Significance of the 'second innings denial' effect.

[Starfighter]

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?

 

[Burgey]

Oh I think it’s very significant.

Discuss.

 

[Bolo]

My numbers are made up. I don't have actual stats, so feel free to adjust.

The average sucessful chase probably wins with 4 wickets down. Less so if the team batting 1st wins as a declaration is required to avoid 20 wickets falling. Perhaps 8 wickets down on average? Ignoring toss advantage, that's 4 wickets you fail to take per game on average by losing.

For the sake of simplicity, considering 2 teams with equal bowlers, 25% of games are drawn. Team A with a weak batting lineup loses 50%, and team B with a strong batting lineup strong team loses 25%. 25% loss delta at an average loss by 4 wickets is 1 wicket per match. For your premier bowler this might be a difference of 0.3 wickets per match based on the strength of your batting lineup, which is huge.

In the real world, the conditions maximising the probability of this type of outcome are going to be pretty rare though, and there are likely multiple other variables with a greater impact.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Significance > 9000

 

[Top Cat]

We should probably look at bowlers and batsmen's average on a 1st/2nd innings basis? Wonder if that throws up anything interesting

 

[Mr Miyagi]

We should probably look at bowlers and batsmen's average on a 1st/2nd innings basis? Wonder if that throws up anything interesting

Stop thinking too much. There is clearly nothing to see here.



Take Hadlee -

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
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

The effect can be seen, but at a far reduced rate.

McGrath
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

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
Bowls 27 in 1st
Bowls 26 in 2nd
Bowls 16 in 3rd
Bowls 8.25 in 4th

ave 35 overs per game

Nothing at all *nods*

The only thing that matters is wickets per match Strang and Bracewell just stole Hadlee and Streak's wickets :P We all know how strong NZ with Bracewell and Zimbabwe with Strang were :P


If you want 4thinnings performances I will privide them happily.


Marshall

309.3 4th innings deliveries /2930.4 overs
11% 4th
at 17.66(20.95)rpw at SR45.29(46.77)
2/22
5w split 9%

McGrath
856.3/4874.5 or 103/563
18%
at 19.5(21.64) at SR49.89(51.96)
5/29
5w split 17%

Murali
888.3/7339.5
12%
at 21.02(22.73) at SR50(55)
5w split 7/67 10.4%

Hadlee
202/3461
6%
at 15.63(22.30) 39.4(51)
5w split between 2/36 5.6%
wickets in 4th 7% of career
32 wickets in 24 games!

Sreak

65 2259overs all 198 4th
102w
18 4th
28.14 ave
25 4th
05w in 4th

 

[Mr Miyagi]

We should probably look at bowlers and batsmen's average on a 1st/2nd innings basis? Wonder if that throws up anything interesting

Stop thinking too much. There is clearly nothing to see here.



Take Hadlee -

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
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

The effect can be seen, but at a far reduced rate.

McGrath
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

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
Bowls 27 in 1st
Bowls 26 in 2nd
Bowls 16 in 3rd
Bowls 8.25 in 4th

ave 35 overs per game

 

[Bolo]

Stop thinking too much. There is clearly nothing to see here.



Take Hadlee -

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
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

The effect can be seen, but at a far reduced rate.

McGrath
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

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
Bowls 27 in 1st
Bowls 26 in 2nd
Bowls 16 in 3rd
Bowls 8.25 in 4th

ave 35 overs per game

This is a very interesting post and I would like to see it discussed because I think that it adds to our understanding of the game to an extent we don't often see. But the rest of what you have written is a combination of double posts and a cancerous hashtag tirade. It just detracts from your argument. Is it possible to remove the rest so we can focus on this good post?

 

[Burgey]

But in those figures Hadlee bowls more overs per match than the other bowlers except Murali, with whom the comparison is inapt because he's a spinner anyway.

 

[Burgey]

And look, the hashtag stuff is dire as ****.

 

[Burgey]

Hadlee, like anyone, can only bowl so many overs. FMD the ****'s arm would have fallen off.

 

[cnerd123]

And look, the hashtag stuff is dire as ****.

You mean the hashtag stuff is #DireAs****

 

[TheJediBrah]

And look, the hashtag stuff is dire as ****.

Just like your posts

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Hadlee, like anyone, can only bowl so many overs. FMD the ****'s arm would have fallen off.

Really? 29 and 22 when NZ bowl first, 29 and 8 when NZ bowl second. That is 51 compared to 37.

I think it is safe to say his arm wasn't going to fall off bowling a few more overs.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

This is a very interesting post and I would like to see it discussed because I think that it adds to our understanding of the game to an extent we don't often see. But the rest of what you have written is a combination of double posts and a cancerous hashtag tirade. It just detracts from your argument. Is it possible to remove the rest so we can focus on this good post?

Yes and done.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

But in those figures Hadlee bowls more overs per match than the other bowlers except Murali, with whom the comparison is inapt because he's a spinner anyway.

But he does bowl right?

Murali as a spinner bowls more first innings overs than Hadlee. 33 to 29. So that makes sense.

But why does Murali bowl 24 overs in the 4th and 33 in the first compared to Hadlee's 29 in the first and 8 in the fourth? John Bracewell was not the biggest threat for NZ. Hadlee averaged just 15runs per wicket in the 4th innings

So the comparison of his first and second innings bowling efforts in proportion where his first is higher than Hadlee is relevant.

24/33 is a much higher ratio of overs than 8/29.

But if you still don't like Murali - you have Hadlee and Streak vs Marshall and McGrath.

The pattern is that competition for wickets reduces first innings overs bowled compared to bowlers who don't have as much competition, and lack of runs reduces 4th innings overs bowled compared to bowlers who do have runs.

Is it significant? Well yes, it is significant to wpm, Streak is only averaging 3.3wpm! Way below Broad and Anderson who compete for wickets. If you only get to bowl 8 overs in the 4th, you will take less wickets than bowling more overs.

As for its impact. When would you rather bowl? 4th innings or third, second or first?

 

[Red]

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

 

[Starfighter]

But he does bowl right?

You clearly haven't played much, if any, actual cricket to think that bowling pace and spin are comparable.

 

[cnerd123]

Bowling spin is harder tbh

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You clearly haven't played much, if any, actual cricket to think that bowling pace and spin are comparable.

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.