South Africa can topple Australia at top of LG ICC ODI Championship for first time

[Richard]

I realise there are still some, but obviously their numbers have dwindled. How that came to be isn't really relevant to the point I was making, which is still that 4.5 is a respectable economy rate in the modern game.

Well... respectible is relative, isn't it?

There are lots of very poor bowlers around at the current time IMO - still doesn't make it impossible for a good bowler - seamer or spinner - to have an economy-rate in the low 4.Xs, or even (for the very, very best) below 4-an-over.

I don't think, as I say, such numbers have dwindled since we entered the modern ODI era (the end of the decade of the 1980s is as good a line to draw as any). How many bowlers with economy-rates below 4-an-over have there been if you take only games from 1990 onwards? I can only think of those 3 plus Angus Fraser, Curtley Ambrose, Wasim Akram, Adam Dale, Gavin Larsen, Andy Caddick, Alan Mullally, Courtney Walsh and PS de Villiers. Even top-class bowlers like Allan Donald, Damien Fleming, Darren Gough (for most of his career), Brian McMillan, Craig Matthews (3.94, but you know what I mean), Mark Ealham, Jason Gillespie (between 1999 and 2004\05), Chris Harris, Bryan Strang, Andrew Flintoff (from 2001\02 onwards), Nathan Bracken, Chaminda Vaas, Paul Reiffel, Ian Bishop, Ian Bradshaw, Reon King, Heath Streak, Waqar Younis (for more of his career than not), Mushtaq Ahmed, Shane Warne, Robert Croft, Kumara Dharmasena, Anil Kumble (until 1999\2000), Daniel Vettori, Saqlain Mushtaq and Harbhajan Singh had ERs a bit over 4-an-over.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Well... respectible is relative, isn't it?

There are lots of very poor bowlers around at the current time IMO - still doesn't make it impossible for a good bowler - seamer or spinner - to have an economy-rate in the low 4.Xs, or even (for the very, very best) below 4-an-over.

I don't think, as I say, such numbers have dwindled since we entered the modern ODI era (the end of the decade of the 1980s is as good a line to draw as any). How many bowlers with economy-rates below 4-an-over have there been if you take only games from 1990 onwards? I can only think of those 3 plus Angus Fraser, Curtley Ambrose, Wasim Akram, Adam Dale, Gavin Larsen, Andy Caddick, Alan Mullally, Courtney Walsh and PS de Villiers. Even top-class bowlers like Allan Donald, Damien Fleming, Darren Gough (for most of his career), Brian McMillan, Craig Matthews (3.94, but you know what I mean), Mark Ealham, Jason Gillespie (between 1999 and 2004\05), Chris Harris, Bryan Strang, Andrew Flintoff (from 2001\02 onwards), Nathan Bracken, Chaminda Vaas, Paul Reiffel, Ian Bishop, Ian Bradshaw, Reon King, Heath Streak, Waqar Younis (for more of his career than not), Mushtaq Ahmed, Shane Warne, Robert Croft, Kumara Dharmasena, Anil Kumble (until 1999\2000), Daniel Vettori, Saqlain Mushtaq and Harbhajan Singh had ERs a bit over 4-an-over.

Yeah of course it's relative, and I agree that the pool of bowlers in international cricket is poor atm. That's why I've made the comments I've made, they're in relation to the game as it stands today.

 

[shortpitched713]

The pool of bowlers being poor argument is rubbish imo. I think it more has to do with the fact that everything is stacked against the modern bowlers, not the least of which is poor pitches and an overwrought schedule. I don't think that there is any rationally constructable argument for why the current pool of bowlers would be any worse than a previous pool of bowlers considering the advances that have been made in fitness and training regimens.

 

[Richard]

Why are the bowlers who were around when other good bowlers were also around retaining excellent records, then?

The McGraths and Pollocks are still as good as if not better than ever.

If the newbies are only rubbish because things are stacked against them (I don't disagree with that, BTW, but it's certainly not a particularly new thing) why are the oldies as good as ever?

 

[shortpitched713]

You still haven't given me any proof that the economy rates of the three bowlers in question hasn't suffered in more recent times. Of course one reason that they're still doing well would be that they're class players, but I don't think they've gone without suffering either.

 

[Richard]

OK, then...

Let's pick a place to draw the line at, say, December 31st 2000? That do you?

McGrath:
Before
After

As you see, he's actually substantially better afterwards. This gap might decrease if you remove substandard teams as there are likely to be more contaminating the latter sample than the former.

Now Pollock:
Before
After

As you see - even more spectacularly better in the most recent games. Same thing applies vis-a-vis substandard teams.

Now Murali:
Before
After

Yes - you guessed it - he's way, way better in the "after" period. It's actually even more marked, because Murali was poor in 2006, and if you go 2001-2005 it's a scarecely credible ER of 3.37.

All of which leads me to the conclusion that the Andersons and Lees just aren't anywhere near as good as the Donalds and Flemings.

 

[Jono]

Even if the south africans manage to get the no.1 spot[if aussies lose to the black caps] i don't think they even deserve it, i say this because there last 17 odi games have been at home [baring CT where also they won 2 games and lost 2 games]. They have beaten teams like india, zim,aus[3-2], and pakistan. Its a fact that sub-continent sides always struggle is south african conditions.

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/AUS_IN_RSA/SCORECARDS/AUS_RSA_ODI2_03MAR2006.html