When will Philander average > 20?

[Jono]

Wanna boof you Sparkeh

 

[Jimbo the giant]

The cringe in this post is incredible. Don't know whether to start, really - should I go after the "someone isn't actually good enough to average <20 ---> averages 35!" (and 35 is bloody awful ftr) or the "oh, he might get smashed in Asia which nullifies EVERYTHING" or the "oh he's only performed against bad batting lineups"?

Look, he's probably not as good as Steyn. He's probably not as good as Harris either. But the bloke is peerless in modern cricket in his ability to make the batsman play the damn ball, which coupled with even the slightest bit of assistance in the pitch makes him a constant threat if not the wrecking ball that his new-ball partner is. And that's fine, Steyn might well be in the top five bowlers of all time and to say that "not as good as Steyn" automatically implies that he'll be awful from now on is rank stupid.

He's only played 23 tests, his sample size is far to small to judge him on pure statistics. He is not a sub 25 bowler in this era, he is definitely not a sub 20 bowler and his average is misleading at this stage.
He's not McGrath version 2, by no means. His stats are inflated by wrecking some pretty pathetic batting line ups in bowler friendly conditions. Not to mention feeding off Steyns pressure and as another poster mentioned bowling at favourable times of the innings and not having to do the graft work. He would already be averaging 21 if he bowled more overs in Aussies 2nd innings.

It's obvious he's not better than Steyn, Harris or Johnson but to accuse 34+ of being terrible when the likes of Garry Sobers averaged 34+, Chris Martin 34ish and Zaheer is over 32 is harsh. Many spinners eg Vettori, Kaneria and Harbahjan are at or pretty close to that level and they are very good bowlers.

The longer he plays the closer has stats will become to a statistical significance and he is very overrated statistically at the moment, if he finishes with a better average than Wasim or Waqar and Lillee then he didn't play enough tests. He can't go bullying these lame ducks forever he has to play some decent line ups in difficult conditions at some stage. (Unless they hold him back like SL with Mendis in LO internationals)

I suppose my point is Philander is decent but he really is a 29-30 career average level bowler that has got lucky for a bit. It wouldn't surprise me at the least if he has lost a bit of confidence after his first bashing and has a bit of a form slump for a while. It also wouldn't surprise me if he got dumped during this slump and a younger bowler got picked and SA never look back at Philander. Similar to Stuart Clark who's record is a little inflated due to small sample size.

 

[hendrix]

as a bowler he's miles better than Sobers, Chris Martin or Zaheer Khan.

He's about on peer with Mohammad Asif, who averaged about 24.

 

[Spark]

So basically what you've decided there is that a priori he should average x, and he doesn't, and therefore because there's no way your initial assertion could be wrong, he will automatically average a hell of a lot more so it "evens out".

k then.

 

[Jimbo the giant]

as a bowler he's miles better than Sobers, Chris Martin or Zaheer Khan.

He's about on peer with Mohammad Asif, who averaged about 24.

I agree he's better than them as a bowler however it is still possible he could have a form slump for a few matches maybe 20 odd @ their career averages. If Steyn got injured he'd be half the bowler he is now, or if he toured India or Sri Lanka while playing Sanga and Jaya he would average more than he did against OZ (50+).. If he can go 20 matches less than 20, why can't he go at 35 for the next 20. It took 1 bad series to go from 18 to 20, he could be averaging 25 in the next two years, if he doesn't play the kiwi's any time soon.

Asif made the ball talk, he's miles better. He could have been pretty close to Steyn IMO.

 

[Jimbo the giant]

So basically what you've decided there is that a priori he should average x, and he doesn't, and therefore because there's no way your initial assertion could be wrong, he will automatically average a hell of a lot more so it "evens out".

k then.

I can see how you could come to that conclusion but no that's not what I am saying. The bloke bowled 6 overs in a series deciding innings and was too scared to bowl any more for fear of hurting his average. He cowered behind a rookie and he was meant to be leading the attack after the real leader got injured.

IMO (Not trying to state a fact) he has been hurt by this onslaught and statistically he is due a lean period any way. I reckon his average will rise and SA have a few young guns who could replace him very easily. SA will drop him as he's only really a good new ball bowler and when he becomes first change he wont respond well.

 

[hendrix]

He is a new ball specialist but he's an opening bowler. He's supposed to be. Morkel as the third seamer does the donkey work, just like Siddle has done for a while until his dropping, and Wagner does for NZ. It helps that Steyn is good with the new and old ball. If he stops taking wickets with the new ball that will be a big issue.

If he were part of a different attack then I agree that he wouldn't be quite as effective. But he isn't. He's playing for South Africa. They don't require a lot of old ball overs from him, and he's the perfect foil to Steyn.

However, I do agree that 6 overs in that innings was a weak effort.

 

[BackFootPunch]

I love the idea that you can say "x player" is not a "y average" bowler despite the fact that they are averaging that number (or lower) and have done so for their whole career. Literally no concrete evidence suggests someone like Philander is a worse bowler than what he's done up until now, yet plenty of evidence shows exactly why he averages what he does.

 

[Kippax]

Actual cricketer shakes fist at CW and demands hard evidence....echoes of 2009 from BFP.

The vast majority of posts in this thread are ridiculous. You have no idea what goes on in team meetings and changing rooms about batting tactics etc that could have made a player play the way they did in a certain game.

[/endforum]

 

[Spark]

I love the idea that you can say "x player" is not a "y average" bowler despite the fact that they are averaging that number (or lower) and have done so for their whole career. Literally no concrete evidence suggests someone like Philander is a worse bowler than what he's done up until now, yet plenty of evidence shows exactly why he averages what he does.

I'm vaguely curious as to why people care so much about a bowler's average anyway. Personally, raw average isn't really an important metric at all in determining how I rate a bowler.

 

[the big bambino]

Why not and what do you rate instead?

 

[BackFootPunch]

I'm vaguely curious as to why people care so much about a bowler's average anyway. Personally, raw average isn't really an important metric at all in determining how I rate a bowler.

Yeah I'm in the same boat I think. IMO a good average is generally a result of other things. You're not a good bowler because you have a good average, you're a good bowler because you get blokes out by bowling well.

 

[Jimbo the giant]

Actual cricketer shakes fist at CW and demands hard evidence....echoes of 2009 from BFP.

I wonder what genius came up with the plan to bowl big Vern for 6 overs in that 2nd innings. They didn't even give him the new ball, I can only assume he was injured or claiming injury.

 

[Debris]

Why not and what do you rate instead?

Some may not rate individuals at all but rate teams seeing as how the rest of the team affects a bowler's performance so much. Personally I rate bowlers by the quality of their moustache but that's just me.

 

[Jimbo the giant]

I'm vaguely curious as to why people care so much about a bowler's average anyway. Personally, raw average isn't really an important metric at all in determining how I rate a bowler.

I do agree with you in a way, but when people want real evidence they tend to look at those numbers. Raw average isn't important in the short term but it becomes more important over time.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I love the idea that you can say "x player" is not a "y average" bowler despite the fact that they are averaging that number (or lower) and have done so for their whole career. Literally no concrete evidence suggests someone like Philander is a worse bowler than what he's done up until now, yet plenty of evidence shows exactly why he averages what he does.

Dunno, probably the same way lots of people said that Bresnan wasn't a mid-20s averaging bowler when he was going well.

People are going a bit far the other way, but there are some fair questions to be asking about Philander.

 

[Jimbo the giant]

Dunno, probably the same way lots of people said that Bresnan wasn't a mid-20s averaging bowler when he was going well.

People are going a bit far the other way, but there are some fair questions to be asking about Philander.

I agree, and now he has taken some punishment for the first time in his short career I am interested to see how he responds.

 

[BackFootPunch]

Dunno, probably the same way lots of people said that Bresnan wasn't a mid-20s averaging bowler when he was going well.

People are going a bit far the other way, but there are some fair questions to be asking about Philander.

Yeah fair point but with Bresnan people were using their eyes too and saying they didn't think the way he operated and the way he got those wickets at 20ish was actually a reflection of a guy who was going to average in the 20s long term.

With Philander, the way he gets his wickets - in clumps, with a moving ball, with any sort of help from the conditions at all - suggests he could be reasonably expected to average around 20 for a decent period of time, given that he plays in SA half the time and that his team use him to take wickets. It's funny that people are criticising him for not doing the so-called 'hard work' when the ball is old but he can only be expected to fulfil the role his team needs/wants from him.

 

[harsh.ag]

I have always placed a high weightage on SR and proportion of (top order wickets + incredible performances relative to the rest of the team). Philander ranks highly on most counts.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Dunno, probably the same way lots of people said that Bresnan wasn't a mid-20s averaging bowler when he was going well.

People are going a bit far the other way, but there are some fair questions to be asking about Philander.

Bresnan isn't really comparable, he averaged 34 or so in FC. Philander averages 18 or something stupid.