Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
Slowing down the run-rate in a one-day game will just about invariably lead to wickets falling, unless the batsmen at the crease are completely stupid.
Sure, taking wickets in addition to bowling more accurately than previously will mean that the run-rate slows more than it would if you just increased your accuracy, but if you bowl waywardly you will get the treatment. No matter how many wickets you take.
Your theory works perfectly well in all levels except international cricket IMO, and probably would have worked perfectly well in international cricket 15 years ago as well, but given the shot ranges of the batmen in modern ODI cricket as well as the pitches that are being produced, you have to realise that accurate bowling still sometimes goes for lots of runs if it is innocuous. Rubbish bowling will always go for runs against international class batsmen, however accurate bowling will not always restrict runs against those same batsmen - as the risk of them being dismissed gets lower, the number of risks they take increase.
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Rejecting 'selection deontology' since Mar '15
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
I never said it would. It's not that common for accurate bowling to get the treatment (though it does happen, especially with Hayden going as he has been of late), but obviously if it is taking wickets will help slow things down.
I did try to allude to that.
It's also worth remembering, though, that if you're bowling accurately and getting the treatment, it's gonna be a bit tricky to bowl wicket-taking balls, too.
With some batsmen like Gilchrist, Hayden, Smith, Ponting, Jayasuriya it doesn't matter how well you bowl they are going to attack the bowling and are willing to take risks. I am sure Pollock (10-0-83-0) and McGrath (9-0-62-1) in their last game were not bowling rubbish.
Such games are extreme rarities.
We all know they happen occasionally, but most of us realise they happen no more than occasionally.
Usually if you try playing like that you'll hit one straight up in the first couple of overs.
In any case, if they're playing like that it's not gonna be easy to get them out anyway.
Picking an attack full of bowlers that take wickets but get smashed every game is certainly not desirable, but neither is picking an attack full of bowlers that restrict but can't buy a wicket, because something will give. Picking a set of bowlers that gives you both options depending on the situation is something I'd strive for - which selectors and forum members alike often seem to miss...
Well fingers crossed for Anderson tomorrow to pick up three or four wickets that if he is picked to play. Bowling at Jayasuriya is enough to put any bowler off their breakfast. Vaughan better win the toss and bowl first.
If you are keeping the run rate down and the next couple of batsman in are big hitters why not make sure the bowlers don't take a wicket or in the case of England don't get any of the top three out.
Of course, there are times when taking a wicket can galvanise a bowler. On such occasions, he can pick-up his performance in his next few overs. This offers the illusion that it's the wicket that has slowed the rate. Equally, a similar thing happens if someone slows the rate for 4 overs or so, then a wicket falls as a result of that, the continues to fall, people will then mistakenly get the impression that the fall was a result of the wicket, when in reality it was the other way around. That pisses me off, TBH.
You can only pick what's available, though. Bowlers who take wickets and go for runs are very rare. More common are those like Makhaya Ntini and Brett Lee who vary lots - either take wickets and bowl economically or go for a few and offer little threat.Picking an attack full of bowlers that take wickets but get smashed every game is certainly not desirable, but neither is picking an attack full of bowlers that restrict but can't buy a wicket, because something will give. Picking a set of bowlers that gives you both options depending on the situation is something I'd strive for - which selectors and forum members alike often seem to miss...
On most surfaces, though, you can pick a load of accurate bowlers who tend to bowl few wicket-taking balls and you'll keep the totals down.
Flintoff has shot up the England World Cup wickets list -
30 - Botham
29 - De Freitas
18 - Willis, Flintoff
16 - Old, Anderson
15 - Gough
13 - Hemmings, Marks
12 - Illingworth
11 - Small
10 - Mullally, Ealham, Hendricks
9 - White, Reeve, Foster
8 - Pringle, Allott, Caddick, Cork
7 - Dilley, Lewis
6 - Embury, Grieg, Martin, Snow
5 - Boycott, Lever, Hick, Mahmood, Collingwood
4 - Smith, Panesar
3 - Arnold, Austin, Edmonds, Austin, Tufnell, Irani, Plunkett
2 - Cowans, Underwood, Giles, Blackwell, Bopara
1 - Fraser, Gatting, Gooch, Hollioake, Vaughan
I thought Anderson bowled well today, his pace was up, no wides and he is starting to get back to how he was bowling in the CB series.
Well done to Mahmood, his first 4fer and he has got his average down to 38.00.
Great to have Broad arriving. We must have one of the youngest bowling units with Mahmood 25, Anderson 24, Plunkett 22 and Broad 21.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)