One for Richard: Lucky and Unlucky bowlers

[BoyBrumby]

Nantie Hayward's figures are astonishing!

Over 3 times jammier than anyone else!

 

[superkingdave]

I know - I think so. But probably not for a while.

I'm glad you think so, but i certainly hope he gets left for a full season at Lancs this season. everytime he plays for Lancs n the CC he looks dangerous and his FC record play testament to that

 

[social]

No, strike-rates are far, far less important than averages and without a good average a good strike-rate is relatively meaningless.

And given his average is also excellent, he is obviously a great bowler.

Thank-you, case closed.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Not this again, a place where we can hear some of the strangest ideas in the world from the expert himself.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, strike-rates are far, far less important than averages and without a good average a good strike-rate is relatively meaningless.

Averages are just a combination of strike rate and economy rate really, and both economy rate and strike rate have significant value. In test cricket however strike rate without a great economy is vastly more valuable than economy rate without a great strike rate. Give me a bowler with a strike rate of 40 and an economy rate of 4.5 (average 30) over a bowler with a strike rate of 80 and an economy rate of 2 (average 26) any day.

 

[Richard]

And given his average is also excellent, he is obviously a great bowler.

Thank-you, case closed.

What a fantastic average, 30.71.

 

[Richard]

Nantie Hayward's figures are astonishing!

Over 3 times jammier than anyone else!

But still not an extraordinarily good bowler.

 

[Richard]

I'm glad you think so, but i certainly hope he gets left for a full season at Lancs this season. everytime he plays for Lancs n the CC he looks dangerous and his FC record play testament to that

Yep, that'd be the best thing for everyone.
England, Anderson and Lancs.

 

[Richard]

Not this again, a place where we can hear some of the strangest ideas in the world from the expert himself.

Plenty of people will tell you Stuart MacGill is poor.

 

[Richard]

Averages are just a combination of strike rate and economy rate really,

No really about it - if you know 2 of the 3 you can work-out the other.
They have a directly proportional relationship - Neil can presumably give it to you.

and both economy rate and strike rate have significant value. In test cricket however strike rate without a great economy is vastly more valuable than economy rate without a great strike rate. Give me a bowler with a strike rate of 40 and an economy rate of 4.5 (average 30) over a bowler with a strike rate of 80 and an economy rate of 2 (average 26) any day.

Test-cricket lasts 5 days, y'know.
And contrary to Aussie hyperbole, it's not imperative to finish them in 13 sessions if you can finish them in 14.
All that matters is winning, and in my experience the latter bowler is the more valuable.
Added to the fact that economy-rates of 4.5 are rarely seen amongst the worst of bowlers.

 

[John the Bookie]

Averages are just a combination of strike rate and economy rate really, and both economy rate and strike rate have significant value. In test cricket however strike rate without a great economy is vastly more valuable than economy rate without a great strike rate. Give me a bowler with a strike rate of 40 and an economy rate of 4.5 (average 30) over a bowler with a strike rate of 80 and an economy rate of 2 (average 26) any day.

Let say a bowler who average 30 with a strike rate of 40. If he bowls both ends the opposition would be bowled out for 300 in 66.4 overs. THe bowler with a strike rate of 80 but an average of 26 would bowl out the opposition for 260 in 133.2 overs. Personally I prefer the latter performance. So really the only benefit of judging a player on strike rate only instead of average is that their team will have more overs to bat and so the match is likely to be a draw.

So strike rates should only be considered if there are two bowlers with a similar average.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Let say a bowler who average 30 with a strike rate of 40. If he bowls both ends the opposition would be bowled out for 300 in 66.4 overs. THe bowler with a strike rate of 80 but an average of 26 would bowl out the opposition for 260 in 133.2 overs. Personally I prefer the latter performance. So really the only benefit of judging a player on strike rate only instead of average is that their team will have more overs to bat and so the match is likely to be a draw.

So strike rates should only be considered if there are two bowlers with a similar average.

That's fine, except for the fact that more than one bowler has to bowl in a match. For said bowlers, a five wicket haul would be 33.2-150-5 or 66.4-130-5. Assuming that a bowler is never going to bowl more than a third of his teams overs, and that no side will score at less than two an over off the rest of the bowlers, the comparative totals would be 282 for the strike rate bowler's opposition, or 394 for the other side. It's a crude example, but it shows what I mean as well as yours does.

Economy rate has advantages as well of course, such as that it builds pressure for other bowlers to take wickets, while a strike rate bowler with a high eco rate might well relieve pressure off those batsmen who he does not get out. Still, in test cricket the capacity to bowl wicket balls is he number one priority for a bowler as far as I'm concerned. Being economical in the process is simply a bonus.

 

[masterblaster]

Agarkar's pretty unlucky, which really does contribute in a way to his high average.

 

[Mr Casson]

Plenty of people will tell you Stuart MacGill is poor.

Does that have something to do with his affection for wine?

 

[social]

What a fantastic average, 30.71.

He averages 28. Re-boot that computer -head!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He averages 28. Re-boot that computer -head!

It's probably one of Richard's special averages that only he knows or cares about. He'll come on and explain it to you shortly.

Chances are it involves removing results against teams that he doesn't think are good enough, or something to do with wickets off balls he thinks are "poor", or dropped catches.

 

[benchmark00]

It's probably one of Richard's special averages that only he knows or cares about. He'll come on and explain it to you shortly.

Chances are it involves removing results against teams that he doesn't think are good enough, or something to do with wickets off balls he thinks are "poor", or dropped catches.

Or wickets taken in a match following the first full moon of the month.

 

[honestbharani]

Rich, if you were to consider the first chance average for batters, why not include dropped catches as wickets in the bowler's analysis? After all, if he has been good enough to get the batsman to give a catch, then it should be considered a wicket, right?

 

[Richard]

Yeah, you can do that, but it doesn't really show too much.
If you want to examine a bowler's ability you need to look at how many wicket-taking balls he's bowled, not just how many wickets (or more accurately chances created) he has to his name.

 

[Richard]

He averages 28. Re-boot that computer -head!

It's probably one of Richard's special averages that only he knows or cares about. He'll come on and explain it to you shortly.

Chances are it involves removing results against teams that he doesn't think are good enough, or something to do with wickets off balls he thinks are "poor", or dropped catches.

It involves the very simple act of removing Test-matches against the Bangladesh team who have quite clearly never been remotely good enough to play Test-cricket and who few would dispute don't mean anything towards Test-match records.