Bowling Strikerates in test matches - how important are they?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I don't agree. Wickets give the rest of the team much more of a boost than economical bowling IMO. You get a brand new batsman to bowl at instead of one who's still there but has been kept quiet. That sounds a bit simplistic, but essentially it's the difference between coming on first change with the score 46/2 rather than 23/1. I'll most certainly much prefer the former.

Or alternatively you might get a batsman who's on 23* instead of 4*. There's no hard-and-fast rule, really, as both more wickets and less runs have their advantage to the rest of the attack. However, I myself am always someone who looks at restricting runs as the base component of bowling, and taking wickets as the "next step up". Perhaps at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference. But I'd say you can never remotely hope to come close to taking a wicket with every ball, whereas if you run in thinking "I don't care in the slightest if this delivery goes for runs", you've got the wrong attitude IMO.

Some believe attack is the be-all-and-end-all; some enjoy a balance between attack and defence. I am emphatically the latter.

Besides, in test cricket, there are far more situations where you need wickets quickly to ensure a result than when you need wickets slowly to prevent one.

In Test cricket you've got five days to get a result. You never need wickets slowly to prevent a result. If you're in the field, the times when you are aiming to not take wickets are miniscule and in most players' careers zero.

[bagapath]

brett lee has a superior strike rate compared to imran khan's. (53.3 vs 53.7). ambrose (54.5) and akram (54.6) are further behind. gough's is better than all of them (51.6) including mcgrath's (51.9) and lillee's (52).

will anyone rate lee and gough in same league as imran, ambrose, akram, mcgrath and lillee leave alone call them greater bowlers?

BTW, both lee and gough conceded 3+ RPO; the others well under 3.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Richard

Or alternatively you might get a batsman who's on 23* instead of 4*. There's no hard-and-fast rule, really, as both more wickets and less runs have their advantage to the rest of the attack. However, I myself am always someone who looks at restricting runs as the base component of bowling, and taking wickets as the "next step up". Perhaps at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference. But I'd say you can never remotely hope to come close to taking a wicket with every ball, whereas if you run in thinking "I don't care in the slightest if this delivery goes for runs", you've got the wrong attitude IMO.

Some believe attack is the be-all-and-end-all; some enjoy a balance between attack and defence. I am emphatically the latter.

It's not that i don't like a balance. Really, if you're averaging 23, you're a bloody good bowler in any case.

I just think it's ridiculous that bowlers should be penalised for taking wickets too quickly. They're not conceding more runs than economic bowlers- although maybe it feels like they are- they're just conceding them more quickly. It's fine to prefer a Pollock-style player over one in the mould of Steyn, but to place a cut-off for how quickly a bowler can take his wickets is just plain bizarre.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by bagapath

brett lee has a superior strike rate compared to imran khan's. (53.3 vs 53.7). ambrose (54.5) and akram (54.6) are further behind. gough's is better than all of them (51.6) including mcgrath's (51.9) and lillee's (52).

will anyone rate lee and gough in same league as imran, ambrose, akram, mcgrath and lillee leave alone call them greater bowlers?

Emphatically not, because they average much more. Strike rate is strictly secondary to how many runs you go for per wicket you take.

A higher strike rate is only more desirable than a good economy rate when average is kept constant.

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Emphatically not, because they average much more. Strike rate is strictly secondary to how many runs you go for per wicket you take.

A higher strike rate is only more desirable than a good economy rate when average is kept constant.

all that you are saying is about the ER also, uppercut. i am just saying if you keep the SR constant then the one with better ER will have better average. and in certain cases, gough vs ambrose for example, the one with better ER has a significantly lower average despite an inferior SR and hence is a superior bowler. you cant take take ER out of the equation even if you choose to address it indirectly only in terms of average.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by bagapath

all that you are saying is about the ER also, uppercut. i am just saying if you keep the SR constant then the one with better ER will have better average. and in certain cases, gough vs ambrose for example, the one with better ER has a significantly lower average despite an inferior SR and hence is a superior bowler. you cant take take ER out of the equation even if you choose to address it indirectly only in terms of average.

Yeah, i'm aware:

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Haha, i'd say I'm ignoring it (E/R), but still taking it into account.

Really there's no need to look at all three, although sometimes it's easier if you do. But if a bowler's average is low and his strike rate is low, then he's a good bowler, so there's no need to propose a cut-off on economy rate.

[stephen]

I actually think that all of this is dependent on the team situation.

A bowler with a low strike rate/low economy rate is actually better in a team where they are the best bowler. Such a bowler is more aggressive but goes for more. If the other bowlers in the team are not of the same class, then the low strike rate bowler is more likely to win you matches. And if they don't fire? Well you're going to lose anyway.

In a team with better bowlers I'd take the higher strike rate/lower economy bowler any day of the week. Why? Pressure. A high strike rate bowler can still apply pressure and take wickets at the other end. This can greatly assist other bowlers and help the team win. In this situation a low strike rate bowler could actually lose you a game that you'd have otherwise won or drawn.

Also, I personally think that any quick averaging under 25 can automatically be filed in the "all time great" category, and most spinners averaging under 30 can also be put there too.

It's ridiculous having a list of all time great quick bowlers and excluding Alan Davidson and/or Waqar Younis.

Here is a question, who would you rather have in your current team - Alan Davidson (economy under 2, strike rate just over 62, average 20) or Waqar Younis (economy 3.25, strike rate of 43, average 23)?

On the one hand Waqar may be more likely to run through sides than Davidson, but Davidson is more likely to take wickets at the other end (and has a marginally better average).

EDIT: Interestingly enough, Davidson took a higher ratio of 5 wicket hauls than Waqar, though Waqar took a higher ratio of 4 wicket hauls. 10 wicket haul ratios were very similar.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by stephen

I actually think that all of this is dependent on the team situation.

A bowler with a low strike rate/low economy rate is actually better in a team where they are the best bowler. Such a bowler is more aggressive but goes for more. If the other bowlers in the team are not of the same class, then the low strike rate bowler is more likely to win you matches. And if they don't fire? Well you're going to lose anyway.

In a team with better bowlers I'd take the higher strike rate/lower economy bowler any day of the week. Why? Pressure. A high strike rate bowler can still apply pressure and take wickets at the other end. This can greatly assist other bowlers and help the team win. In this situation a low strike rate bowler could actually lose you a game that you'd have otherwise won or drawn.

Also, I personally think that any quick averaging under 25 can automatically be filed in the "all time great" category, and most spinners averaging under 30 can also be put there too.

It's ridiculous having a list of all time great quick bowlers and excluding Alan Davidson and/or Waqar Younis.

Here is a question, who would you rather have in your current team - Alan Davidson (economy under 2, strike rate just over 62, average 20) or Waqar Younis (economy 3.25, strike rate of 43, average 23)?

On the one hand Waqar may be more likely to run through sides than Davidson, but Davidson is more likely to take wickets at the other end (and has a marginally better average).

Good post this- just a few things to add on why i prefer the high-strike-rate bowlers.

It's much easier for a bowler like Waqar to bowl with the intention of keeping it tight and keep the runs down than it is for someone like Pollock to get aggressive and bring his strike rate down. That's why i'd tend to favour bowlers who strike regularly.

As for Waqar vs. Davidson- probably Davidson, but it depends on who else is already in my team .

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

It's not that i don't like a balance. Really, if you're averaging 23, you're a bloody good bowler in any case.

I just think it's ridiculous that bowlers should be penalised for taking wickets too quickly. They're not conceding more runs than economic bowlers- although maybe it feels like they are- they're just conceding them more quickly. It's fine to prefer a Pollock-style player over one in the mould of Steyn, but to place a cut-off for how quickly a bowler can take his wickets is just plain bizarre.

I don't think anyone is doing such a thing - I'm certainly not. Simply saying that SR merely needs a minimum - and once you're over that minimum, it's average that counts more than SR. Tests last five days, and as long as you take wickets quickly enough to get 20 within those five days, you're fine, and it's all about how few runs you concede in doing it.

There are two options, blast through teams despite going for lots of runs per over, or keep things very tight and make a good strike-rate result in an exceptional average (or similar - a decent strike-rate result in a good average).

As I say, I as a bowler feel that I prefer to see the rest of my attack not going around the park, and that's the most comforting feeling. I've only ever played limited-overs cricket though, of course.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by stephen

I actually think that all of this is dependent on the team situation.

A bowler with a low strike rate/low economy rate is actually better in a team where they are the best bowler. Such a bowler is more aggressive but goes for more. If the other bowlers in the team are not of the same class, then the low strike rate bowler is more likely to win you matches. And if they don't fire? Well you're going to lose anyway.

In a team with better bowlers I'd take the higher strike rate/lower economy bowler any day of the week. Why? Pressure. A high strike rate bowler can still apply pressure and take wickets at the other end. This can greatly assist other bowlers and help the team win. In this situation a low strike rate bowler could actually lose you a game that you'd have otherwise won or drawn.

I'd actually say it's the other way around. You always want your leading bowler to be an economical (if not super-economical a la McGrath\Ambrose\Pollock) one, whatever the strength of the rest of your attack is. Yeah, it's more important in a weaker attack than a stronger one, but the biggest strength of the three most potent seam attacks of recent times was the economy of the attack leader - Roberts, then Marshall, for West Indies; Pollock for South Africa (and also most of the others, such as Donald, de Villiers, Matthews, McMillan and Kallis); and Alderman (briefly), then McDermott, then (most notably) McGrath, for Australia.

However, as I've always said, the "wickets at the other end" theory is a nice one, but it's little more than that. If one bowler's bowling well and the rest are bowling dross, the dross is still in 93.598146% (or so...) of times gonna get the treatment. You can only lead your fellow bowlers to the well, you can't drink the water for them.

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Really there's no need to look at all three, although sometimes it's easier if you do. But if a bowler's average is low and his strike rate is low, then he's a good bowler, so there's no need to propose a cut-off on economy rate.

here are four bowlers with hardly any difference in their bowling averages. two of them have sub 45 SR but 3+ ER (waqar and steyn) . The other two concede less than three runs per over but need 50, 52 balls to take a wicket (lillee and holding).

in my book, lillee and holding are the two best bowlers out of the four. will you say waqar and steyn were/are better than those two?

Waqar Younis (Pak) 		87 	154 	16224 	8788 	373 	7/76 	13/135 	23.56 	3.25 	43.4 	22 	5
MA Holding (WI) 		60 	113 	12680 	5898 	249 	8/92 	14/149 	23.68 	2.79 	50.9 	13 	2 
DW Steyn (SA) 			33 	62 	6676 	4029 	170 	6/49 	10/91 	23.70 	3.62 	39.2 	11 	3 	
DK Lillee (Aus) 		70 	132 	18467 	8493 	355 	7/83 	11/123 	23.92 	2.75 	52.0 	23 	7

[Richard]

I won't, myself, but the reasons have precious little to do with banal overall career averages.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by bagapath

here are four bowlers with hardly any difference in their bowling averages. two of them have sub 45 SR but 3+ ER (waqar and steyn) . The other two concede less than three runs per over but need 50, 52 balls to take a wicket (lillee and holding).

in my book, lillee and holding are the two best bowlers out of the four. will you say waqar and steyn were/are better than those two?

Waqar Younis (Pak) 		87 	154 	16224 	8788 	373 	7/76 	13/135 	23.56 	3.25 	43.4 	22 	5
MA Holding (WI) 		60 	113 	12680 	5898 	249 	8/92 	14/149 	23.68 	2.79 	50.9 	13 	2 
DW Steyn (SA) 			33 	62 	6676 	4029 	170 	6/49 	10/91 	23.70 	3.62 	39.2 	11 	3 	
DK Lillee (Aus) 		70 	132 	18467 	8493 	355 	7/83 	11/123 	23.92 	2.75 	52.0 	23 	7

No. Because there's more to cricket than statistics.

But their raw career stats are indeed better, if you overlook the fact that Steyn hasn't really had enough games (or had minnows removed from his stats).

Also, that's quite a selective example. I could just as easily ask you to compare Malcolm Marshall (low SR, average of 20) to Joel Garner (higher SR, average of 20). Is Garner better than Marshall???

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

No. Because there's more to cricket than statistics.

But their raw career stats are indeed better, if you overlook the fact that Steyn hasn't really had enough games (or had minnows removed from his stats).

Also, that's quite a selective example. I could just as easily ask you to compare Malcolm Marshall (low SR, average of 20) to Joel Garner (higher SR, average of 20). Is Garner better than Marshall???

sure you can. and i will say marshall hands down for me. i have explained my take on this on other threads also. it is mainly to do with garner's inability to run through batting line-ups as frequently as marshall (7 five wicket hauls vs 22). also he wasnt as successful as marshall against all opponents. garner's avg against india was 43. marshall averaged under 30 against everyone. garner and marshall both conceded under 3 runs an over 2.47 and 2.68. so marshall is not significantly more expensive than garner either.

you had argued earlier that if the bowling averages are the same between two bowlers then the one with the better strike rate is the superior bowler. waqar has a very marginally better avg than lillee and his SR is significantly superior (more than 8 deliveries). then why is lillee perceived as a superior bowler by everyone (maybe, including you)? my argument is waqar can bowl more easy scoring deliveries as reflected in his higher ER whereas lillee will choke the scoring opportunities apart from getting the wickets.

i did not arrive at this conclusion looking at these numbers. i know cricket is more than stats. i have seen lillee induce more fear in the minds of the opponents than waqar. i have seen him dominate sessions without making it easy for batsmen to score runs, whereas a misfired, over-pitched swinging yorker from waqar would be hit for boundary and make the batsman more confident. both were beyond very good. just that lillee's accuracy made him greater. and waqar's propensity to bowl loose deliveries made him less threatening - in comparison with a superior bowler like lillee who had an ER under 3.

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

No. Because there's more to cricket than statistics.

But their raw career stats are indeed better, if you overlook the fact that Steyn hasn't really had enough games (or had minnows removed from his stats).

Also, that's quite a selective example. I could just as easily ask you to compare Malcolm Marshall (low SR, average of 20) to Joel Garner (higher SR, average of 20). Is Garner better than Marshall???

i have not removed minnows from the stats.