Progression of the 'best fast bowler' title post war

[NotMcKenzie]

I disagree.

Hadlee bowls literally more than twice as many balls in the first innings than the second and played in more losses than wins.

His pro rata is way out of proportion with the rest of the greats. The closest to him is Imran. Which is ready explicable.

Except the amount of 2nd innings lost does not seem exceptional compared to other teams at the same time.

Also, without as much competition from within the team, Hadlee would have been able to take a greater portion of those 2nd innings wickets

Looking at it another way:
Hadlee took 0.01966 Wickets per Ball overall with 0.1952 1st innings, and 0.01997 2nd;
McGrath took 0.01925 Wickets per Ball overall with 0.01926 1st innings, and 0.01923 2nd

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Except the amount of 2nd innings lost does not seem exceptional compared to other teams at the same time.

Also, without as much competition from within the team, Hadlee would have been able to take a greater portion of those 2nd innings wickets

Looking at it another way:
Hadlee took 0.01966 Wickets per Ball overall with 0.1952 1st innings, and 0.01997 2nd;
McGrath took 0.01925 Wickets per Ball overall with 0.01926 1st innings, and 0.01923 2nd

I like you so I'm going to be as polite as I can be.

You're comparing the wrong teams, else it is apples and oranges :P

You should be looking at Lillee's, McGrath's, Marshall's, and Murali's team's to Hadlee's :P

And the issue isn't about career (both innings combined) SR :P

 

[Starfighter]

I like you so I'm going to be as polite as I can be.

You're comparing the wrong teams :P

You should be looking at Lillee's, McGrath's, Marshall's, and Murali's team s :P

And the issue isn't about SR :P

Let me restate this:

Bowler	Balls/Match
Hadlee	255
Marshall	217
McGrath	235
Muralitharan	331

Where was Hadlee denied the opportunity to take wickets so raise his WpM compared to Marshall and McGrath? Since Hadlee bowls more balls per match that the other two clearly this supposed denial of second innings opportunities is more than balanced out by increased opportunities in the second innings and elsewhere (possibly through bowling a significantly higher proportion of total team overs).

What we are saying is that you postulated effect is in fact no strong enough or not even relevant compared to other factors.

Let me break down:

No one is disputing that theoretically stronger batting may lead to greater opportunities to take second innings wickets.

No where have you proven that this effect in significant compared to other factors. Prove that it applies in the real world. The fact that Hadlee has a high BpM says that it does not.

You need to find some evidence that in the case of Hadlee or any other bowler this effect significantly affects WpM. You have not done so.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I disagree.

Hadlee bowls literally more than twice as many balls in the first innings than the second and played in more losses than wins.

His pro rata is way out of proportion with the rest of the greats. The closest to him is Imran. Which is ready explicable.

Even more false assumptions you're making here:

1. That Hadlee missed out on bowling in the 2nd innings --> shown not to be significant in relation to peers
2. That bowling in the 2nd innings is significantly better for Hadlee --> also false. His 2nd innings average is only 0.9 less than his 1st innings average

you're just not right here m8. You had an interesting premise, but it's clearly not the case. Just accept it. It's not a big deal. No one's going to make fun of you, or belittle you.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Let me restate this:

Bowler	Balls/Match
Hadlee	255
Marshall	217
McGrath	235
Muralitharan	331

Where was Hadlee denied the opportunity to take wickets so raise his WpM compared to Marshall and McGrath? Since Hadlee bowls more balls per match that the other two clearly this supposed denial of second innings opportunities is more than balanced out by increased opportunities in the second innings and elsewhere (possibly through bowling a significantly higher proportion of total team overs).

What we are saying is that you postulated effect is in fact no strong enough or not even relevant compared to other factors.

Let me break down:

No one is disputing that theoretically stronger batting may lead to greater opportunities to take second innings wickets.

No where have you proven that this effect in significant compared to other factors. Prove that it applies in the real world. The fact that Hadlee has a high BpM says that it does not.

You need to find some evidence that in the case of Hadlee or any other bowler this effect significantly affects WpM. You have not done so.

He potentially could have and would have bowled even more....

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Even more false assumptions you're making here:

1. That Hadlee missed out on bowling in the 2nd innings --> shown not to be significant in relation to peers

2. That bowling in the 2nd innings is significantly better for Hadlee --> also false. His 2nd innings average is only 0.9 less than his 1st innings average

you're just not right here m8. You had an interesting premise, but it's clearly not the case. Just accept it. It's not a big deal. No one's going to make fun of you, or belittle you.

He potentially could have and would have bowled more...

 

[Starfighter]

He could have bowled even more....

And that's where another factor comes in - physical limitation. Of course he could have bowled more, until he couldn't.

But do you now accept that this second innings denial effect is not significant compared to other factors in the real world?

and would have

Your edit was not ninja enough. He might have tried to bowl more, but considering he was by far his team's best bowler for the greater part of his career I doubt he was denied many or any overs he wanted, and he probably bowled some he wished he hadn't.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

And that's where another factor comes in - physical limitation. Of course he could have bowled more, until he couldn't.

But do you now accept that this second innings denial effect is not significant compared to other factors in the real world?

Now, do you have any proof of this physical limitation being instant?

Or this just a bare assertion which overlooks as soon as he possibly bowled more balls, he has in fact bowled more balls.

It is now your turn.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He potentially could have and would have bowled more...

So could everyone. It's just not relevant to the point. He already had a comfortably superior wpm to McGrath, who was just as good a bowler. Playing in a stronger team (overall team, not just stronger batsmen) he would likely have had a lower wpm. The statistics clearly show this.

As I said several times earlier though, in your specific hypothetical scenario where his team had much stronger batsmen but not stronger bowlers, then sure. Maybe he would have had a higher wpm. Maybe 6 or even 7. Who knows. I agree with you there.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

So could everyone. It's just not relevant to the point. He already had a comfortably superior wpm to McGrath, who was just as good a bowler. Playing in a stronger team (overall team, not just stronger batsmen) he would likely have had a lower wpm. The statistics clearly show this.

As I said several times earlier though, in your specific hypothetical scenario where his team had much stronger batsmen but not stronger bowlers, then sure. Maybe he would have had a higher wpm. Maybe 6 or even 7. Who knows. I agree with you there.

Not when they've with their team taken 20 wickets they cannot!

 

[Starfighter]

Now, do you have any proof of this physical limitation being instant?

Or this just a bare assertion which overlooks as soon as he possibly bowled more balls, he has in fact bowled more balls.

It is now your turn.

Where did I say it was instant? That's a straw man. It can manifest itself in many ways such as loss of effectiveness in the second innings, loss of effectiveness later on in career, injuries happening more regularly, injuries and fatigue ending career early and so on. And some of those would lower his WpM.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Where did I say it was instant? That's a straw man. It can manifest itself in many ways such as loss of effectiveness in the second innings, loss of effectiveness later on in career, injuries happening more regularly, injuries and fatigue ending career early and so on. And some of those would lower his WpM.

Its not a straw man, quite simply I am saying it needs to be instant, else you havn't disproven he could have bowled more with physical limitation, at all. In fact, you're conceding it.

And there are plenty of games NZ lost that didn't reach the 5th day I bet. :P

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not when they've with their team taken 20 wickets they cannot!

That's part of playing in a stronger team m8. Which we've already determined leads to a lower wpm, all things considered. The factor you're fixating on is insignificant in relation to the big picture.

Any disadvantage by "the team not taking 20 wickets" is more than made up for. You've been shown this.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

That's part of playing in a stronger team m8. Which we've already determined leads to a lower wpm, all things considered. The factor you're fixating on is insignificant in relation to the big picture.

Any disadvantage by "the team not taking 20 wickets" is more than made up for. You've been shown this.

"Disadvantage"?

Please elaborate

 

[Starfighter]

"Disadvantage"?

Please elaborate

or an even weaker without good batting team like Hadlee at 5 wpm who is being limited not by the 20 wickets taken, but by the team running out runs.

It's your concept.

 

[Burgey]

This thread has become peak CW.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

To look at it another way, if New Zealand's batting was stronger but the bowling remained the same, this would have increased match totals. As runs take time to score, this may have simply increased the amount of drawn matches, and some of these would have resulted in truncated 2nd bowling innings for New Zealand.

 

[TheJediBrah]

"Disadvantage"?

Please elaborate

You've been going on about this hypothetical disadvantage for 4 pages and now you want me to elaborate? What are actually arguing anymore?

Are you still trying to insist that playing in a weaker team = lower wpm?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

It's your concept.

No - that's a mere part of it. This is my concept:

The question is not why are great bowlers in great teams more limited in wpm per match than in weaker teams, I think we can see from Marshall at 4.6 if there is sufficient batting (and with Greendige, Hayne, Richards and Richardson there more often was than not and they won) it is the competition for wickets limit hits them at the 20 wicket point far more readily [Holding, Garner, Roberts, Ambrose, Walsh] than it does for a great bowler in a weaker team but with good batting like Murali, who ends up with 6 wpm or an even weaker without good batting team like Hadlee at 5 wpm who is being limited not by the 20 wickets taken, but by the team running out runs.

What factor [actually] limiting wpm potential effecting Warne and Marshall, do not effect Murali and Hadlee [the same]. And Murali had more runs to play in the second innings and bowl more hence has a higher wpm than Hadlee.

But I also accept that competition for wickets in reducing wpm also typically reduces bowling averages of the bowlers involved, as there are more chances at bowling to new non set batsmen. So all these dynamics are interrelated.

So even though NZ's Hadlee was a weaker team than the great WI or Aus, he still could have taken more wickets per game if the batting was better. Same for Imran whose 4.6 wpm per match, is not at all like Marshall's! But still better than split than Hadlee's.

Its not just the bowling that matters, its the runs the bowlers have to play with. It is that simple.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You've been going on about this hypothetical disadvantage for 4 pages and now you want me to elaborate? What are actually arguing anymore?

Are you still trying to insist that playing in a weaker team = lower wpm?

I said with more runs, Hadlee could have potentially bowled more and taken more second innings wickets.

The question is not why are great bowlers in great teams more limited in wpm per match than in weaker teams, I think we can see from Marshall at 4.6 if there is sufficient batting (and with Greendige, Hayne, Richards and Richardson there more often was than not and they won) it is the competition for wickets limit hits them at the 20 wicket point far more readily [Holding, Garner, Roberts, Ambrose, Walsh] than it does for a great bowler in a weaker team but with good batting like Murali, who ends up with 6 wpm or an even weaker without good batting team like Hadlee at 5 wpm who is being limited not by the 20 wickets taken, but by the team running out runs.

What factor [actually] limiting wpm potential effecting Warne and Marshall, do not effect Murali and Hadlee [the same]. And Murali had more runs to play in the second innings and bowl more hence has a higher wpm than Hadlee.

But I also accept that competition for wickets in reducing wpm also typically reduces bowling averages of the bowlers involved, as there are more chances at bowling to new non set batsmen. So all these dynamics are interrelated.

So even though NZ's Hadlee was a weaker team than the great WI or Aus, he still could have taken more wickets per game if the batting was better. Same for Imran whose 4.6 wpm per match, is not at all like Marshall's! But still better than split than Hadlee's.

Its not just the bowling that matters, its the runs the bowlers have to play with. It is that simple.