Significance of the 'second innings denial' effect.

[Borges]

I'm not sure about a 'second innings denial effect', but in general I would guess that there may be a fairly strong correlation between the batting strength of a team and the emergence of very good bowlers. For instance, for both Australia and West Indies, great bowlers have emerged in periods when their batting blossomed.

Even lesser bowlers like Jadeja start looking great when the team has posted a huge first innings total or batting second, built up a massive first innings lead.

 

[Starfighter]

Could someone explain to be exactly WTF people are arguing for/discussing in this thread and the other fast bowler one?

NFI what all this is meant to be about

Mr Miyagi thinks the Hadlee was disadvantaged throughout his career because he played in a team with crap batting and therefore he had fewer chances to take second innings wickets. TheJediBrah pointed out that Hadlee's wickets/match is actually higher than McGrath's, who played in a much stronger team. I pointed out that Hadlee actually bowls significantly more balls per match that McGrath or, say, Marshall - he wasn't deprived of any opportunity. I asked Mr Miyagi that this effect is more significant than other factors, and he has simply devolved into lots of circular logic and numbers which don't actually prove anything.

One thing Mr Miyagi might want to consider is the strength of each team's other bowlers.
Each team other bowlers during listed bowler's career:

NZ during Hadlee's career: 37.05
Aus during McGrath's career: 27.10
WI during Marshall's career: 27.51
SL during Murali's: 36.34

 

[Starfighter]

I'm not sure about a 'second innings denial effect', but in general I would guess that there may be a fairly strong correlation between the batting strength of a team and the emergence of very good bowlers. For instance, for both Australia and West Indies, great bowlers have emerged in periods when their batting blossomed.

Even lesser bowlers like Jadeja start looking great when the team has posted a huge first innings total or batting second, built up a massive first innings lead.

Hadlee emerged without any great batsmen being in the NZ team.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I'm not sure about a 'second innings denial effect', but in general I would guess that there may be a fairly strong correlation between the batting strength of a team and the emergence of very good bowlers. For instance, for both Australia and West Indies, great bowlers have emerged in periods when their batting blossomed.

Even lesser bowlers like Jadeja start looking great when the team has posted a huge first innings total or batting second, built up a massive first innings lead.

This is more a psychological truism, that while I think it has a lot of merit watching teams capitulate in recent times, will be far more difficult to prove. Especially given the older eras of batsmen regularly fighting and holding on for the draw despite being in a lower scoring era.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but there's just so many factors at play to try and isolate this variable to prove it. Such as Jadeja looks great on dustbowls and not good overseas even when India score runs.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Hadlee emerged without any great batsmen being in the NZ team.

And Streak had Andy Flower, but it really wasn't sufficient batting to provide him with more than 8 overs in the 4th innings neither.

 

[Starfighter]

With all due respect, you clearly still don't get what is being shown.

Look at the overs bowled in the first innings, compared to the 4th. :P

Its the proportionate difference that is indicative 33/22 and 29/8, I am happy to concede that Murali's 33 overs in the first to Hadlee's 29 overs in the first is indicative of a difference between seam and spin :P

If I were you, I'd assume people that I am debating with are smart and if I didn't understand them, seek to see why, instead of just assuming they're wrong. But that's just me.

You started this thread, and asked some questions, and I have done some heavy lifting for you with the table. Make of it what you will.

I have told you repeatedly that the proportional split between innings is irrelevant. You can't seem to grasp this simple fact.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I have told you repeatedly that the proportional split between innings is irrelevant. You can't seem to grasp this simple fact.

That is because I think its significant. Why would you start a thread about "Significance of second innings denial" and then claim that the proportionality between first and second innings is irrelevant? What else are you going to compare bowling in the second team innings to if not the first?

You started this thread. So please explain to me why Streak and Hadlee only bowl 8 overs in the 4th innings, far fewer than Marshall or McGrath.

 

[Starfighter]

That is because I think its significant. Why would you start a thread about "Significance of second innings denial" and then claim that the proportionality between first and second innings is irrelevant? What else are you going to compare bowling in the second team innings to if not the first?

You started this thread.

The question is: is the supposed weakness of batting have a major effect (due to second innings denial) on the number of balls (and hence wickets) a bowler has during a match, since you claim that Hadlee was disadvantaged so?

More simply:
Does a bowler bowl significantly fewer balls in a weaker batting team, in tests that have actually happened? If that is the case, then the second innings denial effect is likely the causation. If not, then other factors are more important.

I have never denied that it is a sound construct, but I'm saying that it is not significant.

That's why I titled the thread 'significance of the second innings denial effect'. The key word is significance.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The question is: is the supposed weakness of batting have a major effect (due to second innings denial) on the number of balls (and hence wickets) a bowler has during a match, since you claim that Hadlee was disadvantaged so?

More simply:
Does a bowler bowl significantly fewer balls in a weaker batting team, in tests that have actually happened? If that is the case, then the second innings denial effect is likely the causation. If not, then other factors are more important.

I have never denied that it is a sound construct, but I'm saying that it is not significant.

That's why I titled the thread 'significance of the second innings denial effect'. The key word is significance.

Is that clear enough for you?

Please explain to me why Hadlee and Streak only bowl 8 overs in the 4th innings. :P

 

[Burgey]

Please explain why they bowled a **** ton more in the first, second and third than the other pace bowlers you've listed.

 

[Starfighter]

Please explain to me why Hadlee and Streak only bowl 8 overs in the 4th innings. :P

Please stop making straw men and reframing the debate about something it's not.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Please explain why they bowled a **** ton more in the first, second and third than the other pace bowlers you've listed.

Competition for wickets in the first innings is clearly visible.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Please stop making straw men and reframing the debate about something it's not.

I have offered no strawman. I asked you a question.

 

[Borges]

This is more a psychological truism, that while I think it has a lot of merit watching teams capitulate in recent times, will be far more difficult to prove.

None of these premises can be 'proved' either one way or the other; Especially if the very definition of who is a great bowler is based only on pure numbers.

Among the dozens of bowlers we consider great today, Hadlee and Murali may be the exceptions in that they have played in teams which did not have great batting strength.
Would these two have been even greater if they had played alongside strong batting line ups? I do not know with any degree of certainty.
Would these two have been even greater if they had the support of other bowlers who put the batsmen under sustained pressure? I do not know with any degree of certainty.

 

[Starfighter]

Competition for wickets.

And would you agree that team bowling strength/competition for wickets is a much more important factor in BpM/WpM than second innings denial?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

And would you agree that team bowling strength/competition for wickets is a much more important factor in BpM/WpM than second innings denial?

No idea. But there are clearly two limits, runs and competiton for wickets. And both are significant to wpm because they effect the overs a player bowls (and when).

 

[Starfighter]

No idea. But there are clearly two limits. And both are significant to wpm.

Does the fact that the bowlers in weaker teams (Murali, Hadlee) have higher WpM than those in stronger teams (McGrath, Marshall) point to the possibility that team bowling strength is by far the more important factor?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Does the fact that the bowlers in weaker teams (Murali, Hadlee) have higher WpM than those in stronger teams (McGrath, Marshall) point to the possibility that team bowling strength is by far the more important factor?

Not at all. They're independent of one another. Perhaps what you're really trying to say is that wpm is overall a weak comparison between bowlers from differing team strengths?

 

[cnerd123]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/happiness-in-world/201012/how-admit-youre-wrong

 

[Starfighter]

Not at all. They're independent of one another. Perhaps what you're really trying to say is that wpm is overall a weak comparison between bowlers from differing team strengths?

Significance ≠ Dependance.

Does the effect of second innings denial on WpM have a greater or lesser magnitude than the independent effect of competition?