Top order (1-7) wickets percentage of great Test bowlers

[randycricfreak]

not interested in explaining it anymore tbh, i don't think it's a very hard point to grasp..

Your argument makes zero sense. I have considered bowlers who have taken 350+, not bowlers who have just played for their Test team for the sake of getting a 5-fer against your best county/provincial batting line up.

 

[srbhkshk]

Your argument makes zero sense. I have considered bowlers who have taken 350+, not bowlers who have just played for their Test team for the sake of getting a 5-fer against your best county/provincial batting line up.

ok

 

[Dendarii]

Does this list take nightwatchmen into account? If not, then while it's obviously only going to be a small percentage of the wickets, there could be some counted who aren't recognised batsmen.

 

[cpr]

Let's discuss..

This is not a debate about when and where you take wickets.

What has this got to do with the condition of the ball at all?

Anyone else enjoy these threads where someone invites discussion about an arbitrary stat that makes their side look great, then starts to set the discussion parameters later on when others don't start singing from their hymn sheet?

Always the most balanced and uncontentious threads

 

[the big bambino]

If I am to take these numbers at face value, what do they mean?

it means that if you are great at removing the tail, an invaluable service considering the number of times they save an innings, then you are penalised compared to a bowler who struggles to finish an innings.

 

[stephen]

In itself this Stat doesn't mean much. In the context of the bowler's average and strike rate it means a bit more.

Though I would think the top order is batters 1-4 rather than 1-7.

 

[the big bambino]

1-7 is fair in that it takes into account all six batsmen, or atleast an AR at 6 and a keeper-batsman most of the time.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I have a feeling Vaas being top of the list has more than a bit to do with Murali taking all the wickets once he came on to bowl

 

[vitalogy83]

Would a comparison between the bowlers overall avg vs his top 7 avg make more sense?
So

Bowl 1 overall 25, Top 7 - 20, Diff of 5
Bowl 2 overall 23, Top 7 - 25, Diff of -2
Bowl 3 overall 21, Top 7 - 21, Diff of 0

How would you rank them now? Based on the difference? Higher is better? Seems like it would be discriminating against Bowl 3 then?

Or should we maybe purely look at their top 7 avg as a way to sort the list?

 

[S.Kennedy]

Jimmy being second really messes up some people's arguments here.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Jimmy being second really messes up some people's arguments here.

How?

He's a new ball specialist who plays more than half his Tests in England. You'd expect him to be way up the top. Vaas is more of an interesting one.

 

[FBU]

Batsmen 1-3
300+ wickets

Z Khan 140 - 45%
Vaas 149 - 42%
Willis 134 - 41.2%
McGrath 225 - 40.0%
Donald 129 - 39.1%
Ntini 149 - 38.2%
Anderson 192 - 37.4%
Hadlee 158 - 36.7%
Lee 113 - 36.5%
Ambrose 147 - 36.3%
Lillee 128 - 36.1%
Pollock 150 - 35.6%
Waqar 132 - 35.4%
Imran 128 - 35.4%
Walsh 177 - 34.1%
Trueman 104 - 33.9%
Marshall 125 - 33.2%
Steyn 126 - 32.6%
Broad 126 - 32.2%
Wasim 132 - 31.9%
Johnson 100 - 31.9%
Ashwin 94 - 30.9%
Botham 118 - 30.8%
Kumble 173 - 27.9%
Harbhajan 106 - 25.4%
Vettori 92 - 25.4%
Murali 202 - 25.3%
Herath 98 - 24.1%
Warne 163 - 23.0%
Gibbs 62 -20.1%

 

[randycricfreak]

Batsmen 1-3
300+ wickets

Z Khan 140 - 45%
Vaas 149 - 42%
Willis 134 - 41.2%
McGrath 225 - 40.0%
Donald 129 - 39.1%
Ntini 149 - 38.2%
Anderson 192 - 37.4%
Hadlee 158 - 36.7%
Lee 113 - 36.5%
Ambrose 147 - 36.3%
Lillee 128 - 36.1%
Pollock 150 - 35.6%
Waqar 132 - 35.4%
Imran 128 - 35.4%
Walsh 177 - 34.1%
Trueman 104 - 33.9%
Marshall 125 - 33.2%
Steyn 126 - 32.6%
Broad 126 - 32.2%
Wasim 132 - 31.9%
Johnson 100 - 31.9%
Ashwin 94 - 30.9%
Botham 118 - 30.8%
Kumble 173 - 27.9%
Harbhajan 106 - 25.4%
Vettori 92 - 25.4%
Murali 202 - 25.3%
Herath 98 - 24.1%
Warne 163 - 23.0%
Gibbs 62 -20.1%

Now this you can say is mostly due to the new ball..

 

[randycricfreak]

Anyone else enjoy these threads where someone invites discussion about an arbitrary stat that makes their side look great, then starts to set the discussion parameters later on when others don't start singing from their hymn sheet?

Always the most balanced and uncontentious threads

You don't get the point of forumming do You?

 

[Second Spitter]

Only proves that they played alongside quicks that were ****.

I mean, image how high Marshall's percentage would be if he opened the bowling with Ajit Agarkar.

 

[cpr]

You don't get the point of forumming do You?

I've a little bit of experience on the topic.

 

[CricAddict]

I have a feeling Vaas being top of the list has more than a bit to do with Murali taking all the wickets once he came on to bowl

This is a good point. Once Murali comes on to bowl, he ensures that the ball gets out of his hands only when the innings is over.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Also no good new ball partners to take wickets away from Vaas up front.

 

[randycricfreak]

Also no good new ball partners to take wickets away from Vaas up front.

Can we say the same for Anderson? NO

 

[ankitj]

Can we say the same for Anderson? NO

Anderson's partner has picked a truckload of wickets while playing alongside him.