• 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.

Gough slams England's selection favouritism

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Very few bowlers who bowl at the death are going to have figures of 30 runs from 10 overs. And at least two bowlers have to bowl at the death. So although it doesn't work in your perfect world, there are situations when (slogging) late wickets for poor economy can be quite beneficial to the team.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Nah, late wickets are little use. What you really need in the slog overs is economy. Obviously a good ER in the last 10 overs is 6-an-over rather than 3.5-an-over, so if you're going to get 10-30-0 clearly you're almost certainly going to have to have completed your 10 overs before the slog is on.

The point is that such a spell, completed early, is more valuable than 10-53-4 if only 1 of the wickets has come at a time when wicket-taking is particularly relevant - ie, the start of the innings.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Nah, late wickets are little use. What you really need in the slog overs is economy. Obviously a good ER in the last 10 overs is 6-an-over rather than 3.5-an-over, so if you're going to get 10-30-0 clearly you're almost certainly going to have to have completed your 10 overs before the slog is on.

The point is that such a spell, completed early, is more valuable than 10-53-4 if only 1 of the wickets has come at a time when wicket-taking is particularly relevant - ie, the start of the innings.
1 wicket at the start plus a concession of 54 runs which includes bowling at the death is surely more valuable than no wickets and 30 runs conceded before the slog.
 

krkode

State Captain
I think we're underestimating wickets at the death. Sure, often they are "meaningless" in that the quality of the ball is often not the best, and most wickets at the death are catches in the deep which don't say much to the bowler's quality but it's not as if wickets at the death don't slow down the scoring rate because they definitely do. Surely it makes the difference between 90 runs off the last 10 and 70 or 60 runs off the last 10 - a significant difference in ODI cricket.

I think ultimately we're comparing two incomparable entities. It's like looking at a 70 made by an opening batsman off 85 deliveries to give a solid start and a 40 made by a pinch-hitter at the end off 25 deliveries. Both have their uses.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
1 wicket at the start plus a concession of 54 runs which includes bowling at the death is surely more valuable than no wickets and 30 runs conceded before the slog.
I don't think so, not a chance.

Say, for example, that 10-54-1 contains 8-32-1 in the first 40 and 2-22-0 in the slog. 11-an-over is very poor in the slog overs. A good death bowler will generally do better than this.

Now then, if you were comparing 10-30-0 all in the first 40 overs and 10-44-2 (the wickets is kinda immaterial, but say you get 1 in the slog overs) then it'd be a much fairer time to say they're on an equal footing.

Presuming, of course, that the 10-44-2 went, say, 7-28-1 then 3-16-1. If it's 7-20-1 then 3-24-1 then obviously that's still pretty poor in slog-over terms.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I think we're underestimating wickets at the death. Sure, often they are "meaningless" in that the quality of the ball is often not the best, and most wickets at the death are catches in the deep which don't say much to the bowler's quality but it's not as if wickets at the death don't slow down the scoring rate because they definitely do. Surely it makes the difference between 90 runs off the last 10 and 70 or 60 runs off the last 10 - a significant difference in ODI cricket.
Nah, they don't. Batsmen will throw the bat at the end of the innings regardless of wickets falling.

If you bowl 3 overs in the last 10, conceding 30 runs, that's extremely poor whether you take 0 wickets or 4.

Wickets at the end of the innings are only use if they hustle a team out who were, say, 5 down at the 40-over mark and end-up being all-out in 46 overs rather than 9 down after 50. And to see this is exceptionally rare. However, sometimes bowlers who've bowled pretty poorly get a couple of wickets at the end. And even though 10-60-3 will generally be recognised as a poor spell at the time, it makes your average look very good indeed and allows those who brainlessly faffle on about "wickets are the only important thing in ODIs" to say you've actually bowled well.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Strangest thing is that his record is best under Pietersen. :blink:

Possibly because of not bowling at the end, of course.
Haha, no it's not, I would take his record under Vaughan over his record under Pietersen.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Haha, no it's not, I would take his record under Vaughan over his record under Pietersen.
Economy-rate pretty poor and average unexceptional (and very flattering, I might add).

Compared to economy-rate decent (though far from outstanding) and average poor.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Economy-rate pretty poor and average unexceptional (and very flattering, I might add).

Compared to economy-rate decent (though far from outstanding) and average poor.
Your argument is baseless. Averaging 118 is an absolute joke and no one deserves to be in the side for that. I can understand that you rate ER higher than the average but to place no emphasis on the average itself is just a basic lack of understanding of how the game works. If you let a half decent ODI player tick along at 4.45 runs an over in the early overs without dismissing him, odds are hes going to seriously create some mayhem on the rest of the bowlers during the slog overs. Heck you only have to look at the kind of carnage Yuvraj created in the last game if you dont believe it.
It would not be too far fetched to suggest that bowlers that dont take wickets (or take them infrequently) essentially ruin the figures for those good bowlers (like Flintoff) who have to suffer the consequences at the death.
 

krkode

State Captain
Nah, they don't. Batsmen will throw the bat at the end of the innings regardless of wickets falling.

If you bowl 3 overs in the last 10, conceding 30 runs, that's extremely poor whether you take 0 wickets or 4.

Wickets at the end of the innings are only use if they hustle a team out who were, say, 5 down at the 40-over mark and end-up being all-out in 46 overs rather than 9 down after 50. And to see this is exceptionally rare. However, sometimes bowlers who've bowled pretty poorly get a couple of wickets at the end. And even though 10-60-3 will generally be recognised as a poor spell at the time, it makes your average look very good indeed and allows those who brainlessly faffle on about "wickets are the only important thing in ODIs" to say you've actually bowled well.
Yeah, but as an example, what if your 3 wickets at the death causes Dhoni, Yuvraj and Yusuf Pathan to get out and then you (or the guy bowling the other half of the death overs) gets to bowl at guys like Zaheer, Harbhajan and RP Singh for the last few overs. It is always going to be a what if situation, I suppose, but maybe Dhoni and co. would've taken more than 30 off those overs irrespective of who bowled them? When I said wickets have the potential to slow the run-rate, I meant it more in the sense that you get the good batsmen out, and not in the sense that the later batsmen will become more careful due to the fall of wickets because with 5 overs to go, they most certainly won't. Although I guess 20-20 has shown us that even number 10s and 11s can hit sixes if they really set their mind to it... 8-)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Your argument is baseless. Averaging 118 is an absolute joke and no one deserves to be in the side for that. I can understand that you rate ER higher than the average but to place no emphasis on the average itself is just a basic lack of understanding of how the game works. If you let a half decent ODI player tick along at 4.45 runs an over in the early overs without dismissing him, odds are hes going to seriously create some mayhem on the rest of the bowlers during the slog overs. Heck you only have to look at the kind of carnage Yuvraj created in the last game if you dont believe it.
It would not be too far fetched to suggest that bowlers that dont take wickets (or take them infrequently) essentially ruin the figures for those good bowlers (like Flintoff) who have to suffer the consequences at the death.
Economy-rates don't work like that, things don't happen the same every game. I wouldn't actually say that 4.45-an-over, without bowling at the death, is that good an economy-rate, it's just not-disastrous. However, aside from the fact that more than one bowler bowls at the same time (ie someone else bowls from the other end as you bowl your spell), an ER of 4.45-an-over can mean some good spells (eg, 10-34-0) and some bad ones, rather than lots of bad ones.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah, but as an example, what if your 3 wickets at the death causes Dhoni, Yuvraj and Yusuf Pathan to get out and then you (or the guy bowling the other half of the death overs) gets to bowl at guys like Zaheer, Harbhajan and RP Singh for the last few overs. It is always going to be a what if situation, I suppose, but maybe Dhoni and co. would've taken more than 30 off those overs irrespective of who bowled them? When I said wickets have the potential to slow the run-rate, I meant it more in the sense that you get the good batsmen out, and not in the sense that the later batsmen will become more careful due to the fall of wickets because with 5 overs to go, they most certainly won't. Although I guess 20-20 has shown us that even number 10s and 11s can hit sixes if they really set their mind to it... 8-)
Yeah and I've seen bad bowling get slapped around by even relative tailenders - ie, anyone who's that much better than Chris Martin. If you keep swinging often enough (ie, every ball pretty much), and you've got 2 or 3 batsmen cut from that cloth (ie, the reasonable-quality-tail-ender like Zaheer Khan and Harbhajan Singh) you've a fair chance of seeing bad death-bowling get whacked still. The only difference is a tailender is only likely to get, say, 14 off 8 balls rather than the 40 off 19 that a better player might get. But if there's 3 of these players and they only need to bat for 4 overs, the damage to the score is equal. The last 10 overs going for 80 is equally damaging whether 6 wickets fall in that time with a few tailenders getting a couple of 10-odd scores or 2 wickets fall in that time and Yusuf Pathan and Dhoni end on 40-odd* each.

Economy-rate is what really counts in the death overs, unless 4 or 5 wickets really do fall at a rate of one per over.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Economy-rates don't work like that, things don't happen the same every game. I wouldn't actually say that 4.45-an-over, without bowling at the death, is that good an economy-rate, it's just not-disastrous. However, aside from the fact that more than one bowler bowls at the same time (ie someone else bowls from the other end as you bowl your spell), an ER of 4.45-an-over can mean some good spells (eg, 10-34-0) and some bad ones, rather than lots of bad ones.
Yes but there is no reason to suggest that an average of 118 @ 4.45 is better than mid 20s @ 4.58. A 0.13 increase in ER is not anywhere near as bad as a near 10 fold increase in the average especially if you take into account the fact that he hasnt been bowling much at the death.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yes but there is no reason to suggest that an average of 118 @ 4.45 is better than mid 20s @ 4.58. A 0.13 increase in ER is not anywhere near as bad as a near 10 fold increase in the average especially if you take into account the fact that he hasnt been bowling much at the death.
Uhh yes that's true in terms of what you'd prefer your bowler to take, but on the other hand a good economy rate often implies that the actual quality of the bowling was better than the amount of wickets implies, especially from such a low sample. With Anderson's accuracy problems too, the E/R certainly suggests those spells were nothing to give much thought to.
 

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
Strangest thing is that his record is best under Pietersen. :blink:

Possibly because of not bowling at the end, of course.
Haha, no it's not, I would take his record under Vaughan over his record under Pietersen.
What Nufan said


Economy-rates don't work like that, things don't happen the same every game. I wouldn't actually say that 4.45-an-over, without bowling at the death, is that good an economy-rate, it's just not-disastrous. However, aside from the fact that more than one bowler bowls at the same time (ie someone else bowls from the other end as you bowl your spell), an ER of 4.45-an-over can mean some good spells (eg, 10-34-0) and some bad ones, rather than lots of bad ones.
I would rather have a bowler consistently getting figures of 10-1-49-2/3ish than a one who gets figures of around 10-3-30-0 being as the latter would very likely bowl his overs out early in the game and still leave a pair of fairly high standard batsmen at the crease which is more counter productive than say a bowler who goes for 4.5 an over but consistently takes two or three batsmen with him if he is bowling at the start leaving the or at the death where he is more likely to stop a rampaging batsman in his tracks. In that sense I would rather have a somewhat costlier bowling attack that consistently has the opposition 5-7 wickets down by the 40th even if it costs180 odd runs than an attack which though keeping the opposition batsmen down to 130-150 odd off 40 overs whilst only managing 2 or three wickets in the duration.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
India have outplayed England by huge margin, I dont think any team selection would have mattered. Indian bowlers have outplayed English bowlers by miles despite their best bowler (Ishant) not playing so far. And IMO this is England's best attack.

Also, I dont believe England had enough to adjust time to the Indian conditions, they landed in India on 7th and within a week they were playing Dhoni and his men. Ridiculous planning from ECB. I can not believe they agreed for such a pathetic schedule and put their players in such situations, such things are expected from BCCI and PCB, not from ECB.
 

gettingbetter

State Vice-Captain
India have outplayed England by huge margin, I dont think any team selection would have mattered. Indian bowlers have outplayed English bowlers by miles despite their best bowler (Ishant) not playing so far. And IMO this is England's best attack.

Also, I dont believe England had enough to adjust time to the Indian conditions, they landed in India on 7th and within a week they were playing Dhoni and his men. Ridiculous planning from ECB. I can not believe they agreed for such a pathetic schedule and put their players in such situations, such things are expected from BCCI and PCB, not from ECB.
IT doesn't really matter that England have not won thus far or that India have outplayed them. Simple fact is that with any team, the team selections are important in attaining the best possible results.

As said previously, and I think these setiments hold true for a lot of posters on here especially England fans is that having Bopara and Patel at 7/8 is utterly pointless. Bopara doesn't even bowl, add to that he is a specialist batsman who was one of the best List A players last season and he is batting at 8?

Patel on the other hand is in a similar position as to that of Bopara. For some strange reason he is being selected as a spinner as opposed to the batsman he is for Notts. Then you got Prior who should be batting at no. 7.

I guess throughout this all it is a matter of England having too many batmsne who play in the same position; Bell, Shah, Prior, KP, Bopara, Patel and Collingwood are all 3-5 batters. So you have makeshift opener, specialist batsmen at 7/8 and other issues.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
I think the Dazzler's got his eye on the FST "embittered & easily patronised former Yorkshire quick" media role now the great man has sadly passed away.

Funnily enough I sort of agree with both Sanz & gettingbetter tho. GB's correct about us not having our balance right; playing specialist batsmen who turn their arms over very occasionally at no.8 is a waste of a position & inherently conservative because it sends out the message to the top 7 that we don't really trust you to score enough runs so we're going to stack the batting. Equally tho I see where Sanz is coming from, any changes we make are just essentially shuffling deckchairs around on the Titanic. It would be nice if we had a criminally ignored Yuraj Singh-type player waiting to come in, but the fact is we don't.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I would rather have a bowler consistently getting figures of 10-1-49-2/3ish than a one who gets figures of around 10-3-30-0 being as the latter would very likely bowl his overs out early in the game and still leave a pair of fairly high standard batsmen at the crease which is more counter productive than say a bowler who goes for 4.5 an over but consistently takes two or three batsmen with him if he is bowling at the start leaving the or at the death where he is more likely to stop a rampaging batsman in his tracks. In that sense I would rather have a somewhat costlier bowling attack that consistently has the opposition 5-7 wickets down by the 40th even if it costs180 odd runs than an attack which though keeping the opposition batsmen down to 130-150 odd off 40 overs whilst only managing 2 or three wickets in the duration.
If he takes 3 wickets at the start of the innings, then he can potentially help stop the batsmen getting on a rampage. If he takes 4 or 5 wickets in the middle, then he's got a chance of stopping rampaging batsmen.

However, both the above are unusual, and the latter almost unheard of. I think I've seen a spinner do it a handful of times, but no more than that. And I've been watching ODIs for 10 years.

However, taking wickets at the death will never slow the scoring-rate. You have to hit good areas - only your own accuracy can slow the rate in the death overs. Wicket-taking at the end of the innings is utterly meaningless if you're still being smashed.

And if you have the choice of 10-30-0 and 10-55-2 when bowling outside the death overs, I know which one I'd prefer, and it's not the latter.
 

Top