• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Explosiveness vs Consistency in Test Match Bowling

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 :)
 
Last edited:

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
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 :)
I don't disagree with you, in theory. But the problem with that is that he can also lose some for you. But in real life, most bowlers are some combination of both. I'd rather have a consistant bowler who runs through lineups not as often vs. someoen who is consistently expensive but can run though a lineup on his day.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
I don't disagree with you, in theory. But the problem with that is that he can also lose some for you. But in real life, most bowlers are some combination of both. I'd rather have a consistant bowler who runs through lineups not as often vs. someoen who is consistently expensive but can run though a lineup on his day.
We are not talking about 1 bowler though

The theory is that you have 4 bowlers all capable of running through an attack on their day. There will be days when all 4 will be terrible but the flip side is that you gain a lot more from the days when 1 or 2 of the guys carry an attack.

Having 4 conservative guys basically means you will struggle to ever find success at Test level.

Obviously total extremes dont exist in the real world and players are combinations. But basically if you want to win Tests you need bowlers capable of taking good hauls in certain innings. If you dont then you wont.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
We are not talking about 1 bowler though

The theory is that you have 4 bowlers all capable of running through an attack on their day. There will be days when all 4 will be terrible but the flip side is that you gain a lot more from the days when 1 or 2 of the guys carry an attack.

Having 4 conservative guys basically means you will struggle to ever find success at Test level.

Obviously total extremes dont exist in the real world and players are combinations. But basically if you want to win Tests you need bowlers capable of taking good hauls in certain innings. If you dont then you wont.
But if you have all four who can keep it tight, then you may need only one guy to be on song instead of two and run through the lineup while others keep it tight, and even on days where no one is really on, the game won't get away from you if they are at least keeping it tight. You'll have less days where an opposition is all out for 80, but less days where they are 600/2 as well.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
If you want to win games, you need bowlers capable of taking big hauls in an innings.

Yes, beyond all question this is true. A bowler who cannot take the 4-fors, 5-fors, 6-fors (a 7+-for is the crowning achievement of a lifetime for most bowlers - only the very, very best take them more than once or twice) will not win you games.

The thing to remember, though, is that any good bowler will be able to take the big hauls if he's good enough (on the day) and his support is poor enough (on the day). Or simply if things run for him and not for his fellow bowlers.

5-50 followed by 0-80 is better than 2-50 followed by 2-50? Well, I honestly don't think I can say whether any one is always better. It depends on so many things.

Consider, for example, Dale Steyn and Shaun Pollock. Let's say we have two of them. In the first innings the wicket is green, the clouds are low, and Steyn Mark One takes 6-49, Steyn Mark Two takes 3-40. In the second-innings, both take 2-130. The pitch has flattened-out and the sun has burnt through, see.

Now, we have two Shaun Pollocks under identical circumstances. In the first-innings, Pollock Mark One takes 4-28, Pollock Mark Two takes 3-19. In the second-innings, both take 3-94.

Which team goes better? Why, the team containing the Pollocks, obviously.

What I'm trying to say in essence is that too often the "reliable" bowler who will often take 2-50 gets stereotyped as one who cannot also run through a side. But this is rarely true. Whereas, really, there's no two ways about the fact that an "explosive" bowler will also let you down - sometimes badly - probably as often as he'll run through a side.

The Pollock and Steyn examples are imperfect - they're simply the first two examples to come to mind. Steyn especially could conceivably be done an injustice by it. Forgive me for that.

As there are tools as a bowler which will both help you bowl economically and help you take wickets, there are many which will help you take wickets but will actually damage your chances of bowling economically. Virtually never will bowling economically decrease your chances of taking wickets.

What I'm saying is that defence is often a form of attack. I don't believe the reverse can really be true. At least, certainly not to anywhere near the same extent.

And this applies strongly to the "explosive" vs "consistent" argument.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
But if you have all four who can keep it tight, then you may need only one guy to be on song instead of two and run through the lineup while others keep it tight, and even on days where no one is really on, the game won't get away from you if they are at least keeping it tight. You'll have less days where an opposition is all out for 80, but less days where they are 600/2 as well.
However, in reality that doesnt happen. What happens is that you face mid-large totals that make victory difficult on a consistent basis.

Also you state that maybe a guy on song can do all the damage. Thats exactly what Im saying as well. You need those guys that can take wickets in bunches, but once in a career isnt enough. They need to be able to do it relatively often.

What you state is the English disease. Make sure the worst doesnt happen and pray something good does.

The best teams realise in order to achieve victory you have to risk defeat. That has a far greater pay off than meekly surrendering.

There is nothing wrong with having a plan B for when plan A isnt working. Keep things tight and dont let the game get away. However, to enter a game with that mentality as the primary gameplan is cricketing suicide.
 
Last edited:

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
However, in reality that doesnt happen. What happens is that you face mid-large totals that make victory difficult on a consistent basis.

What you state is the English disease. Make sure the worst doesnt happen and pray something good does.

The best teams realise in order to achieve victory you have to risk defeat. That has a far greater pay off than meekly surrendering.

There is nothing wrong with having a plan B for when plan A isnt working. Keep things tight and dont let the game get away. However, to enter a game with that mentality as the primary gameplan is cricketing suicide.
But picking four inconsitent bowlers hoping a couple will have great days is not any better. It's the Sajid Mahmood syndrome. You want people who will take wickets, yes, but also keep it tight if it doesn't work out, even if that means they run through sides in a lesser percentage of games.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
But picking four inconsitent bowlers hoping a couple will have great days is not any better. It's the Sajid Mahmood syndrome. You want people who will take wickets, yes, but also keep it tight if it doesn't work out, even if that means they run through sides in a lesser percentage of games.
When and at what level has Mahmood been a wickettaker?

He isnt anything like what Im talking about. You seem to think by inconsistent I mean ****ty. I mean no such thing.

What Im talking about are good bowlers that are capable of taking Test wickets but do it in bunches rather than spread out.

A bowling attack that hunts in a pack, but on different days it will be a different bowler that makes the kill.
 
Last edited:

bagapath

International Captain
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.
:)
I present the following link as a counter argument. There are too many instances contrary to your prediction that it is not good enough to be accepted as a theory.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...=2;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings
 
Last edited:

Matt79

Global Moderator
Agree with the basic point - you want a mix of bowlers, including a reliable 2 wickets an innings man, and the guy who'll run through teams. Obviously the very best guys will do both - that's partly what makes them the best. People were talking McGrath vs. Pollock in a different thread. For me the difference was that they were similar bowlers from the 'reliable' mould, but that McGrath had the something extra that meant that he'd more regularly run through a team than Pollock.

In the current Australian attack, this is why Lee and Clark compliment each other so nicely. What is currently being hashed out is what sort of 3rd and 4th bowler we want to go with them. I think we want at least one more explosive bowler. The ideal mix is probably 3 explosive, and 1 consistent, assuming a basic level of quality.
 
Last edited:

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
I present the following link as a counter argument. There are too many instances contrary to your prediction that it is not good enough to be accepted as a theory.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...=2;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings
You are making a fundamental mistake in your counter argument by only looking at half the evidence. You look at the list and make an arbitary decision that it is 'big'.

Well according to your list there are 68 instances post-war where a player has taken 5+ wickets at less than 50 and lost.

What you didnt show is that there are 406 instances in games won.

406 vs 68. Thats a very strong correlation. Thats a lot of data that backs my point up nicely.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Agree with the basic point - you want a mix of bowlers, including a reliable 2 wickets an innings man, and the guy who'll run through teams. Obviously the very best guys will do both - that's partly what makes them the best. People were talking McGrath vs. Pollock in a different thread. For me the difference was that they were similar bowlers from the 'reliable' mould, but that McGrath had the something extra that meant that he'd more regularly run through a team than Pollock.
Don't see that at all TBH. If anything, there were less instances of McGrath running through teams than Pollock. And less instances of him needing to, too. With Reiffel, Fleming, Gillespie, Warne and a few others in the side, opportunities and neccessity to do so are scarce.
 

bagapath

International Captain
You are making a fundamental mistake in your counter argument by only looking at half the evidence. You look at the list and make an arbitary decision that it is 'big'.

Well according to your list there are 68 instances post-war where a player has taken 5+ wickets at less than 50 and lost.

What you didnt show is that there are 406 instances in games won.

406 vs 68. Thats a very strong correlation. Thats a lot of data that backs my point up nicely.
well, your original claim had the terms "never" and "zero" quite strongly used to make your point. as long as you agree to change it to a comparative analysis, like you have done now, i am willing to go with your argument.

i had to make this point to make sure not too many arguments are built on such assumptions.

rest my case.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
A decent enough theory and worth the discussion.
There are other variables that come into play when a bowler does well, yet his team still loses.

Out of curiosity, checked two bowlers, Holding and Garner.
Holding got 13 fivers in 113 innings for lets say an explosiveness of 11.5%
Garner got 7 fivers in 111 innings for an explosiveness of 6.3%, almost half

So Holding was the more explosive, yet Garner has some very good stats backing him, more wkts, better avg, matching S/R etc

Would Garner have won that match at the Oval in '76 ?
I doubt it
 

Top