Is Ewen Chatfield a better bowler than Chris Cairns? (tru story)

[Ikki]

Cairns and not really close IMO.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Not really sure how matches like that would necessarily devalue the wickets he took. If anything it would present more matches where you don't get a shot at 20 wickets because of the greater likelihood of draws/declarations.

Cairns FC wickets in NZ domestic cricket:
120 @ 24.75

Chats:
403 @ 18.68

I see that scorecard isn't really representative of what I wanted to say (mainly wanted to post it for the absurdity) - namely that 3-day cricket means more reckless batting and thus lower scores. Stephen Boock's domestic record is similar (501 @ 20 - I suppose it's spin vs seam so not quite easily comparable but I think it shows that bowling in general was quite easy).

Anyway zinzan has seen them both hasn't he? Will go with his judgment

 

[Howsie]

Cairns and not really close IMO.

This.

I can only imagine how much different each of their respective test records would look if Hadlee were 20 years younger.

 

[weldone]

This.

I can only imagine how much different each of their respective test records would look if Hadlee were 20 years younger.

Chatfield would open the bowling more often and Chris Cairns less often...

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Chatfield the much more consistent, reliable bowler and Cairns the much more likely to get hit around, but take wickets. Very different seam bowlers and I don't really feel a comparison is fair on either. Very different styles, and would provide the team a very different set of skills.

This current NZ team really needs a genuine wicket taking option, so a Cairns would probably get picked in front of Chatters. Chatfield the better bowler IMO.

Plus, Chatfield still plays club cricket and is a deadset, 100% legend.

 

[Ikki]

The irony is that Cairns still averages better despite "getting hit around". Chatfield, from what I've read and his record shows, was simply a very miserly bowler. He is not the kind of bowler you'd pick to lead any attack if your alternative was Cairns.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

The irony is that Cairns still averages better despite "getting hit around". Chatfield, from what I've read and his record shows, was simply a very miserly bowler. He is not the kind of bowler you'd pick to lead any attack if your alternative was Cairns.

Doesn't make my point any less correct. Cairns - a bowler with some fabulous attacking variations, and Chatfield a man who could land the ball on a sixpence. Chatfield has a vastly superior economy rate, and Cairns a vastly superior strike rate. Chatfield saved some of his best bowling for when he had to step up and lead the attack, as I recall. He was the perfect foil for Hadlee.

As I said, I feel that a comparison between such vastly different bowlers is fairly disingenuous, but dismissing Chatfield as a bowler is also very unfair in my opinion.

 

[Zinzan]

Test.

In that case Cairns hands-down. Chats the Test bowler primarily played a supporting role for Hadlee & the fact he kept it so tight at the other end t meant he invariably got wickets.

On one tour to NZ, Javed Miandad famously asked if he could take Chatfield back with him to Karachi as a bowling machine

 

[Athlai]

In that case Cairns hands-down. Chats the Test bowler primarily played a supporting role for Hadlee & the fact he kept it so tight at the other end t meant he invariably got wickets.

On one tour to NZ, Javed Miandad famously asked if he could take Chatfield back with him to Karachi as a bowling machine

 

[Ikki]

Doesn't make my point any less correct. Cairns - a bowler with some fabulous attacking variations, and Chatfield a man who could land the ball on a sixpence. Chatfield has a vastly superior economy rate, and Cairns a vastly superior strike rate. Chatfield saved some of his best bowling for when he had to step up and lead the attack, as I recall. He was the perfect foil for Hadlee.

As I said, I feel that a comparison between such vastly different bowlers is fairly disingenuous, but dismissing Chatfield as a bowler is also very unfair in my opinion.

The only thing Chatfield has better is ER. Cairns has a better average and also a better SR. That doesn't square them off. Why would you want a bowler who is ultimately expensive when it comes to wickets he takes and overs he bowls merely because he doesn't get hit so much per over, instead of a bowler who strikes incredibly fast and is also pretty cheap to boot (avg of 29)?

Makes little sense unless you're strictly talking about ODIs. Comparing these two is no more disingenuous than comparing Waqar and Ambrose - merely because they had different approaches and intentions as fast bowlers. Here are there stats (wickets, runs conceded and overs bowled per match).

                  [B]WPM    RCPM    OBPM [/B]
[B]Chatfield[/B]:        2.9     92     40.2
[B]Cairns[/B]:           3.5     103.4  31.4

Cairns takes more wickets per match at a cheaper rate and in less time. As for leading the attack; Cairns was wonderful when he opened whereas Chatfield was still more or less the same miserly bowler. Chatfield; Cairns.

 

[Prince EWS]

As the only really notable difference between them was their strike rate/economy rate (ie. not their average), it really depends on what you need. In an attack where one of these two players is going to be the best bowler on show then you'd want Cairns as his superior strike rate ensures that his bowling performances are going to take on more of an influence than Chatfield's would. In a better attack though - say in one where one of these two is going to be the fourth best bowler - Chatfield would be of more use because he could limit the impact on the game that his overs were making and allow greater impact from the other, better bowlers in the attack, just acting as a support option.

 

[Mike5181]

Chris Cairns. I know who i would rather face.

 

[Ikki]

Personally reckon to pick him, even for that second scenario, is still silly. The main bowlers are not always going to have their way and it is vital that a 4th bowler be more than capable of stepping up. The runs Chatfield saves doesn't make up enough ground for the difference Cairns can make as a wicket taker.

 

[fredfertang]

Chatfield was the perfect foil for Richard Hadlee, but if you took Hadlee out of the equation and had a choice between Chatfield or Chris Cairns opening the bowling with any other NZ seamer it would have to be Cairns

 

[Prince EWS]

Personally reckon to pick him, even for that second scenario, is still silly. The main bowlers are not always going to have their way and it is vital that a 4th bowler be more than capable of stepping up. The runs Chatfield saves doesn't make up enough ground for the difference Cairns can make as a wicket taker.

This would be true if there was a significant difference in their averages, but there isn't. The only real difference is in how quickly the game progresses when they're bowling, and you don't want the game to progress faster when your fourth bowler is on. For the balance of the attack, given two bowlers with similar averages, you definitely want your fourth bowler to be economy-based rather than strike-rate-based to let your better bowlers have a greater influence.

I'll give you an exaggerated example to illustrate my point.

Three bowlers in an attack average 21 each and strike at 36 (ie. they take 1/21 every 6 overs). If the average of the fourth bowler is a constant at 30, you definitely want him to have a lower economy rate and a higher strike rate to achieve that, because it minimises his impact and allows the other three bowlers to have more of an influence.

Assuming all four bowlers always bowl the same amount of overs (silly hypothetical I know but helps explain my position), having your fourth bowler with an economy rate of 5 and a SR of 36 would result in this:

Bowlers 1-3 combined: 36 overs 6/126
Bowler 4: 12 overs 2/60
Score: 186/8

If the fourth bowler instead had an economy rate of 2.5 and a strike rate of 72, you'd get this:

Bowlers 1-3 combined: 42 overs 7/147
Bowler 4: 14 overs 1.17/35
Score: 182/8.17

Now it's a bit of a silly example because cricket is in fact played by humans and not automated robots, and I've even managed to get a fraction of a wicket in there, but that's what the basic theory is based upon. Beyond pedantic mathematics and more into reality though, I do think batsmen get a lot more frustrated if they can't manage to score off the lesser bowlers; it helps the better bowlers at the other end more if the batsmen know they can't just get a flow of runs against the lesser lights at a higher RPW.

Obviously Carins would be a better bowler for a poor attack, but I'd take someone like Chatfield in an attack with three other good bowlers every time. You're applying standard ATG methodology to bowlers who weren't that; the same theory of 'lower strike rate at the same average = better' doesn't flow down the list of bowlers within an attack. Overall I do think Cairns was a better Test bowler because he was slightly better at his job than Chatfield was his IMO, but their strike rates aren't the defining criteria there as they merely illustrate that their jobs were different and that they were suited to different balances.

 

[Ikki]

As you've acknowledged that is an incredibly contrived example to show an instance where Chatfield may be more useful. However, it does not address my point and I'll repeat what I replied to you so you understand what I mean.

You said:

In a better attack though - say in one where one of these two is going to be the fourth best bowler - Chatfield would be of more use because he could limit the impact on the game that his overs were making and allow greater impact from the other, better bowlers in the attack, just acting as a support option.

And I disagreed. Of course, in a situation like the above it may be of use to have a bowler like Chatfield but I am referring to the game of cricket with all it's intricacies and it's randomness.

The main bowlers are not always going to have their way and it is vital that a 4th bowler be more than capable of stepping up. The runs Chatfield saves doesn't make up enough ground for the difference Cairns can make as a wicket taker.

Hence, the value of having Chatfield in instances like you illustrate is not outweighed by the value in having Cairns in most cases where he may even be the 3rd or 4th bowler. Because, as aforesaid, in Cricket, there are going to be instances, and plenty of them, where the main strike bowlers aren't having the best of it. I also disagree with your statement re speed of the game. In a competitive game, you'd want it to move as fast as possible: less time spent bowling and more time for your batsmen. You may even concede a few more runs but you'll actually gain equally and more time to make up those runs and create a lead. Saving balls = creating opportunities. One can argue it this way: in the above scenario the economic bowler saves his team 4 runs and his team is able to take 0.17 wickets more. On the other hand, the team loses some 14 overs to do that - about half a session - which could be used to score those 4 runs and then some.

In fact, the best reply to the above scenario is: have no Chatfield or Cairns and let the 3 bowlers bowl out the opposition in 2 sessions as they are going to do under that example. Or, really, if you simply included the ratios Chatfield and Cairns have themselves you'll see that they're too close in terms of runs concession for even in this kind of scenario to gain the kind of weight for Chatfield to be picked.

Moreover

 

[Prince EWS]

I also disagree with your statement re speed of the game. In a competitive game, you'd want it to move as fast as possible: less time spent bowling and more time for your batsmen. You may even concede a few more runs but you'll actually gain equally and more time to make up those runs and create a lead. Saving balls = creating opportunities.

Haha, I don't mean to sound patronising, but that's such a typical Ikki perspective.

You remind me a lot of Ian Chappell; all your theories seem based around the assumption that you're better than the opposition and the only way you're not going to win is if the nature of the game conspires against you or you don't play to your potential. As Top_Cat would say of the Chappell family, you only have respect for guns, and role players to suit balance and create a functioning team as a whole don't really enter your psyche. It might be a product of following such a strong Australian team throughout most of your cricket-supporting life or it might just be your outlook in general; I dunno, but I always find it interesting to read your posts for that reason.

Either way, it looks like we've hit our usual brick wall on this particular topic about the necessity to progress the game at all times so I'm going to stop replying to ensure we don't turn this thread into a never-ending quote war, but it's been fun.

 

[Ikki]

Well, because if you are setting up inferior players for circumstances that may barely, if ever, arise then it really is no argument IMO. You pick the best bowlers to win. You do not know you are not going to win before the fact, but only during and after. One can create a scenario where it is better to pick Chatfield than even someone like Marshall or Holding. But who is going into a game thinking singularly about a scenario so remote that Chatfield is the better choice?

I added this part (and I usually edit a lot so you may want to read over my post again) and I'd like to see your thoughts on this:

One can argue it this way: in the above scenario the economic bowler saves his team 4 runs and his team is able to take 0.17 wickets more. On the other hand, the team loses some 14 overs to do that - about half a session - which could be used to score those 4 runs and then some.

With the above scenario there is no question that all the wickets will be taken, but just how many runs conceded and how much time lost. So if you extrapolate for 10 wickets it should become even more evident that you could save almost a session's worth merely to save some measly runs. The scenario that you give is even less common for it will only, IMO, help when it is the last innings of play and time is no longer a problem but merely saving runs are - and that only in a game that is going down to the absolute wire.

 

[Prince EWS]

I added this part (and I usually edit a lot so you may want to read over my post again) and I'd like to see your thoughts on this:

It fits into exactly what I was saying about your outlook before, that more time in the game is intrinsically good, and that you'll score more runs if you have more time. More time in the game gives the opposition more time to score runs too, and typically run-scoring is curtailed by lost wickets rather than lost time anyway unless you have an awesome batting lineup, so I think it again stems from a perspective of incorrectly assumed superiority over the opposition. It's a brick wall I hit whenever I debate anything with you at all, which is why I said I wasn't going to reply (and have since gone back on that ) - we won't get anywhere.

 

[Ikki]

Huh? Why is it an assumption that I am supposing my side is stronger? Ironically, it's a great argument to say that I think my side is worse: it needs more time to score more runs and hence any time the bowlers can save for them to score runs is worth it for my side. Ironically, what is going to give the opposition more time is my bowling Chatfield; but then again my bowling is already what it is (as you've made it to be yourself) an awesome wicket-taking attack. I have no fear of the opposition batsmen in terms of time; I have to adjust for my own, which at this point is an unknown. So more time is better, almost all the time.

Unless you're talking about a 4th innings chase where it is going down the wire, and there is enough time, the above does not apply. In pretty much every other case it doesn't make sense to pick the Chatfield bowler. I am truly open to your idea, I just think you are underestimating how small the instances would be in number for it to be a serious consideration when picking between the two players. As I said; one could contrive a scenario where Chatfield is better for your team than Holding. But at the outset who would pick Chatfield over Holding at the fear of such a scenario?

To me it seems your point should be refined: not that Chatfield is better than Cairns as a 4th bowler; but is better as a 4th bowler in only such instances like the one you have created. In most other, if not all other, situations it should be Cairns.