DoG’s Top 100 Test Batsmen - Bowling Discussion

[Prince EWS]

As I said, it is a lazy generalisation. I do agree that pressure being built up is an important facet, but only a bowler takes his own wickets. And although cricket is a team sport, it is clearly a 1v1 based game. If a better bowler than Chatfield was on the other end, he'd not only help build pressure, he'd take away possible wickets for Hadlee.

This is undeniably true. It would be pretty absurd for someone to argue that having more quality bowlers alongside you would result in a greater wickets per innings (it'd be possible in terms of WPM but only if the original support bowlers were so bad that the team was only bowling once per game - but that's a silly example so we won't go there). If you're a good bowler by the standards of whatever grade of cricket you're playing then having worse bowlers alongside you will help you take more wickets overall.

However, the effect on one's average this would have is very much debatable, due to the nature of cricket. On one hand, yes, as you say, having less support will often open up greater opportunities to dismiss the tail, but this is offset by what happens to the top order. The nature of cricket is such that sometimes a batsman will just have your measure. His batting technique may be well suited to your bowling style, he may counter your plans well, he may get inside your head, he may be disproportionately better against spin/pace, bat with the opposite hand to your preference or it may be for another reason but sometimes a batsman will get the measure of a bowler, even if just over one innings. If you've got excellent support then someone else will more than likely just get the guy out for you pretty quickly and you may return figures of something like 0/10 against the guy, but if you've got little support and you're expected to take every wicket then that 0/10 may eventually end up 1/80 as he scores a double century, builds partnerships with other places, wrecks your plans and tires you out through the day. That'll have a very detrimental effect on your average. It's my belief that if McGrath for example had less support than he did and was a lone wolf that, yes, he'd have taken more wickets but he'd have done so at a slightly higher average.

That's why we tend to look at having a higher WPM as a good thing; not because it's a telling stat on its own - when we're talking about great bowlers it just shows you how much support they had more than anything else - but because it can mitigate a bowler having a slightly higher average than another. You have to look at them in conjunction, along with a bowler's top/middle/tail order wickets breakdown to get a sense of what the average is really showing. I don't really like WPM as much as many do and as I said before I think it's a bit of a red herring sometimes but it is a good way to get a sense of a bowler's role in a side and what his average is actually showing.

 

[Migara]

All batsmen against WI (from 15/12/1978 to 12/08/1991) or Marshall's career

Top order - 1358 - 91 = 1267 dismissals, 1358 available
Tail Enders - 516 outs, 677 available

Tailender availability = 33.3%
Tailender dismissals = 28.9%


All batsmen against NZ (02/02/1973 to 10/07/1990) or Hadlee's career

Top order - 1031 dismissals, 1138 available
Tail Enders - 376 dismissals, 507 available

Tailender availability = 30.8%
Tailender dismissals = 26.7%

Marshall's WI had much more opportunities to bowl at atil than Hadlee's NZ and got more tail end wickets too according to this stat.

 

[Migara]

Batsmen against Shane Warne's Australia

Top order - 2217 dismissals, 2350 available
Tailenders - 940 dismissals,1212 available

Tailender dismissal % - 29.6%
Tailender available % - 34.0%

Batsman against Murali's SL

Top order - 1749 dismissals, 1856 available
Tailenders - 664 dismissals, 888 available

Tailender dismissal% - 27.5%
Tailender available% - 32.3%

For Warne's Aussies 34% of the time they had tail enders to bowl at. Out of that 87% of time they were dismissed. For Murali's SL, tail end wickets were available only 32.3% of the time. Out of that SL got 85% of them out.

1. Bowling units gets chance to bowl more at tail enders
2. They get tail enders readily than lone wolf units.

 

[Flem274*]

How is it relevant at all that I point to Hadlee himself worshipping Lillee? It's a non-statistical point. Here I am talking about statistics.

As I said, it is a lazy generalisation. I do agree that pressure being built up is an important facet, but only a bowler takes his own wickets. And although cricket is a team sport, it is clearly a 1v1 based game. If a better bowler than Chatfield was on the other end, he'd not only help build pressure, he'd take away possible wickets for Hadlee. In the end, if you have a miserly bowler at the other end, it suffices in building pressure. It actually aids you if your partner creates pressure, yet doesn't get stuck into your wicket haul. It doesn't help your team to not have great bowling teammates, but it certainly helps your own individual statistics.

The WIndies were great because they had great bowlers. And each of them would have had even better wpm stats if they didn't have to share wickets. Ironically, I think they are the absolute worst example because while I can buy 1-2 other good-great bowlers helping, when you have about 3 other ATG they are definitely cutting into your wicket hauls. Which as far as wpm is concerned it IS a hindrance. For Marshall to take 5 wickets per game like Lillee or Hadlee he'd have to strike even faster than the 46 balls per wicket he already achieved, precisely because of his help. Frankly, I find the suggestion silly.

Mate I never brought WPM into this. I was arguing against you saying great bowlers hunt in pairs/packs is a cliche. Don't try and shift the posts on me because it won't work. Argue against what I write, not want you want to hear.

The idea that cricket is one on one is emphatically not true. I'm sure you've walked across the boundary rope as a batsman to face the music. Cricket is you and your batting partner against eleven. Everyone around you is advising you on your batting technique and questioning the ***ual history of your mother, and the bowler at each end is trying to demonstrate why you should take their batting advice (and probably telling you all about your mother as well). Your only mate is 22 yards away and half the time he would rather it be you than him.

Now I'm sure you have been batting when despite the field being sharp and the bowler at one end being excellent, the bowler at the other end either is a modest bowler or flat out doesn't cut it. You look forward to his overs, because he is the light at the end of the tunnel when you're facing the really good bowler. The modest bowler offers you a reprieve because you can score a boundary and the discussions in the slip cordon become more subdued.

But I'm sure you've also faced that good bowler knowing the other team has three more blokes just as good as him up their sleeve. We've both been there, and it sucks. I'm a tailender, and I'm a big fan of teams with only one really scary bowler because I can make the other guy face him. Because those good bowlers are all in the same side, they almost become greater than the sum of their already good parts. They feed off of each others pressure and success. This is where the saying "Great bowlers hunt in packs/pairs" arises from. It refers to the light at the end of the tunnel just being the oncoming train. There is no let off.

Look at the most recent Ashes series. There was a spell in whatever test it was where Anderson probably bowled better but Broad got the poles. The Anderson/Broad partnership offered no respite, and Australia were going to and did eventually crack against someone. This happens all the time. Wasim/Waqar, Ambrose/Walsh, McGrath/Warne.

On your point about the West Indies being great because they had great bowlers: Well yes, I've already said that. I direct you again to my point about reading what people actually write. And again with the WPM, I don't know why you keep bringing it up because I wasn't discussing it. It is generally accepted lone rangers get more wickets at a higher average and packs get less wickets at lower averages. I'm pretty happy with that conclusion.

I'll leave it here because I'm derailing the thread.

 

[Ikki]

Mate I never brought WPM into this. I was arguing against you saying great bowlers hunt in pairs/packs is a cliche. Don't try and shift the posts on me because it won't work. Argue against what I write, not want you want to hear.

This is an ironic statement. Look at how I entered this discussion: because of wpm. You engaged me, so you should be paying attention to what I am saying, not the other way round. You responded to a post of mine which was a reply to someone else on the merits of rewarding those with high wpm despite the fact that they had a lot of help.

Now, I disagree with you in general re the advantageousness of bowling by yourself....but when it comes to wpm it's blatantly obvious.

The idea that cricket is one on one is emphatically not true. I'm sure you've walked across the boundary rope as a batsman to face the music. Cricket is you and your batting partner against eleven. Everyone around you is advising you on your batting technique and questioning the ***ual history of your mother, and the bowler at each end is trying to demonstrate why you should take their batting advice (and probably telling you all about your mother as well). Your only mate is 22 yards away and half the time he would rather it be you than him...

Cricket has very real aspects of pressure where your teammates can contribute or alleviate it. However, it is a team game based on 1v1 interactions. Especially when it comes to bowling. With batting I think the partnerships are more real. Bowling, I think less; you can bowl crap and still take wickets in some matches; it doesn't mean it was due to the other teammate's pressure building. There are brainfarts in every innings.

Regardless, a) you can't measure pressure and b) no ATG bowler bowled without adequate pressure at the other end; so I find the discussion on that end somewhat irrelevant.

And what's being glaringly missed is the converse: if you have two bowlers who we'd consider very good (or great) they'll feed off each other's pressure and take wickets, inhibiting each other at turns. Again, take the Chatfield example; he created pressure but wasn't a very good wicket-taker. Which means that not only did he not take advantage of the pressure Hadlee created, he wasn't taking advantage of the pressure he himself created. Hadlee on the other hand not only got to to take advantage of the pressure Chatfield created, he also took advantage of the batsmen put on the back foot off his own bowling.

Bowlers in packs of multiple viable wicket-takers will have games bowling brilliantly and not taking the wickets their pressure may have made possible. That happens far less for a lone wolf because by definition he is the one taking advantage of any pressure he himself is making.

As an example consider Hadlee bowling with Lillee. Sure, Lillee can also create pressure for Hadlee to take advantage of; but on the other hand Lillee is capable of taking wickets he himself is setting up AND the batsmen that Hadlee is setting up. It means there is a situation where Hadlee can bowl amazingly and it not be reflected in the stats by virtue of having a good wicket-taking teammate.

Lone wolves don't have that...their figures are going to be much closer matched to the performance of their bowling. Their teammates aren't going to suddenly gobble up all the wickets. So we go back to the distinction that: yes, lone wolves are disadvantaged when they're not bowling well because they can't hide...but by the same token when they're bowling well they get to take full advantage of it.

And ATG bowlers bowl great far more regularly than they bowl dross. So, as you can see, for the majority of their career they're getting to take full advantage of their position and form. They're far less likely to go through whole series of bowling well and not getting the wickets they perhaps deserved. That happens for guys who hunt in packs. So while PEWS is right that a 1/80 situation can occur (not bowling well/with success) they are outweighed by all the times that you do bowl well or with success many times over. Test cricket is not a sport like Football...there is too much time and too many overs to be bowled for the quality to not come out and guys like Hadlee, Lillee, Marshall, etc were brilliant and brilliantly consistent.

As far as individual stats are concerned it is better to have a partner who can create pressure but who doesn't take as many scalps compared to a partner who is as good as you at doing both. No matter how you cut it, it means a lesser wicket-pool for Hadlee to take part in with a great partner. Now the more help you have the worse that is. It is in the team results that this disadvantage can be seen: Hadlee will not win as many Tests due to not having good wicket-taking help.

In that sense, I can see a reason for some statistical adjustment (if DoG is rewarding players in wins). However, in terms of stats, I see no reason to assume Hadlee would have better stats if he had better help. He got to take advantage of getting to bowl more, at more wickets. His own credo was: bowl enough, and at the right areas, and wickets are inevitable. I think once you look across the board at innings guys like Murali or Hadlee bowled, you can clearly see in many matches a curve-like improvement in their figures by taking that 1-2 extra wickets in an inning they may not have had the chance to in another side. Even if you've conceded 100 runs, the difference between 4 wickets and 5, is 5 runs on average. That's why wickets matter. IMO the easiest way to improve your stats in a match is not to become a much tighter/attacking bowler (WRT AVG/SR) but just to take another wicket...it improves those ratios dramatically. It's incredibly simple and true at the same time: the more wickets you take the better your stats will be.

As I said, I am happy to discuss this, but let's not (further) derail this thread.

 

[Pothas]

DOG’s Top 100 Test Batsmen. For Ikki, Migara and kyear2

I don’t want to be one of those people who constantly moan about how awful certain threads are, so put your **** in here and we can all be happy.

 

[kyear2]

It was applicable to a post made by DoG and while it may have gone a bit farther than required it was not **** and it was some thoughtful insights by Flem, Pews and Ikki.

 

[bagapath]

One of the mods can copy those posts and move here. Then the two threads can coexist for the benefit of everyone

 

[uvelocity]

"it was not ****"

disagree

 

[smash84]

awta

 

[kyear2]

you would.

 

[smash84]

disagree

 

[nightprowler10]

One of the mods can copy those posts and move here. Then the two threads can coexist for the benefit of everyone

It might make for strange reading since the posts might be all over the place, but I can give it a shot.

EDIT: Thread surgery complete. Decided to pull the posts out completely.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

best thread since Furball's Greatest XI

 

[Prince EWS]

It might make for strange reading since the posts might be all over the place, but I can give it a shot.

EDIT: Thread surgery complete. Decided to pull the posts out completely.

Nice title change. Was disappointed not to be a headline contributor originally.

 

[nightprowler10]

Nice title change. Was disappointed not to be a headline contributor originally.

This should make you feel better.

 

[Pothas]

Nice title change. Was disappointed not to be a headline contributor originally.

You don't need the publicity.

 

[Prince EWS]

This should make you feel better.

 

[Ikki]

I don’t want to be one of those people who constantly moan about how awful certain threads are, so put your **** in here and we can all be happy.

Good move.

I don't get the logic: post after post of whinging about posts you don't want to read. Don't read them, simple. This is a ****ing forum and I'll reply to people who take the time to reply to me.

 

[Coronis]

Just to take this thread in another direction, I think Bond should be one of the top 10 bowlers on DoG's list. Maybe even top 5.