Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 70

Thread: Graphs of Wickets by Batting Order for Good Bowlers

  1. #46
    International Regular NasserFan207's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    3,800
    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)
    Batsman I tolerate: V. Richards, S. Tendulkar, E. Morgan, N. Hussain. KEVIN O F******* BRIEN

  2. #47
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,597
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    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.
    1st XI
    Hutton | Hobbs | Bradman* | Richards^ | Tendulkar | Sobers5^ | Gilchrist+ | Khan3 | Marshall1 | Warne4^ | McGrath2
    2nd XI
    Sutcliffe | Gavaskar* | Headley | Chappell^ | Lara^ | Kallis5^ | Knott+ | Hadlee3 | Ambrose2 | Lillee1 | Muralitharan4
    3rd XI
    Greenidge | Richards^ | Ponting^ | Pollock | Hammond^ | Worrell5* | Waite+ | Akram3 | Steyn1 | Holding2 | O'Reilly4
    4th XI
    Morris | Simpson^ | Sangakkara | Weekes^ | Border*^ | Walcott+ | Faulkner5 | Laker4 | Trueman1 | Garner3 | Donald2

  3. #48
    International Regular Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,906
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    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.

  4. #49
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    1,872
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    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.


  5. #50
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    1,872
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    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.
    Last edited by the big bambino; 22-04-2013 at 06:12 PM.

  6. #51
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,597
    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.

  7. #52
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    1,872
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    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.

  8. #53
    International Coach HeathDavisSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Rummaging through Iain O'Brien's dustbins.
    Posts
    13,957
    Lovely analysis. How does Neil Adcock compare to Peter Pollock - given the similar number of Tests and that effectively Pollock was the new Adcock?
    >>>>>>WHHOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHH>>>>>>
    Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation Society
    Supporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
    Adam Wheater - Another batsman off the Essex production line
    Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.


    Vimes tells it how it is:
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes View Post
    Heath worryingly quick.

  9. #54
    State Vice-Captain harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    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:





    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    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 )
    If you were that old, and that kind, and the very last of your kind, you couldn't just stand back and watch children cry.

  10. #55
    International Coach
    Suicide Bob Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not really needed on CW
    Posts
    11,968
    nathan lyon please

  11. #56
    State Vice-Captain harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    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..

  12. #57
    State Vice-Captain harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
    nathan lyon please
    So much Lyon love, here. Heartening. Here you go (you might not like this):


  13. #58
    International Coach
    Suicide Bob Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not really needed on CW
    Posts
    11,968
    love it.

  14. #59
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    1,872
    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!

  15. #60
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,359
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    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

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Test Cricket Draft
    By LFD in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 17-12-2012, 05:30 PM
  2. **Official** Club Cricket (8-9)
    By Mr Mxyzptlk in forum CW Offseason Club Cricket
    Replies: 742
    Last Post: 08-09-2005, 07:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •