One for Richard: Lucky and Unlucky bowlers

[Swervy]

taken from cricinfo

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2005/MAR/202975_COL-STATS_11MAR2005.html

as many of us suspected, Flintoff has been pretty unlucky with a lot of dropped catches off his bowling (what a that means I dont know..did the ball go to hand,was the 'drop' what many would considered only a half chance etc)

Those who throw their hands up in dispair at Lee in tests,well maybe he has also been a tad unlucky.

Also, McGill..he might throw down the odd bad ball or so, but I think a lot of us know (without the aid of stats) that this guy knows how to take wickets,and if lady luck had have been his way a bit more, he may well have done a bit better.

Poor old Jimmy Anderson..gets some flack..but is it all justified????

heheheh..and no sign of McGrath!!!!

No doubt we may see some debate on this one...keep it clean...ding ding..round one!!!

 

[vic_orthdox]

macgill's luck surely evens out over the long run. he has such a great talent at taking wickets with bad balls, that i don't think he can complain about too many half chances and the like not going his way.

 

[Swervy]

macgill's luck surely evens out over the long run. he has such a great talent at taking wickets with bad balls, that i don't think he can complain about too many half chances and the like not going his way.

but could the arguement in favour of mcGill not be that he bowls some absolute rippers, doesnt get a wicket, bowls a bad 'un...batsman thinks to himself 'here is my chance'..goes for it too hard or whatever, and gets out.(or something like that)

If you take that one ball on its own, then yes, he was lucky....take it in the context of all the other stuff, and maybe its not so lucky!!!!

 

[vic_orthdox]

yes, a point worth making. but i believe that the way that macgill bowls, with the ball drifting and spinning away from the right hander, means that a lot of these "jaffas" that he bowls aren't as threatening as what they look, with batsman easily pulling away from the line of the ball.

 

[age_master]

hmm interesting

 

[Mr Casson]

Poor Jimmy Anderson.. he can bowl, I know he can!!

I BELIEVE, JIMMY!

 

[Swervy]

yes, a point worth making. but i believe that the way that macgill bowls, with the ball drifting and spinning away from the right hander, means that a lot of these "jaffas" that he bowls aren't as threatening as what they look, with batsman easily pulling away from the line of the ball.

yeah you may well be right....

as has been said before,what one person thinks is a chance, someone else might not..what one man thinks is a potential wicket taking delivery, the next man might not.

 

[Swervy]

Poor Jimmy Anderson.. he can bowl, I know he can!!

I BELIEVE, JIMMY!

so do I actually

 

[social]

but could the arguement in favour of mcGill not be that he bowls some absolute rippers, doesnt get a wicket, bowls a bad 'un...batsman thinks to himself 'here is my chance'..goes for it too hard or whatever, and gets out.(or something like that)

If you take that one ball on its own, then yes, he was lucky....take it in the context of all the other stuff, and maybe its not so lucky!!!!

And he turns the ball square which can turn even rank long-hops into deceptive deliveries.

He is obviously doing something right as he has the best strike rate of any spinner since 1900.

 

[honestbharani]

I think MacGill is an under rated bowler. He bowls bad deliveries, yes, but that is because he tries to bowl too many wicket taking deliveries. A very attacking spinner. One thing about him is that he will bowl you two long hops and then bowl a really good leg break and so the batter is usually not prepared for it. That actually makes him doubly dangerous than someone like Warne, who is always at you.

 

[Richard]

so do I actually

tec doesn't.

 

[Richard]

From The Numbers Game
It's commonly assumed that it all evens out in the end – a bowler might take a five-for despite bowling poorly, and might go wicketless after a great spell – but does it really?

Man, I do love it on the rare occasion other people notice the rubbish of that assumption.

 

[Swervy]

tec doesn't.

erm.......so?

 

[Richard]

as has been said before,what one person thinks is a chance, someone else might not..what one man thinks is a potential wicket taking delivery, the next man might not.

However, I'm not too sure about this PWT definition.
It's so, so hard to define this - just because something has passed the edge doesn't neccesarily mean much - especially given the number of batsmen who sometimes\often play inside the line. Just because it's hit the pad - might have been the same.
It's so hard to use statistics in the exact deserving in bowling - what about the number of bad deliveries missed, or the edged runs?
As for the dropped catches, I've done this one before - dropped catches off poor deliveries IS NOT unlucky - it's poetic-justice (bowler-wise, of course - batsman-wise it's still very lucky).
And as for the old deserving having a Long-Hop smashed to a fielder - doesn't happen often and rightly so.

 

[Richard]

erm.......so?

So just pointing-out that more people than not think Anderson in Tests and ODIs to date has been almost exclusively rubbish.

 

[Richard]

And he turns the ball square which can turn even rank long-hops into deceptive deliveries.

He is obviously doing something right as he has the best strike rate of any spinner since 1900.

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

 

[Swervy]

So just pointing-out that more people than not think Anderson in Tests and ODIs to date has been almost exclusively rubbish.

well he has almost been exclusively rubbish ...but only almost..the times he has actually got it together suggests to me he could actually have a very good future....

 

[Swervy]

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

well, its not really that straight forward is it

 

[Richard]

well he has almost been exclusively rubbish ...but only almost..the times he has actually got it together suggests to me he could actually have a very good future....

I know - I think so. But probably not for a while.
Some don't think at all.

 

[Richard]

well, its not really that straight forward is it

Yes.
Runs per wicket are far, far, far, far more relevant that deliveries per wicket.
If two bowlers average in the mid-20s then it's fair to consider strike-rates (in any case I'd say the one with the lower strike-rate is probably the better, because I prefer a good economy-rate), but to try to use a low strike-rate to big-up a nothing-special average (especially one that's been getting steadily worse and worse) is just pure folly and straw-clutching.