Does strikerate matter in judging a test bowler?

[MrPrez]

How many times do you have to choose between a Donald and a Pollock, though?

I think the point raised earlier where England were picking between Finn and Bresnan due to Finn's high ER (read propensity to bowl crap) is much more relevant here.

I don't see how tbh. Donald and Pollock have similar records, both played consistently for years.
Finn is a youngster with talent, but there is a difference between being a bit high in SR and being young and inconsistent(which he is). Having a high SR doesn't necessarily mean you spray it around, it may just mean that you have extra pace which means flashing at your deliveries means runs, be it through hitting it in the middle, thick edges over the slips etc.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

So which is more important, lower average or strike rate. As discussed earlier, bowlers with the very low strike rates tend ho have higher E/R as they tend to maintatin fuller more attacking lengths.
But who would most people choose Waqar (very low s/r, but relatively high e/r) or Ambrose (very low avg, but relatively high s/r). Attack and give away some runs or control the batsmen and take wickets with pressure?
We tend to rate batsmen with higher strike rate higher that those who bat more slowly, should we also do the same with bowlers.

Have you even read the posts on this thread? We are talking about two bowlers with the same/similar average but one with a higher SR and lower ER, and the other with a lower SR and a higher ER.

 

[smash84]

don't expect too much from kyear2

 

[kyear2]

don't expect too much from kyear2

What is that supposed to mean. Was just trying to expand the scope of the conversation.
The avaerages of the two are not that far apart, but Waqar had a stellar strike rate, but high economy rate, while Ambrose has a very low e/r but relatively high strike rate. Additionally having that high strike rate hasn't seemed to really hurt the way that Ambrose is perceived, again leading back to the premise of the opening post.
But sorry to interupt your conversation.

 

[andyc]

It definitely does matter IMO.

Take Lance Gibbs and Stuart MacGill for example. Very similar average, but Gibbs strikes once every 14 or 15 overs, compared to MacGill's 9. Looking at that, I'd take MacGill in most cases - if your team is made up of 3 Dale Steyn's though, someone like Gibbs might be a better option. So it does depend on team make up, but generally it's in your advantage to bowl the team out as quickly as possible.

 

[Prince EWS]

It definitely does matter IMO.

Take Lance Gibbs and Stuart MacGill for example. Very similar average, but Gibbs strikes once every 14 or 15 overs, compared to MacGill's 9. Looking at that, I'd take MacGill in most cases - if your team is made up of 3 Dale Steyn's though, someone like Gibbs might be a better option. So it does depend on team make up, but generally it's in your advantage to bowl the team out as quickly as possible.

Yeah, as long as you're talking about a good bowler - someone likely to be better than at least two other bowlers on your side - then the strike-rate based bowler with the same average is preferable.

 

[Satguru]

Everyone seems to agree that when comparing bowlers with similar averages, and wickets, SR becomes the deciding factor.
So, i dont think anyone will argue against the following:
Kallis who has 271 wickets at 32.50 and a strike rate of 68, is most definitely a better bowler than Garry Sobers who had 235 wickets at 34, SR of 92
92!

As batsmen,too they have very similar records, and while personally i do think Sobers was a far greater batsman, i can honestly say i wont laugh at anyone who says Kallis is as good as Sobers, tbh.

 

[Migara]

Another horror.

 

[MrPrez]

Everyone seems to agree that when comparing bowlers with similar averages, and wickets, SR becomes the deciding factor.
So, i dont think anyone will argue against the following:
Kallis who has 271 wickets at 32.50 and a strike rate of 68, is most definitely a better bowler than Garry Sobers who had 235 wickets at 34, SR of 92
92!

As batsmen,too they have very similar records, and while personally i do think Sobers was a far greater batsman, i can honestly say i wont laugh at anyone who says Kallis is as good as Sobers, tbh.

Don't forget, though, that Sobers was a spinner/medium pacer. These bowlers are workhorses and are known to bowl heaps of overs at a go.

I think the average shows that Kallis at least = Sobers in terms of bowling. I'd say its too close to call between the two overall, most would laugh at me though.

 

[smash84]

Don't forget, though, that Sobers was a spinner/medium pacer. These bowlers are workhorses and are known to bowl heaps of overs at a go.

I think the average shows that Kallis at least = Sobers in terms of bowling. I'd say its too close to call between the two overall, most would laugh at me though.

hahahahhaha

 

[MrPrez]

hahahahhaha

Look at the stats

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Would be a fair call to say that Sobers' bowling is overrated and Kallis' is underrated imo. Not going to make any judgements past that though, haven't seen enough of either of them.

 

[slowfinger]

Wouldn't say Sobers' bowling was overrated exactly, as his figures back up the claim, maybe Kallisball is just a smitch underrated.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Yeah Kallis is definitely underrated.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Strike rate is very important for a fast bowler, your main strike bowler. People like Steyn, or Waqar or Donald or McGrath, their teams depended on them to pick up wickets, to attack, to win them matches. Strike rate while flawed, is still the best measure of wicket taking ability we have now.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Everyone seems to agree that when comparing bowlers with similar averages, and wickets, SR becomes the deciding factor.
So, i dont think anyone will argue against the following:
Kallis who has 271 wickets at 32.50 and a strike rate of 68, is most definitely a better bowler than Garry Sobers who had 235 wickets at 34, SR of 92
92!

As batsmen,too they have very similar records, and while personally i do think Sobers was a far greater batsman, i can honestly say i wont laugh at anyone who says Kallis is as good as Sobers, tbh.

And this is where you have to ask, what is the bowler's role..

When I pick a Sobers or Kallis, I am not picking them to be my strike bowler and take the new ball and win me games with their bowling. So their strike rate is less important.

When I am picking an opening bowler purely for the purposes of attacking and picking up wickets and breaking partnerships, I will pick a bowler with a lower strike rate even if they have a higher economy rate.

 

[NUFAN]

Blind Freddy would understand that strike rates throughout different eras need to be examined more thoroughly. Obviously for the MacGill vs Gibbs and Kallis vs. Sobers comparisons batsman batted faster in the era of MacGill and Kallis so strike rates will naturally be less for bowlers with the same average.

Kallis as a bowler is overrated, he's often feasted on weaker batting line-ups.

 

[Satguru]

Blind Freddy would understand that strike rates throughout different eras need to be examined more thoroughly. Obviously for the MacGill vs Gibbs and Kallis vs. Sobers comparisons batsman batted faster in the era of MacGill and Kallis so strike rates will naturally be less for bowlers with the same average.

Kallis as a bowler is overrated, he's often feasted on weaker batting line-ups.

This just comes off as some sort of desperate attempt to defend sobers' terrible SR, imo. An SR of 92 for any era is simply not great at all.
Kallis has a pretty decent record against almost every single nation. Only against India does he average over 40, against everyone else he's around 35.

 

[Satguru]

And this is where you have to ask, what is the bowler's role..

When I pick a Sobers or Kallis, I am not picking them to be my strike bowler and take the new ball and win me games with their bowling. So their strike rate is less important.

When I am picking an opening bowler purely for the purposes of attacking and picking up wickets and breaking partnerships, I will pick a bowler with a lower strike rate even if they have a higher economy rate.

But thats exactly my point. Sobers and Kallis have identical records, Sobers statistically has virtually nothing over Kallis in terms of bowling. Neither of them are strike bowlers, but one of them, Kallis, picks up wickets far more frequently in the overs allotted to him. Kallis' ER is also pretty decent for the era of supposed "faster scoring".Its clear to me which bowler is statistically better.

 

[NUFAN]

This just comes off as some sort of desperate attempt to defend sobers' terrible SR, imo. An SR of 92 for any era is simply not great at all.
Kallis has a pretty decent record against almost every single nation. Only against India does he average over 40, against everyone else he's around 35.

It's not desperate. I'm not trying to defend Sobers bowling at all, it's why I used the other example of Gibbs and MacGill too. I just don't rate Kallis the bowler as highly as many others do.

Also, It's just plain and simple that for bowlers averaging the same in two different eras, the more recent bowler is going to have the better strike rate. If they have the same strike rate, the bowler from the previous era will have the better average..

The gap of 68 of Kallis and Sobers 92 is definitely large and means that Kallis is still the better strike bowler across their whole careers, but I'm not sure who's better against stronger opposition.