Graphs of Wickets by Batting Order for Good Bowlers

[Satyanash89]

I already put Steyn's graph up. The numbers are in there.

Ah my bad, somehow missed it... cheers

 

[Howe_zat]

OMG YUS A THREAD WITH GRAPHS IN

I mean, ah, that's interesting Harsh. One thing I notice is that Underwood seemed to take relatively few tailend wickets compared to all the other spinners.

 

[harsh.ag]

OMG YUS A THREAD WITH GRAPHS IN

I mean, ah, that's interesting Harsh. One thing I notice is that Underwood seemed to take relatively few tailend wickets compared to all the other spinners.

Thank you.

True about Underwood.

 

[harsh.ag]

The bowlers with the lowest tail-end per cent are

Bond - 17.2 (Small sample though)
Sylvestre Clarke - 19.0 (Very small sample again 42 wickets in total. Statistically not enough to make comparisons)
Larwood - 19.2
Cowie (Same as Clarke, his 9 tests and 45 wickets are barely a sample) - 22.2
Miller - 22.4 (The best of the all-rounders by far)
Fazal Mahmood - 23.7

P.S. Added Peter Pollock to SA's post, if anybody is interested (Page 1)

 

[pskov]

Interesting to me is the difference between Laker and Wardle. Considering they played together a lot, it seems that Laker got the batsmen out and Wardle cleaned up the tail.

Well obviously not to that simplistic extreme, but it does seem a significant discrepancy in the stats between the two.

 

[NasserFan207]

I think these charts reflect more on who each bowler was bowling with than anything else. For example, the west indies quicks of the 80s all seem to have even spreads because they were all great and taking similar stacks of wickets. Steyn is similar today bowling with Morkel and Philander.

Then you have Glenn Mcgrath and Warne, one of whom gobbled up all the top order batsmen leaving the other to feast on the middle order. Some of the others listed didn't necessarily have that great support at the other end, so their results are slightly skewed (lillee, Clarke, Larwood, Kapil Dev)

 

[kyear2]

Thanks

Waqar's record seems superior to Wasim, what do you think?

I really don't rate Wasim that highly, and from my boyhood days I really admired and feared Waqar much more. So no real shock to me.

Really think Wasim is one of the most over rated bowlers and cricketers over all, a great bowler for sure, but no where near where some rate him, at least not for test cricket.

 

[Red]

I really don't rate Wasim that highly, and from my boyhood days I really admired and feared Waqar much more. So no real shock to me.

Really think Wasim is one of the most over rated bowlers and cricketers over all, a great bowler for sure, but no where near where some rate him, at least not for test cricket.

Wasim is so good. So so good. One of my favourite bowlers ever.

 

[the big bambino]

Great job Harsh.

Top and middle just important, don't want to high a percentage of the lower order though.

Why not? No reason to underestimate late order resistance. A bowler who can clean the tail up quickly does his team a service as the many late order fightbacks in cricket proves.

 

[the big bambino]

The bowlers with the lowest tail-end per cent are

Bond - 17.2 (Small sample though)
Sylvestre Clarke - 19.0 (Very small sample again 42 wickets in total. Statistically not enough to make comparisons)
Larwood - 19.2
Cowie (Same as Clarke, his 9 tests and 45 wickets are barely a sample) - 22.2
Miller - 22.4 (The best of the all-rounders by far)
Fazal Mahmood - 23.7

P.S. Added Peter Pollock to SA's post, if anybody is interested (Page 1)

I think Nobby Clark from England had about 87% top order wickets.

 

[kyear2]

As an opening bowler your job is to take top order wickets, not to clean up the tail. If you have more tail end wickets than top 3, or even middle order, then you are not taking care of your primary responsibility.
Just my opinion.

 

[the big bambino]

As an opening bowler your job is to take top order wickets, not to clean up the tail. If you have more tail end wickets than top 3, or even middle order, then you are not taking care of your primary responsibility.
Just my opinion.

Just a couple of points raised in the thread. First up I don't think the circumstances that Nufan highlighted occur often enough to question the graphs. Besides its a bowler's job to remove nightwatchmen asap. And nighwatchmen succeed often enough for them to be a legit top order wicket.

Satyanash is right. If you clean up the tail after removing the openers you're penalised by the perception you are a tail order basher. Its the job of fast bowlers to get the openers and come back and quash the tail. Akram did that expertly so I think his high no of tail ender wkts proves he did his job.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Lovely analysis. How does Neil Adcock compare to Peter Pollock - given the similar number of Tests and that effectively Pollock was the new Adcock?

 

[harsh.ag]

Lovely analysis. How does Neil Adcock compare to Peter Pollock - given the similar number of Tests and that effectively Pollock was the new Adcock?

Yeah, I was going to put Adcock's figures in, but got lazy There are now on the SA's post on Page 1 with the rest of the bowlers, and I am putting Peter Pollock and his graph here as well for you:

I think Nobby Clark from England had about 87% top order wickets.

Just 8 tests and 32 wickets though. Don't know how much we can infer from that (I know I shouldn't have put up Clarke and Cowie either, but couldn't help it )

 

[Daemon]

nathan lyon please

 

[harsh.ag]

Just a couple of points raised in the thread. First up I don't think the circumstances that Nufan highlighted occur often enough to question the graphs. Besides its a bowler's job to remove nightwatchmen asap. And nighwatchmen succeed often enough for them to be a legit top order wicket.

Satyanash is right. If you clean up the tail after removing the openers you're penalised by the perception you are a tail order basher. Its the job of fast bowlers to get the openers and come back and quash the tail. Akram did that expertly so I think his high no of tail ender wkts proves he did his job.

You are right of course, but the nightwatchman thing must cancel out for all bowlers. Also, would I prefer somebody like Fazal Mahmood (tail-end % - 23) to Wasim (35)? I am guessing, as NasserFan said, it reflects less competition for top order wickets. What is surprising to me is that Waqar has a lower percentage of tail-end wickets compared to Wasim.I always thought his yorkers would be extremely potent against tali-enders, but I guess Wasim was better at that..

 

[harsh.ag]

nathan lyon please

So much Lyon love, here. Heartening. Here you go (you might not like this):

 

[Daemon]

love it.

 

[the big bambino]

There's a spinner's discount for Lyon as that type doesn't bowl as often at 1-3 as would pace bowlers. Plus there's a discount for Lyon being ****. When those factors are taken into account he's pretty good!

 

[fredfertang]

I really don't rate Wasim that highly, and from my boyhood days I really admired and feared Waqar much more. So no real shock to me.

Really think Wasim is one of the most over rated bowlers and cricketers over all, a great bowler for sure, but no where near where some rate him, at least not for test cricket.

As a lifelong Lancashire supporter I have to agree with this - decent player yes but, should have turned in many more matchwinning performances than he did