Which are better figures?

[DJellett]

Would be interested to know opinions on what should be viewed as better bowling figure of the two examples eg: 2/60 (10) vs. 0/25 (10) or other similar examples?

Any form of the game is open for use as evidence.

 

[gettingbetter]

I'd probably take the latter. Its hard to determine without a given scenario, but you can win games by restricting runs.

 

[Richard]

In a 50-over game, 10-25-0 is far, far better than 10-60-2. The former is an excellent set of figures, the latter a very, very, very poor one.

In a limitless-over game 10-60-2 is probably better, but I'd not be particularly delighted with either as a bowler.

 

[Prince EWS]

In a 50-over game, 10-25-0 is far, far better than 10-60-2. The former is an excellent set of figures, the latter a very, very, very poor one.

In a limitless-over game 10-60-2 is probably better, but I'd not be particularly delighted with either as a bowler.

AWTA.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Entirely depends on the circumstances.

Assuming a 50 over match, 0/25 would be very good figures under certain circumstances. Bowling first on a good batting pitch for example. Defending 150, not so much. 2/60 are pretty mediocre figures, neither particularly bad or good, but again the circumstances matter. 2/60 dismissing two key batsmen on a good batting wicket would be pretty good figures, and they'd be better figures relatively speaking if you were in particular need of wickets. I'd say 0/25 would be better in the majority of cases, but it depends on the state of the game and the significance of the wickets. I'd be hard pressed to rate 0/25 ahead of something like 3/60 though, regardless of the circumstances.

In a test 2/60 is infinitely superior to 0/25, it's really no contest.

 

[Richard]

If you're defending 150 and one of your bowlers takes 10-60-2, your chances are near enough gone. 10-25-0 is unlikely to help much either, of course, but that purely says that you need near-miracles to defend 150 in 50 overs.

I don't really see much point in extreme analogies.

 

[Kev P]

hmm

i have had around 0-25 off 10 figures a few times and also the 2-60 off 10 figures a few times but as a bowler you would rather have 0-25 because the manner in which u bowl to achieve them means that although you haven't taken wickets the bowler on the other end most likely has. and also if u consistently get these figures more than likely you will soon be picking up 3-25.

2-60 infers you have had 'lucky' wickets. its obvious the wickets that you picked up were the batsmen getting themselves out not u getting the batsmen out.

 

[Richard]

Well it's not neccessarily obvious, but yes it's a pretty strong possibility.

 

[Arjun]

No contest, really. That's an extremely good economy rate against a very meagre strike rate.

 

[Goughy]

Anytime I bowl and I do not take a wicket then I have failed.

Im not saying that it is the only type of failure possible, but if I bowl 10 overs for 3 runs with 0 wickets then its been a failed day.

My job is to take wickets and if I can be blocked out then Ive failed in my role for the team. Obviously different bowlers have different responsibilities.

 

[silentstriker]

In a Test match 2/60 is a much better return than 0/25. In crap cricket, it depends but generally you'd go for 0/25 off 10.

 

[Richard]

In a Test match 2/60 is a much better return than 0/25.

It's certainly not "much better". As I said - both sets of figures are pretty poor, and though the former is probably better, there's not really a hell of a lot in it.

 

[silentstriker]

It's certainly not "much better". As I said - both sets of figures are pretty poor, and though the former is probably better, there's not really a hell of a lot in it.

Disagree. In almost any Test match situation I'll take 2/60, especially if those 2 are top order wickets.

 

[Richard]

So on a pitch that's helping the bowlers, where someone at the other end is taking, say, 10-22-4, you'd prefer someone to be spraying it all over the place? And possibly allowing one batsman to "get in" who might, after both opening bowlers come out of the attack, then start bashing around the change-bowlers?

I know I'd always want someone to keep it tight if the pitch helps the bowlers. Worst thing, on a bowler-friendly pitch, to see the ball being smashed around the park.

 

[silentstriker]

So on a pitch that's helping the bowlers, where someone at the other end is taking, say, 10-22-4, you'd prefer someone to be spraying it all over the place?

30 runs from wicket may not be the best, but its not spraying it around either. And definitely it isn't if its top order wickets. So yes, I'd rather have 10-22-4 and 10-60-2 rather than 10-22-4 and 10-25-0 in Test.

Because in one case you are 82/6, while in the other case you are 50/4. I am surprised anyone would take the latter over the former. Those two wickets are very important and in most cases you'd love to see them in the pavilion.

 

[Richard]

30 runs from wicket may not be the best, but its not spraying it around either.

60 runs off 10 overs is spraying it around (barring the remarkably unusual trait of constant edges to third-man\fine-leg). You can get 7 wickets - 8 or 9, or 10 - and it remains spraying it around.

And definitely it isn't if its top order wickets. So yes, I'd rather have 10-22-4 and 10-60-2 rather than 10-22-4 and 10-25-0 in Test.

Because in one case you are 82/6, while in the other case you are 50/4. I am surprised anyone would take the latter over the former. Those two wickets are very important and in most cases you'd love to see them in the pavilion.

But as I've said, it may well be a case of one batsman being 20* or 56*. And if he's the latter, there's a much bigger chance of him reviving the innings even from 82-6 than from 50-4. If the pitch is bowler-friendly, wickets should keep falling. But an "in" batsman is more likely to keep doing damage if he has already done it.

As a bowling side, after 20 overs on a seaming surface I'd rather have my oppo 50-4 than 82-6. Because I'd then back my change bowlers to get the next 2 wickets for less than 32.

 

[silentstriker]

60 runs off 10 overs is spraying it around (barring the remarkably unusual trait of constant edges to third-man\fine-leg). You can get 7 wickets - 8 or 9, or 10 - and it remains spraying it around.

Sure, the RR might be high, but so is your S/R. In the end 82/6 is more favorable for the bowling side than 50/4.

 

[Richard]

On a good batting pitch, yes. On a seaming (or turning, though the "opening spell" anology wouldn't be so applicable there) surface I'm not so sure.

 

[DJellett]

30 runs from wicket may not be the best, but its not spraying it around either. And definitely it isn't if its top order wickets. So yes, I'd rather have 10-22-4 and 10-60-2 rather than 10-22-4 and 10-25-0 in Test.

Because in one case you are 82/6, while in the other case you are 50/4. I am surprised anyone would take the latter over the former. Those two wickets are very important and in most cases you'd love to see them in the pavilion.

Agree here.

Wickets are of the most value in Test cricket, bar none.

 

[Migara]

My best figures in level I played are 8-0-64-7 and 8-4-11-3 (40 over games and I am bowling wrist spin).

The first match, every batsman walked in took to me. But I eventually got them all. I came in to bowl in 12th over when opposition was 1/48. Then they were shot out in the 37th over for 169. We won the match.

The next one they just were at sea against me on a dust bowl, turning square. But they kept hammering other bowlers except my co-spinner. In 40 overs they score 240. Two majestic innings were needed to get us to victory.

You'll see that according o the situation the figures will change.