Significance of the 'second innings denial' effect.

[Mr Miyagi]

Surely he must be stringing us along? But then again the internet does surprise in its wonders, so maybe he does believe that. It's just... it's sort of like if you were doing question for, say, uni and you write something wonderful and clear with brilliant detail and seamless logic and so on but you get zero marks because you didn't actually address the question.

Starfigher, JediBrah agrees with me that runs matter as shown by Hadlee and Streak bowling only 8 overs in the 4th.

Where exactly are you trying to go with this?

Your thread posed a question, I have answered it. If you don't like the answer, deal with the specifics. Ad hominem is just a waste of everyone's time.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Starfighter, either way, JediBrah now agrees with me that batting matters and is significant with Hadlee and Streak bowling 8 overs in the 4th.

So the only issue is whether you do or not?

We were comparing McGrath and Hadlee because they has such similar Avge and SR, hence it was a perfect comparison.

Streak isn't even in the same ballpark, he averaged 28 and had a much higher SR. Comparing him is meaningless.

Competition for wickets is just as relevant or significant to be observed in impacting wpm as not bowling much in the 4th due to runs.

I'm glad you get this now. Or before. Or whenever. I really don't care when you did get it.

But it is relevant. It is isginificant. Look at the very very very first post in this thread before using the word "irrelevant"'

If something effects wpm potential it is relevant. End of.

No one ever cared bout this. No one said it was completely irrelevant, it was bout it's relative effect. The discussion was purely how the strength of a team a great bowler played in affected wpm. You argued against the well documented fact that stronger team = lower wpm for like 10 pages in the other thread, if you're changing your tune now that's at least progress.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

We were comparing McGrath and Hadlee because they has such similar Avge and SR, hence it was a perfect comparison.

No "we" weren't. You may well have been.

I was discussing every single bowler who ever played.

Streak isn't even in the same ballpark, he averaged 28 and had a much higher SR. Comparing him is meaningless.

He is a bowler who played. I was discussing him and every bowler.

No one ever cared bout this. No one said it was completely irrelevant, it was bout it's relative effect. The discussion was purely how the strength of a team a great bowler played in affected wpm. You argued against the well documented fact that stronger team = lower wpm for like 10 pages in the other thread, if you're changing your tune now that's at least progress.

Look at the thread you are in. Read the very very very first post. I have never once changed my tune - and I will happily post my previous posts accordingly that demonstrate this.

Batting strength effects bowlers wpm independently of bowler strength. Which has always been my position.

Runs are significant as is competition for wickets. They are two different and discrete limits. They are both signficant. They are both relevant. I have never wavered. But I am pleased that you get it now.

 

[Starfighter]

Mr Miyagi, can you define the terms 'significant' and 'insignificant' for me, in your own words?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Look at the thread you are in. Read the very very very first post. I have never once changed my tune - and I will happily post my previous posts accordingly that demonstrate this.

You've changed it pretty significantly from the previous thread m8

 

[Starfighter]

You've changed it pretty significantly from the previous thread m8

Also if you read the very very very first post of this thread you will see the question as I have framed it and that he has failed to answer.


If he thinks he knows what I wrote better than me then 'deluded' in not strong enough a word.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You've changed it pretty significantly from the previous thread m8

Not once have I changed this. I was quite familiar with the topic before it was raised on CW.

If you want to make this accusation - support it with a quote please.

But you won't be able to. Because I have never wavered.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Also if you read the very very very first post of this thread you will see the question as I have framed it and that he has failed to answer.


If he thinks he knows what I wrote better than me then 'deluded' in not strong enough a word.

8 overs in the 4th, it is significant.

/thread

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not once have I changed this. I am quite familiar with the topic before it was raised on CW.

If you want to make this accusation - support it with a quote please.

So you accept that all factors considered, for similar bowlers, player in a stronger general team = lower wpm than playing in a weaker team?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

So you accept that all factors considered, for similar bowlers, player in a stronger general team = lower wpm than playing in a weaker team?

No. Never. Not at all.

Why is the team weak? Is it weak batting or weak bowling or both?

Because there are two discrete and independent limits, competition for wickets between good bowlers and runs on the board to bowl at.

 

[Starfighter]

8 overs in the 4th, it is significant.

/thread

The question is, and has always been, about total balls and wickets per match. The innings breakdown has nothing to do with it.

You say that second innings denial reduces balls/wickets. The fact that Hadlee bowls significantly more balls per match than comparable bowlers shows that the factors that lead a bowler to bowl more must be markedly stronger than second innings denial making him bowl less i.e. the effect is insignificant.

¿Comprende?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The question is, and has always been, about total balls and wickets per match. The innings breakdown has nothing to do with it.

You say that second innings denial reduces balls/wickets. The fact that Hadlee bowls significantly more balls per match than comparable bowlers shows that the factors that lead a bowler to bowl more must be markedly stronger than second innings denial making him bowl less i.e. the effect is insignificant.

¿Comprende?

Now, it follows logically that being in a team with weak batting reduces the opportunity to take wickets in the second innings, which should lower a bowler's balls and wickets per match. This is because there will be more losses by an innings, declarations or a high number of wickets against that team, due to relative batting strength.

Now, taking an apples to apples comparison (pace bowler to pace bowler) in might be expected that a bowler in a weaker batting team such as Hadlee's New Zealand (27) compared to a stronger batting team such as McGrath's Australia (37). Yet it will be found that Hadlee bowled more balls (255 vs 235) and had a higher WpM than McGrath (5 vs 4.5).

Now the question: is the 'second innings denial' effect significant at test level? For good to great bowlers (say, average under 28, 100+ wickets since WWII), is there any kind of direct relationship between WpM/BpM and team batting average? And is it the same for pace and spin bowlers? Or are other factors more important?

Yes there is a direct relationship between wpm/bpm and team batting average.

Streak and Hadlee averaged only bowled 8 overs in the 4th innings.

Comprende?

Now if you want to reframe it to total balls bowled, lets look at when for the 4th innings batting and bowling averages already as against the 1st and 2nd innings already. Like I have been asking for several pages now. It is the next step. Logically. But it really is a different issue.

 

[Starfighter]

Yes there is a direct relationship between wpm and bpm and batting average.

Streak and Hadlee only bowled 8 overs in the 4th innings.

Nice non-sequitur.

If there is a direct relationship between wpm/bpm and team batting average, please produce data which shows this fact.

 

[Starfighter]

A scatterplot with bowlers normalised to the strength of their teammates to account for competition and with the R^2 value displayed would do very nicely.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Nice non-sequitur.

If there is a direct relationship between wpm/bpm and team batting average, please produce data which shows this fact.

Take Hadlee - weak batting and no competition for wickets

he bowls on average 29 overs in the first innings per game;
he bowls on average 29 overs in the second innings per game;
he bowls on average 22 overs in the third innings per game;
and just 8.8 overs in the fourth.

Ave 42 per game

He career averages a wicket every 8 overs. So is this significant to his wpm?

That is significant.

Marshall - good batting and competition for wickets
bowls 20 overs on average in the first
bowls 21 overs on average in the second
bowls 19 overs on average in the third
bowls 14.7 overs on average in the fourth

Ave 36 per game


McGrath - good batting and competition for wickets
bowls 22.4 overs in the first
bowls 23.3 overs in the second
bowls 17.7 in the third
bowls 15.8 in the fourth

Ave 39 overs per game

Murali - good batting but no competition for wickets

bowls 33.3 overs in the first
bowls 34 overs in the second
bowls 31 overs in the third
bowls 24 overs in the fourth

ave 55

Streak - weak batting and no competition for wickets
Bowls 27 in 1st
Bowls 26 in 2nd
Bowls 16 in 3rd
Bowls 8.25 in 4th

ave 35 overs per game

If you want further heavy lifting, do it yourself. You have my reasons and you have my table.

I can only lead a horse to water.

 

[Starfighter]

How can you continue to miss the point so badly? We shall leave aside the fact that Hadlee bowled first in 56 of his 86 matches and so would have a smaller selection of 4th innings to choose from.

Also leave aside the fact that I am asking about second bowling innings, and always have, and that your talk about fourth innings has already been missing the point.

The number of balls bowled in the fourth innings is not relevant without the context of the number of balls bowled per match.

Bowler	BpM	1st	2nd	3rd	4th
A	255	171	174	135	63
B	236	134	140	106	97

Now, answer this simple question: who takes more wickets per match: bowler A or bowler B?

 

[trundler]

Well this thread wasn't a repetitive waste of time at all...

 

[Mr Miyagi]

8 overs in 4th


/thread


Start a new one for the new topic please.

 

[Starfighter]

8 overs in 4th


/thread


Start a new one for the new topic please.

Answer my question. Bowler A or B, who takes more wickets?

I have stayed on the original topic. If you think I haven't please go and break down the OP and show where I haven't. I wrote the OP, so I think I know what I meant.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

is there any kind of direct relationship between WpM/BpM and team batting average?

Yes.