Bowler batting skills

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, probably the ones who'd still make it to the team based only on their bowling.

 

[weeman27bob]

In which case:

Pace bowlers

Average of pace bowlers' averages: 13.71
Total pace bowler runs/total pace bowler outs: 13.79


Spin bowlers

Average of spin bowlers' averages: 18.07
Total spin bowler runs/total spin bowler outs: 21.79

It's worth noting that if you don't count Vettori, the spinners numbers drop to 17.2 and 18.8

All bowlers have taken 1 wicket at least in 2011.

 

[BoyBrumby]

As a semi-related aside, it's interesting that despite it generally being accepted that spinners need to chip in more with the willow, practically all the great all-rounders to a man have bowled seam-up. I guess Rhodes and Benuad are the two closest to the first rank amongst the twirlymen.

I know Sobers & Greig (and Botham once, apparently) occasionally gave it a tweak too, but their seamers were their bread and butter.

 

[G.I.Joe]

As a semi-related aside, it's interesting that despite it generally being accepted that spinners need to chip in more with the willow, practically all the great all-rounders to a man have bowled seam-up. I guess Rhodes and Benuad are the two closest to the first rank amongst the twirlymen.

I know Sobers & Greig (and Botham once, apparently) occasionally gave it a tweak too, but their seamers were their bread and butter.

Faulkner and Mankad too. Faulkner the best of the lot, IMO.

 

[Daemon]

Coincidence

 

[grecian]

Shastri was a bit of a spinning all-rounder.

TBH, I think the recent change in the interpretation of the rules about LBW will change things a lot. Spinners have become a much more attacking threat, whilst for a long time, they often needed an extra skill.

 

[Гурин]

I must confess than I tought this was a thread about general bowlers' batting skills. I don't know if spinners are usually better bats than the seamers (even if I wouldn't put Vettori's, or Flintoff's for what matters, numbers in the pictures: those are legitimate all rounders); Then, comes to my mind how bad was the indian spin quartet with the willow, but I daren't pronounce myself on this subject.

Now I don't want to HJ this thread, but I'd like to share a thought; isn't somehow the batting of the bowlers underrated? After all, in test cricket everybody gets to bat, so statistically-wise, over a long period a combination of a 45avg batsman and a 15avg bowler would contribute to the team just as much as a combination of a 55 bat and 5 bowl. Of course I don't want to say that bowlers should be picked on the basis of their batting, that would be silly, but when it comes down to 2 similar bowlers, shouldn't this be also in the picture?

 

[Furball]

I must confess than I tought this was a thread about general bowlers' batting skills. I don't know if spinners are usually better bats than the seamers (even if I wouldn't put Vettori's, or Flintoff's for what matters, numbers in the pictures: those are legitimate all rounders); Then, comes to my mind how bad was the indian spin quartet with the willow, but I daren't pronounce myself on this subject.

Now I don't want to HJ this thread, but I'd like to share a thought; isn't somehow the batting of the bowlers underrated? After all, in test cricket everybody gets to bat, so statistically-wise, over a long period a combination of a 45avg batsman and a 15avg bowler would contribute to the team just as much as a combination of a 55 bat and 5 bowl. Of course I don't want to say that bowlers should be picked on the basis of their batting, that would be silly, but when it comes down to 2 similar bowlers, shouldn't this be also in the picture?

They're extreme examples though, no-one will have those sorts of numbers.

 

[Гурин]

Actually not so extreme, is not that uncommon to find similar bowlers who have a difference in their batting averages that's around 10; and that count for the team just as much as if you replace a batsman who's averaging 45 with one averaging 55 (again, over a long time span). I'm just saying it's something should not be underrated too much. (while I was writing this, the three words "Nathan, Hauritz, Ashes" came to my mind)

Ah, maybe you misunderstood, the averages I was was referring to for bowlers are BATTING averages, not bowling. I should have specified that.

 

[zaremba]

isn't somehow the batting of the bowlers underrated? After all, in test cricket everybody gets to bat, so statistically-wise, over a long period a combination of a 45avg batsman and a 15avg bowler would contribute to the team just as much as a combination of a 55 bat and 5 bowl. Of course I don't want to say that bowlers should be picked on the basis of their batting, that would be silly, but when it comes down to 2 similar bowlers, shouldn't this be also in the picture?

I agree that lower order runs are incredibly important.

That said, I'd take averages of 55 + 5 rather than 44 + 15 every time, because the upper order batsmen will have more innings, so greater weight needs to be given to their averages.

 

[Furball]

Actually not so extreme, is not that uncommon to find similar bowlers who have a difference in their batting averages that's around 10; and that count for the team just as much as if you replace a batsman who's averaging 45 with one averaging 55 (again, over a long time span). I'm just saying it's something should not be underrated too much. (while I was writing this, the three words "Nathan, Hauritz, Ashes" came to my mind)

Ah, maybe you misunderstood, the averages I was was referring to for bowlers are BATTING averages, not bowling. I should have specified that.

That makes much more sense, although IMO there's a much bigger gap between a bowler who averages 23 to his teammate who averages 33 than there is between a 45 averaging batsman and a 55 averaging batsman.

 

[Гурин]

That makes much more sense, although IMO there's a much bigger gap between a bowler who averages 23 to his teammate who averages 33 than there is between a 45 averaging batsman and a 55 averaging batsman.

That's interesting, maybe it's just me being a stathead (difficult to be otherwise here, laggy streams being our only possible source of fresh cricket), but I don't agree 100% with that (given that the two players compared in the hypothesis played the same opposition, so the runs have the same value); while it's true that top order averages counts something more because there are more innings to be played there, an important (I underline this, I wrote important, not ultimate) gauge for me to judge the batting of team is the sum of all the batting averages in the side. Yeah, I know, there are Averages and averages, and you get a score for 11 wickets instead of 10, but it's the same for all teams; to me, a sum of the 11 players being 350 is equally effective whichever way is achieved, even if it involves a strong tail or not (well, apart from certain extremizations), while I have the perception that many just stop their batting analysis at n.7 (maybe 8), and that's wrong.

To be clear, I know that to go from 15 to 25 is technically much easier that from 50 to 60 (just like a car needs much more HP to go from 200 to 250 than from 150 to 200) and of course I don't pretend to be the carrier of the truth, that's just how I see it.

 

[Howe_zat]

That makes much more sense, although IMO there's a much bigger gap between a bowler who averages 23 to his teammate who averages 33 than there is between a 45 averaging batsman and a 55 averaging batsman.

Not necessarily, because as Zaremba points out, a top order batsman will have more oppertunities to use those extra runs.

Then there's the fact that how good a tailender is with the willow isn't as well represented by average as most batsmen, because the role they're expected to fulfill* is often more important than how many runs they score.

*e.g. nightwatchman, scoring quickly to get you past a certain point, or playing in partnership with a batsman and only needing to stick around for him.

 

[Гурин]

Not necessarily, because as Zaremba points out, a top order batsman will have more oppertunities to use those extra runs.

Then there's the fact that how good a tailender is with the willow isn't as well represented by average as most batsmen, because the role they're expected to fulfill* is often more important than how many runs they score.

*e.g. nightwatchman, scoring quickly to get you past a certain point, or playing in partnership with a batsman and only needing to stick around for him.

Absolutely, but the batsmen also often have to play according to the situation; any batsman (apart from Laxman) will have a different approach if he's batting either with a n.3 or a n.10; but in test cricket, more often than not you're asked to just play your natural game, that's why averages of the last 40ish innings of a player could be considered very good indicators of his overall batting ability

 

[Hurricane]

In which case:

Pace bowlers

Average of pace bowlers' averages: 13.71
Total pace bowler runs/total pace bowler outs: 13.79


Spin bowlers

Average of spin bowlers' averages: 18.07
Total spin bowler runs/total spin bowler outs: 21.79

It's worth noting that if you don't count Vettori, the spinners numbers drop to 17.2 and 18.8

All bowlers have taken 1 wicket at least in 2011.

Thanks for this...

 

[Furball]

Not necessarily, because as Zaremba points out, a top order batsman will have more oppertunities to use those extra runs.

Then there's the fact that how good a tailender is with the willow isn't as well represented by average as most batsmen, because the role they're expected to fulfill* is often more important than how many runs they score.

*e.g. nightwatchman, scoring quickly to get you past a certain point, or playing in partnership with a batsman and only needing to stick around for him.

Aha, this is confusing, I was talking about bowling average when referring to the bowlers.