Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Ive long believed that a Test bowlers job is to take wickets and take them in bunches. A couple of wicket free innings is a fair price to pay for one big performance.
Obviously there are some on here that believe bowling decent in every game is more important.
So I crunched a great deal of numbers and this is my conclusion based on the games Ive looked at.
Point 1
In games won, the 2 leading wicket takers in an innings average 7 wickets between them. All the other bowlers take 3 on average.
This is why we talk of a 'bowling unit'. In order to be successful you generally need only 2 bowlers firing in the same innings with the rest supporting. Some days it will be player A, some days player B, some days player C etc. All of these bowlers must be capable of taking a bunch of wickets in an innings.
In order to win these bowlers are essential. It will be different bowlers on different days, but as a unit there must be 1 or 2 firing on any given day capable of taking 7 or more between them in an innings.
Point 2
When a bowler took 5 or more wickets for 50 or less their team never lost a game. That zero loss figure shows clearly that an explosive performance by one member of a bowling attack is a massive contributing factor to a teams success.
Point 3
Take the hypothetical example of a player we will call Player QW. QW could take 2-50 in every innings he plays in. He would average 25 with the ball and average 4 wickets a Test. On the face of it those figures would be very impressive.
However, he could never be anything more than a marginal factor in team success. He would seldom be part of the 2 bowlers usually needed to take 7 or more wickets in an innings to bring victory, he would never bowl killer spells that ensure victory and more than anything they would be putting pressure on their comrades in the bowling unit to do the hard work.
Brief Conclusion
In order for winning teams to get the 7 wickets from 2 bowlers in each innings of a winning Test the bowling attack must be made up of bowlers capable of 4fers, 5fers and more.
In the context of winning games and performing in a unit, 0-80 and 5-50 is far more valuable than 2-50 and 2-50 despite having a higher average.
From the games Ive looked at, at no time in any bowling innings has the winning team shared the wickets around so that the leading wickettaker has only 2 wickets.
There will always be the odd example that contradicts these trends but they hold true for the vast majority of games and situations and are important to recognise.
If anyone gets this far down and has actually read this then Im sorry it was so long
Obviously there are some on here that believe bowling decent in every game is more important.
So I crunched a great deal of numbers and this is my conclusion based on the games Ive looked at.
Point 1
In games won, the 2 leading wicket takers in an innings average 7 wickets between them. All the other bowlers take 3 on average.
This is why we talk of a 'bowling unit'. In order to be successful you generally need only 2 bowlers firing in the same innings with the rest supporting. Some days it will be player A, some days player B, some days player C etc. All of these bowlers must be capable of taking a bunch of wickets in an innings.
In order to win these bowlers are essential. It will be different bowlers on different days, but as a unit there must be 1 or 2 firing on any given day capable of taking 7 or more between them in an innings.
Point 2
When a bowler took 5 or more wickets for 50 or less their team never lost a game. That zero loss figure shows clearly that an explosive performance by one member of a bowling attack is a massive contributing factor to a teams success.
Point 3
Take the hypothetical example of a player we will call Player QW. QW could take 2-50 in every innings he plays in. He would average 25 with the ball and average 4 wickets a Test. On the face of it those figures would be very impressive.
However, he could never be anything more than a marginal factor in team success. He would seldom be part of the 2 bowlers usually needed to take 7 or more wickets in an innings to bring victory, he would never bowl killer spells that ensure victory and more than anything they would be putting pressure on their comrades in the bowling unit to do the hard work.
Brief Conclusion
In order for winning teams to get the 7 wickets from 2 bowlers in each innings of a winning Test the bowling attack must be made up of bowlers capable of 4fers, 5fers and more.
In the context of winning games and performing in a unit, 0-80 and 5-50 is far more valuable than 2-50 and 2-50 despite having a higher average.
From the games Ive looked at, at no time in any bowling innings has the winning team shared the wickets around so that the leading wickettaker has only 2 wickets.
There will always be the odd example that contradicts these trends but they hold true for the vast majority of games and situations and are important to recognise.
If anyone gets this far down and has actually read this then Im sorry it was so long
Last edited: