At what age do quick bowlers tend to decline?

[Richard]

Also, the question suggests what age do quick bowlers decline ? Does this mean performance-wise or pace-wise? If the pace declines, it then depends on the cleverness of the bowler to adjust his style and skills to be equally effective depsite losing some nip, and employing alternative tactics to remove the batsmen.

And of course, the best bowlers will be virtually every bit as effective, bowling the exact same thing, at 82mph as they will at 92mph.

 

[Richard]

You did see McGrath weaken a bit towards the end of his career. Ankle injuries seemed to have a significant impact.as old age caught up with him

I'm not entirely sure about that TBH. McGrath in 2005/06 bowled about as well as I've ever seen him bowl (SA played him well, as they had generally played him better than others throughout his career) and in 2006/07 I don't think there was a massive amount wrong with him.

I reckon he chose just about the perfect time to bow-out. Else, we might just have seen his body start to fall apart right in front of the cricket World's eyes.

 

[Burgey]

Lets expand a little

- Athletic- Steyn, Wasim, Lee, Larwood, Sreesanth, Ntini
- Lever- Harmison, Morkel, Munaf, Garner, Nel, Caddick
- Combination- Flintoff, Thomson, Shoaib, Fidel Edwards, Holding.

Athletic are the fast, strong athletes
Lever are those that have an elongated bowling arm arc. Either through long limbs or action.
Combination are, obviously, those that combine both.

Im not sure its easy to say which group is quickest but the 'Lever' group may not possess the express pace of the others.

I'd be interested to see where you'd put Dizzy in those categories, Kev.

I'd probably have him as a "combination"-type bowler.

Given the injuries he had as a youngster, a number of which were pretty serious, it's probably no surprise he burned out quicker than others.

 

[Furball]

It seems, from my entirely unscientific observations, to happen at a slightly later age now than was the case twenty years ago when I first started following the sport seriously. This could be down to better medical care and improved fitness generally or (especially in the case of English quicks) the fact that they now play a lot less cricket.

Brett Lee's an interesting case study for a bowler's peak/decline. In the 18 months until the India tour he'd been in (by general consensus) the form of his career, but since then has fallen away from his peak of excellence (NZ wickets notwithstanding). At 32 (IIRC) are we inclined to see it as a blip in form or is it the beginning of the end?

A blip in form, IMO.

Lee's always been rubbish in subcontinental conditions.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'd be interested to see where you'd put Dizzy in those categories, Kev.

I'd probably have him as a "combination"-type bowler.

Given the injuries he had as a youngster, a number of which were pretty serious, it's probably no surprise he burned out quicker than others.

Dizzy's action changed a fair bit over time. When he first played state cricket, was barely fast-medium pace and you can see what his action looked like there (about 30 seconds in);

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=3NnNrHLv2ms

Had a serious turn of pace where he just extended on that action a bit (about 5 minutes in);

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=XIK0DkOlyhM

Then developed some fairly serious stress fractures and smoothed-out his action, seemed to be more upright too;

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Y18Av4900fg

So yeah I guess you'd still put him mostly in the 'athletic' category but over time, seemed to be more and more in the 'lever' type.

 

[Top_Cat]

A blip in form, IMO.

Lee's always been rubbish in subcontinental conditions.

Especially since he bowled beautifully against NZ. The oppo was weak, sure, but I'm pretty confident he would have taken wickets against anyone the way he was bowling in Adelaide.

We'll see in a week or so, I guess.

 

[Richard]

A blip in form, IMO.

Lee's always been rubbish in subcontinental conditions.

This tour was the first time he'd toured the subcontinent at a time when he wasn't rubbish in all conditions.

 

[Richard]

Dizzy's action changed a fair bit over time. When he first played state cricket, was barely fast-medium pace and you can see what his action looked like there (about 30 seconds in);

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=3NnNrHLv2ms

WoW, that's superb. Had never heard of this Trevor Bardsby fellow, he evidently wasn't too bad. When did Maher replace him at the top of the order? (Notice Maher wasn't even playing in that game, despite the presence of the Loves, Stuart Laws and Seccombes, and of course Hayden).

Best thing is how little Hayden's stance has changed. Interesting to see how much Mark Harrity troubled him that game, Harrity's a bowler I always liked the look of and whose career average I looked at for the first time the other day when doing that Australian domestic 2000/01 thread and was astonished to see was just a tick under 40.

Yeah, Gillespie's action is only just recogniseable though. Face still instantly recogniseable mind.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

At what age do quick bowlers tend to decline?

I'm not sure, but when did Jimmy Anderson make his debut? He's been on the decline ever since.

 

[Top_Cat]

WoW, that's superb. Had never heard of this Trevor Bardsby fellow, he evidently wasn't too bad. When did Maher replace him at the top of the order? (Notice Maher wasn't even playing in that game, despite the presence of the Loves, Stuart Laws and Seccombes, and of course Hayden).

Maher played in that game, batted 6.

And Trevor Barsby batted out of his skin in that game so wouldn't read too much into it.

Best thing is how little Hayden's stance has changed. Interesting to see how much Mark Harrity troubled him that game, Harrity's a bowler I always liked the look of and whose career average I looked at for the first time the other day when doing that Australian domestic 2000/01 thread and was astonished to see was just a tick under 40.

Hags was much like Lee in the early days but for his whole career. Two lengths. Was always quick, though. Generally preferred to try to knock the batsmens' blocks off and against top-level players, went the journey many, many times. Was occasionally devastating, though.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, Gillespie's action is only just recogniseable though. Face still instantly recogniseable mind.

Indeed.

 

[pup11]

Something I've been wondering recently, and also coming out of some other discussions on here:

The success of McGrath at age 35/36 - has it shown that nowadays fast bowlers are fitter and start to decline later, or was McGrath a freak of nature?

Edit: I am talking about a rule of thumb here, I know it won't apply to all but I'm trying to get a general idea.

McGrath was certainly a freak of nature, as he was arguably the best fast-bowler in terms of how everything about his bowling was so proper and aligned, and that in way helped him in ensuring that his levels of consistency more or less remained high through his whole career.

Now for the other fast bowlers i think decline could start at any age for them, you don't necessarily need to be in your 30's for it to happen, if a fast bowler doesn't have a solid strength traininning regime and dicspline off the field then given the kind of gruelling schedules these players are pitted against nowadays, the graph could start coming down pretty quickly, but still normally one would associate decline in a fast bowlers performances once he crosses the 30 age barrier, but then too its upto that certain individual as to how willing is he to work hard on his fitness and reinvent himself at that stage of his career, and use his experience from over the years to his advantage.

 

[Richard]

At what age do quick bowlers tend to decline?

I'm not sure, but when did Jimmy Anderson make his debut? He's been on the decline ever since.

TBF, Anderson was hit for 46 off 6 overs on debut. His best performances came a few games later - the 10-12-1 at Adelaide Oval and the 10-29-4 against Pakistan at Newlands.

 

[silentstriker]

Actually, I am writing an article on the subject, and I can't believe I didn't see the thread!

So I went and got actual data on pace bowlers by age. This first graph is a list of how many pace bowlers played per age.

As you can see, around 24-28 seems to be the age most pace bowlers are playing, which makes sense as that's the age most teams pick their fast bowlers. Of course, many don't cement their place and get dropped, to be replaced by someone else in the age range. The number of seamers playing starts dropping significantly around 30, and it makes sense, as generally teams don't pick first time seamers who are 30 or over, and the only 30 or over players (generally) are those who have cemented their places in the side by then.

But how do bowlers actually do as they get older? Well, this graph is very interesting to me. It seems that even as fast bowlers get older, they may lose thier pace, but they get better with accuracy (perhaps because they are more experienced, or perhaps because they have to as they may not have the speed of their youth).

The very interesting thing is that the progressively low ER rate continues until they are almost 40! Meaning, a 38 year old is more economical than a 35 year old, who is more economical than a 30 year old. Of course, another factor that cannot be ignored is the pace bowlers who keep playing into their mid or late thirties are those who are proven to be excellent performers (a McGrath, or Walsh, and such), and therefore the data starts becoming skewed, as you don't have the mediocre 25 year olds bringing the data down. Nonetheless, it's a very interesting graph. Also, as you can tell from the player's graph, the number of players starts dropping off quite a bit as you get older, so the data isn't necessarily statistically valid (p most certainly is not 0.05 ).

The third graph is age vs. average. As mentioned above, the data after around 33-34 can probably be ignored.

However, it does not seem that players overall decline for any length of period in their early thirties as might be predicted. Perhaps they are injured and get dropped quickly, or they realize their body is giving out and retire. It does not seem like pace bowlers linger enough to affect their average. I think the first graph is most significant in this regard, to figure out when pace bowlers are being dropped or retiring.

Here is the raw data:

 

[NUFAN]

That is a fantastic analysis SS.

What bowlers were counted in the study?
Were Bangldesh included?
How about bowlers under 21 years old?
What Test players did you use, from how recent I mean?

 

[silentstriker]

All bowlers listed as pace who played after 1970, includes all minnows (I'd think it would even out as 30 year old vs. Bangladesh vs. 25 year olds vs. Bangladesh not a big deal). Plus a couple players here and there won't really change anything until you get into the late thirties.

I didn't do bowlers under 21 as they were mostly from minnow countries, and the sample size was real small (comparable to bowlers in their late thirties, though I did the latter out of curiosity).

 

[NUFAN]

Okay excellent.

RE: Bangladesh I just wondered if you included their bowlers, not the players who played against them. Not a big deal though.

 

[silentstriker]

Okay excellent.

RE: Bangladesh I just wondered if you included their bowlers, not the players who played against them. Not a big deal though.

Yes, I did. But 5-10 bowlers will not significantly change the data when you have 200-250 bowlers included in the analysis, especially in the mid twenties. And their bowlers will remain crap throughout their span, thereby evening out the numbers. If they are crap before, they'll stay crap or get worse, same as any other bowler who is good but stays good or becomes worse, so since we are measuring relative declines of players, putting them in makes sense.

 

[Precambrian]

All bowlers listed as pace who played after 1970, includes all minnows (I'd think it would even out as 30 year old vs. Bangladesh vs. 25 year olds vs. Bangladesh not a big deal). Plus a couple players here and there won't really change anything until you get into the late thirties.

I didn't do bowlers under 21 as they were mostly from minnow countries, and the sample size was real small (comparable to bowlers in their late thirties, though I did the latter out of curiosity).

Where did you get source data? It doesnt show up in your original post.

Brilliant work though.

 

[Goughy]

The 2nd graph can be easily explained without thinking players get more accurate as they get older.

Econ rate is poor early as lots of guys are learning their game and lots of guys that shouldnt be picked are selected.

It plateaus in the middle as the bad players are no longer selected at that age and it gets better at the older age as only the very best will get picked at that age.

As age progresses the fat (poor bowlers) is increasingly trimmed

Apart from the very young, it mirrors the number of bowlers by age which makes sense as the unproven are young and can easily fail and they are jettisoned by the mid-late 20s.