better average.
Does bowling average change significantly during a bowler's career?
Yes — bowling averages fluctuate across a career, typically following a pattern: early career averages are often worse (the international competition is new, technique is being refined against elite batsmen), mid-career averages improve as the bowler reaches their technical peak and experience maximises effectiveness, and late-career averages sometimes worsen (physical decline reduces pace or spin revolutions, batsmen have more video footage to study). A bowler's career average is a cumulative figure — a strong early career can be diluted by a weak later period, and vice versa. The career average is therefore a summary rather than a precise measure of any particular phase of the bowler's effectiveness.
Why do some great bowlers have worse averages than expected?
Several factors can inflate a great bowler's average. Longevity: a bowler who plays 15-20 years may play through periods of physical decline where their effectiveness drops, raising their career average above their peak quality. Team context: a bowler on a poor team (weak batting, few first-class pitches) may get fewer wickets per opportunity than an equally skilled bowler on a stronger team (where the batting sets up favorable conditions for bowling). Home/away split: a bowler who plays many Tests away from their home conditions may have a significantly worse away average, raising the career average. And the selection effect: a bowler who survives in international cricket despite moderate averages (due to raw pace, left-arm angle, or team selection factors) artificially populates the bowling average leaderboard.