Significance of the 'second innings denial' effect.

[AndyZaltzHair]

You could easily dismiss the fact that lesser teams' best bowlers getting more opportunity to bowl working in their favour by taking into account the fatigue factor

 

[Starfighter]

You could easily dismiss the fact that lesser teams' best bowlers getting more opportunity to bowl working in their favour by taking into account the fatigue factor

But he has not done so.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Significance ≠ Dependance.

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

It can never be independent when every single player is confined by his team mate's performances.

So - would Streak have more opportunity to take more than 3.3 wickets per game with better team mate batting? Yes.

Would Hadlee have more opportunity to take more than 5 wickets per game with better team mate batting? Yes.

Would McGrath have more opportunity to take more wickets with weaker bowling team mates? Yes.

Would Marshall have more opportunity to take more wickets with weaker bowling team mates? Yes.

Would Murali have less opportunity to take wickets if he had played with weaker batsmen? Yes.

There's two discrete limits. Runs and competition for wickets. They're both signficant. They effect certain players in certain teams differently due to their team mates.

Which one is more important is always independent to the single player being assesed. What is true for McGrath and Marshall, is not true for Streak and Hadlee, nor what is true for Streak and Hadlee true for Murali.

Independent. Both significant.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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

If Hadlee was in a stronger team ala McGrath would he have bowled more in the 4th innings? Maybe

Would he have bowled more in the match in total? No.

Would his wpm be higher? No, it would be lower.

Because he'd bowl a lot less in the first innings. It's not that hard dude.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

If Hadlee was in a stronger team ala McGrath would he have bowled more in the 4th innings? Maybe

Would he have bowled more in the match in total? No.

Would his wpm be higher? No, it would be lower.

Because he'd bowl a lot less in the first innings. It's not that hard dude.

Not all the great players played for great teams.

There's weak bowling teammatess with great batting. There's teammates with great bowling and batting. There's teamates with great bowling and weak batting.

The limits are real, actual and significant and effect all players - the variation in levels they do depends on the teams a certain player played in.

 

[Starfighter]

Not all the great players played for great teams.

Doesn't answer his questions or rebut his assertions in any way.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not all the great players played for great teams.

There's weak bowling teammatess with great batting. There's teammates with great bowling and batting. There's teamates with great bowling and weak batting.

The limits are real, actual and significant and effect all players - the variation in levels they do depends on the teams a certain player played in.

Well, yeah no arguments here. We talked about this ad nauseam the other day and no one disagreed that your hypothetical scenario where Hadlee played in a team with much stronger batsmen but not much stronger bowlers then he might have had a higher wpm.

It's the inverse of saying that if McGrath played in a team with much weaker bowling, but still the same batting then his wpm could have been way higher. It's not really a meaningful discussion, it's a contrived example to try and fit a premise.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Well, yeah no arguments here. We talked about this ad nauseam the other day and no one disagreed that your hypothetical scenario where Hadlee played in a team with much stronger batsmen but not much stronger bowlers then he might have had a higher wpm.

It's the inverse of saying that if McGrath played in a team with much weaker bowling, but still the same batting then his wpm could have been way higher. It's not really a meaningful discussion, it's a contrived example to try and fit a premise.

There you have it Starfigher. From the lips of JediBrah no less who has put this to bed.

Yes, team batting strength is significant to a bowlers wpm.

If only Hadlee and Streak had had Sanga, Jayaursiya, Jayawardene, Dilshan, Aravinda, Samareewa, Tilikiratne, Attapatu et al.


/thread

Lets move on now to a new thread discussing whether bowlers hunting in a pack and taking wickets at both ends by bowling more balls to more unset batsmen and whether bowling more balls in the second as against the first innings helps reduce bowling averages and SR.

Did Wasim benefit from Waqar? Did Vettori benefit from Bond? Are second innings batsman scores (and bowling averages) typically lower than the first. Let's discuss.

 

[Starfighter]

There you have it Starfigher. From the lips of JediBrah no less.

Yes, team batting strength is significant to a bowlers wpm.

Except TJB was criticising you for dealing in theoretical when we are talking about the real. I suggest you read his last sentence, it applies exactly to what you keep repeating. Make the leap from theory to reality please.

 

[cnerd123]

I have to say, the "Heath Streak would have had a better bowling record with Hashan Tillakaratne in his team" argument is a new one for CW

 

[TheJediBrah]

There you have it Starfigher. From the lips of JediBrah no less.

Yes, team batting strength is significant to a bowlers wpm.

If only Hadlee and Streak had had Sanga, Jayaursiya, Jayawardene, Dilshan, Aravinda, Samareewa, Tilikiratne, Attapatu et al.

/thread

Is that what the actual discussion was about though? Wasn't it about it's significance relative to other factors? And why are we only talking about batting strength and not bowling strength?

How is your hypothetical in anyway practically relevant?

 

[Starfighter]

Wasn't it about it's significance relative to other factors?

This.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Is that what the actual discussion was about though? Wasn't it about it's significance relative to other factors? And why are we only talking about batting strength and not bowling strength?

How is your hypothetical in anyway practically relevant?

Read the very very very first post.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Except TJB was criticising you for dealing in theoretical when we are talking about the real. I suggest you read his last sentence, it applies exactly to what you keep repeating. Make the leap from theory to reality please.

I gave you a table of the real.

 

[Starfighter]

Read the very very very first post.

And you will find that TJB is in fact bang on the money.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I have to say, the "Heath Streak would have had a better bowling record with Hashan Tillakaratne in his team" argument is a new one for CW

Still better than Grant Flower.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

And you will find that TJB is in fact bang on the money.

I know TJB is finally on the money - he is agreeing with me. "No arguments here".

 

[Starfighter]

I gave you a table of the real.

How many times do I have to say that your table of proportions does not prove the effect because it doesn't take into account totals and does not have any adjustment for any other factors. Proportions are not relevant. I have framed it very clearly to you several times yet you keep trying to railroad the argument into to something which suits your own irrelevant terms.

 

[Starfighter]

I know TJB is finally on the money - he is agreeing with me. "No arguments here".

No, he isn't.

You seem to interpret words quite differently to their intended meanings.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

How many times do I have to say that your table of proportions does not prove the effect because it doesn't take into account totals and does not have any adjustment for any other factors. Proportions are not relevant. I have framed it very clearly to you several times yet you keep trying to railroad the argument into to something which suits your own irrelevant terms.

Try and save face all you like.

Streak and Hadlee would have bowled more than 8 overs on average in the 4th innings with more runs. This is what all the stats and data strongly and undeniably suggest.

Yes runs matter.

/thread

As a cricket fan, I am more surprised that you didn't realise the 4th innings, if even occurring let alone it's total, would matter :P

I would be like you and claim that you havn't played cricket but I'm not, and that is rude, but I do wonder, how long have you been a fan of cricket and are you familiar with how 4th innings work?