Dangerous on their day- Quicks

[Goughy]

Based on recently retired players from this list
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283354.html

Inspired by a disagreement on how destructive Caddick could be I thought I would have a quick look.

These figures do NOT measure how consistent or 'good' a bowler was. They do help to illustrate how often they got it right in a big way.

I wanted to look at bowling average in 5+ wicket hauls ie 5-40 would give bowling average of 8 and how often they 'blitzed' a batting line-up- 5+ wickets for 50 or less runs.

Players have a min of 12 Test 5+ wicket hauls and all are seamers that are of a recent vintage.

Average in 5+ wicket hauls

Pollock	8.52
Ambrose	10.12
Mcgrath	10.37
Caddick	10.76
Vaas	11.46
Donald	11.47
Walsh	11.98
Cairns	12.17
Fraser	12.44
Wasim	12.65
Ntini	13.27
Waqar	13.49

Games per 'Blitz' Innings

Donald	10.29
Caddick	10.33
Pollock	10.8
Mcgrath	10.87
Ambrose	10.89
Wasim	13
Fraser	15.33
Cairns	15.5
Ntini	20.2
Waqar	21.75
Walsh	22
Vaas	22.2

 

[TumTum]

Using the bowlers averages from 5 wicket hauls to determine their destructiveness is not that accurate (could have been under-bowled then picked up tail-ender wickets etc). You really need to do a match by match analysis of this from live footage.

 

[Goughy]

Using the bowlers averages from 5 wicket hauls to determine their destructiveness is not that accurate (could have been under-bowled then picked up tail-ender wickets etc). You really need to do a match by match analysis of this from live footage.

I get your point but that isnt that relevant to this though as these are the top 5 wicket haul takers of alltime. The example you cite could scew the numbers for a small sample size but these are also frontline new ball bowlers with all over 200+ wickets.

 

[Migara]

Vaas is there. When good unbelievably good. When off never takes wickets. However to his credit, most of the time he was very economical.

 

[vcs]

Wow, Pollock looks amazing there, doesn't he?

 

[ImpatientLime]

Bloody hell, Fraser had 13 test match five-fors!

How on earth did this guy only play 46 tests again in a period of English mediocrity?

 

[Prince EWS]

Wow, Pollock looks amazing there, doesn't he?

Yeah, somewhat surprising, because he's not someone you'd associate with being an inconsistent match-turner capable of bowling a blitz spell. Yet another example of being an epic gun though.

 

[lockton2skipper]

Bloody hell, Fraser had 13 test match five-fors!

How on earth did this guy only play 46 tests again in a period of English mediocrity?

injuries!!!!

 

[thierry henry]

It's funny because in many ways that list is exactly the opposite of what you would expect if you didn't give it much thought beforehand, e.g. Pollock at the top and Waqar near the bottom.

I guess the accurate bowlers are more "destructive" at their best because, when they take a bag, they inevitably don't concede many, whereas someone like Waqar would always be going for runs.

Also, I've often thought that Pollock never looked quite as destructive as his stats would indicate. This would show why- when he took a bag he did so extremely economically which really boosted his numbers.

 

[Athlai]

Pollock so good.

Wonder what Waqar's peak years would have looked like. Haha almost no difference at all in the average runs conceded, though obviously the matches between is a fair bit better.

Gets closer to once per 10 innings though. But it does seem as if he rarely blitzed teams, his 5fers went for a few runs.

 

[Top_Cat]

No Sachin? Pfft, any opportunity to bash him.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Interesting figures.

Be fair to say that Pollock could also be benefiting from the large number of all-rounders that were available to South Africa in his time. Always five bowling options, and generally pretty strong bowling side, so it's unlikely that he's going to take too many big hauls for 80+ runs.

 

[morgieb]

Yeah, somewhat surprising, because he's not someone you'd associate with being an inconsistent match-turner capable of bowling a blitz spell. Yet another example of being an epic gun though.

Averaged around ~ 20 for ages though. Turned **** around 2003 I believe.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Andrew Caddick was such a frustrating player. In a way he was a Mitchell Johnson of his day as you knew early on what you were getting. Get an early wicket and he was a different animal but if he didn't he would constantly scratch at the crease making excuses for bowling crap.

Never known any bowler be so transformed by an early wicket or lack of, does that mean he was soft. Possibly.

 

[Uppercut]

Did you consider using strike rate in five wicket hauls instead, Goughy? I would have thought of a "destructive" bowler as one who mauls a batting lineup in a very short space of time rather than for very few runs.

 

[Dissector]

More evidence that Pollock is the most underrated cricketer of the last 20 years.

 

[Burgey]

Andrew Caddick was such a frustrating player. In a way he was a Mitchell Johnson of his day as you knew early on what you were getting. Get an early wicket and he was a different animal but if he didn't he would constantly scratch at the crease making excuses for bowling crap.

Never known any bowler be so transformed by an early wicket or lack of, does that mean he was soft. Possibly.

This.

And yes I think it means just that.

 

[smash84]

Did you consider using strike rate in five wicket hauls instead, Goughy? I would have thought of a "destructive" bowler as one who mauls a batting lineup in a very short space of time rather than for very few runs.

Yeah that is what I thought too. Waqar was supreme in this sense. When on song The guy could wrap up the innnigs as quickly as anybody.