Jimmy Anderson

[Starfighter]

Walsh has the better average, yeah. But that's basically by virtue of having a lower economy rate - which you can attribute to him being more of a back of a length bounce bowler for most of his career. Anderson has the slightly better strike rate (bowled fuller), played longer, more wickets. Walsh definitely more consistent across most of his career, although he buttoned off to become very military medium at the back-end whereas Anderson is more of a threat. I'd say neither deserves to be higher in the ATG category. Different bowlers.

I don't buy this logic. It's tantamount to saying that being more accurate is not a good quality. I wouldn't buy too much into the difference in strike rates either, cricket isn't played the same way now.

Never heard of this chap Geoff Miller who's apparently the most successful off-spinner over there in living memory

Miller averaged 15.7 against the very weak Australian batting in the 78/79 series when WSC was on.

He was often asked to open the bowling.

He didn't open the bowling in any of his tests.

 

[trundler]

Bowlers now have significantly higher strike rates than before. The past 4 or so years have had an overall bowling average comparable to the 80s. The 00s were baaaaaaaaaad but it has steadied again. Lower strike rates, higher ERs. Which is why you get a lot of results these days. It's the opposite of the 60s in a way.

 

[Line and Length]

He didn't open he bowling in any of his tests.

I stand corrected. Doug Wright never opened the bowling but he was frequently the first change bowler. In the two Ashes series after WWII Alec Bedser's new ball partners were Bill Edrich , J A Young, A Coxon, R.Pollard, A j Watkins, J J Warr and, as previously mentioned, Trevor Bailey.

 

[trundler]

When did teams go from throwing the new ball to whichever part time (occasionally better) medium pacer was available to having 2 specialist fast bowlers open the bowling

 

[Burgey]

When did teams go from throwing the new ball to whichever part time (occasionally better) medium pacer was available to having 2 specialist fast bowlers open the bowling

very early on, depending on their strengths. Gregory &McDonald post WW1 an early example. I’m sure there are others as well.

 

[Starfighter]

When did teams go from throwing the new ball to whichever part time (occasionally better) medium pacer was available to having 2 specialist fast bowlers open the bowling

All of the bowlers in L&L's post opened the bowling at times, if not consistently in County. Coxon, Pollard and Warr were specialist, usually new-ball bowlers, Watkins was an allrounder who also opened, Edrich's bowing was considered handy with the new ball as well and a spinner like Young opening would hardly be exceptional in England at the time.

Two modern-style fast bowlers does not become a consistent thing until post-WWII. It was not uncommon for teams to select only one fast bowler as a matter of preference rather than necessity prior to that, especially before WWI. Being a specialist medium pacer was a thing then. Some were even successful later on in County, like Cartwright, Shackleton, Malcolm Nash, David Halfyard etc.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Think it depends on availability and relative strengths as well: Australia in the thirties usually used only a single fast-bowler (Wall earlier, McCormick later), and often three specialist bowlers only, relying on someone like McCabe or Fairfax to send down some h4x medium pace. Aus did have other fast bowlers (and medium pacers), but rarely picked them.

 

[Burgey]

Had a fair bit to do with uncovered decks too

 

[SteveNZ]

I don't buy this logic. It's tantamount to saying that being more accurate is not a good quality. I wouldn't buy too much into the difference in strike rates either, cricket isn't played the same way now.

It's nothing like that. It's saying that Walsh is a back of a length bowler, Anderson is a full of a length bowler to suit their respective styles. So naturally Anderson will go for a few more runs. He's expected to. And that by and large accounts for the different in averages.

And wouldn't it stand to reason that Walsh played in an era where the scoring rate was lesser, and certainly I don't think teams were coming hard at the Windies. Anderson has operated in a faster-scoring era. Is that what you meant by cricket isn't played the same way?

Only my opinion, you can throw a blanket over the both of them. Especially when you look at their 10-year peak and exclude the below average bowler that Anderson was in his first 5 years.

 

[Starfighter]

It's nothing like that. It's saying that Walsh is a back of a length bowler, Anderson is a full of a length bowler to suit their respective styles. So naturally Anderson will go for a few more runs. He's expected to. And that by and large accounts for the different in averages.

Utter bollocks, a bowler's average is not dependent on their bowling style. You might expect a difference in strike rates (though I doubt this would be significant compared to other factors). If Anderson has to concede more runs to take the same number of wickets that makes him worse bowler. Nothing to do with having to bowl fuller. Steyn bowled plenty full and never seen someone suggest he would average better if he pulled the length back a bit.

And wouldn't it stand to reason that Walsh played in an era where the scoring rate was lesser, and certainly I don't think teams were coming hard at the Windies. Anderson has operated in a faster-scoring era. Is that what you meant by cricket isn't played the same way?

Yes, which is a point against your argument, not for it.

Only my opinion, you can throw a blanket over the both of them. Especially when you look at their 10-year peak and exclude the below average bowler that Anderson was in his first 5 years.

You can make anyone look better by excluding their bad performances.

 

[GIMH]

Utter bollocks, a bowler's average is not dependent on their bowling style.

Spinners tend to average more than seamers. So it's not unreasonable that there would be discrepancies across different seam styles but I've never thought about it before

 

[Starfighter]

That's not really how I meant that to read. Just saying that bowling short/full/whatever is not an excuse for a bowler having a worse average.

It might very well be that their style is less effective. Adjusting averages based on that ignores the very real difference, a bit like the disingenuous adjustments our statistical agencies use to hide inflation.

 

[Line and Length]

Where has Steve suggested that there is a need for adjusting averages?
The way I read his comments is that one style of bowling has the potential to be more expensive than another.
In the Anderson v Walsh debate, the former is slightly more expensive (ER 2.86 vs 2.54) but has a slightly better strike rate (56.24 vs 57.84).

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't buy this logic. It's tantamount to saying that being more accurate is not a good quality. I wouldn't buy too much into the difference in strike rates either, cricket isn't played the same way now.

Miller averaged 15.7 against the very weak Australian batting in the 78/79 series when WSC was on.

He didn't open the bowling in any of his tests.

This post is pure alpha brutality

 

[Teja.]

A bowler's average can be dependent on their bowling style. That does not however mean that you can't compare bowlers of a certain bowling style unfavourably based on bowling average to a bowler of another bowling style IMO.

Spinners tend to average more than pacers but they also have the advantage of usually bowling more overs, taking more wickets per match and having longer careers while having the disadvantage of not being as versatile as the best pacers.

 

[Starfighter]

Where has Steve suggested that there is a need for adjusting averages?
The way I read his comments is that one style of bowling has the potential to be more expensive than another.
In the Anderson v Walsh debate, the former is slightly more expensive (ER 2.86 vs 2.54) but has a slightly better strike rate (56.24 vs 57.84).

SteveNZ said that he doesn't buy that Walsh was better than Anderson, due to the difference on their bowling styles. He's therefore implicitly considering Walsh and Anderson's averages to be equivalent when bowling styles are considered.

 

[vcs]

Thinking of a hypothetical scenario here. Let's say there's bowler A, called Ymmij Nosredna, who mostly takes the new ball and bowls to Nos. 1-6 in the lineup. Let's say he has a teammate Llehctim Crats, who sprays around the new ball and is generally held back against top order batsmen, but bowls sharp bouncers and pinpoint yorkers, which make him ideally suited to cleaning up the lower order. Nosredna averages 26, with 70% top order wickets, and Crats averages 25, with 40% top order wickets. Who is the superior bowler?

 

[ankitj]

Thinking of a hypothetical scenario here. Let's say there's bowler A, called Ymmij Nosredna, who mostly takes the new ball and bowls to Nos. 1-6 in the lineup. Let's say he has a teammate Llehctim Crats, who sprays around the new ball and is generally held back against top order batsmen, but bowls sharp bouncers and pinpoint yorkers, which make him ideally suited to cleaning up the lower order. Nosredna averages 26, with 70% top order wickets, and Crats averages 25, with 40% top order wickets. Who is the superior bowler?

Hey I created a thread long back about to address this.

How valuable is that wicket!

Long time back I came across a comprehensive analysis of bowlers based on the "value"of the wickets they take. The approach was wonderfully elegant and very logical. The article is not online anymore. Nevertheless I decided to do the exercise again. I am happy to share the results of my hard...

www.cricketweb.net

Nosrenda is better imo (where do you get those names from?)

 

[Teja.]

Two caveats to that hypothetical:

i) Realistically, bowling pinpoint yorkers and bouncers and being an accurate back fo a length bowler is a more reliable tactic to be excellent across all surfaces than most tactics which rely heavily on the new ball.

ii) average value per wicket can be a deceptive stat if Bowler B is taking more wickets per match than Bowler A. If Bowler B is taking 4.3 wickets per match and Bowler A is taking 3.8 wickets per match, there can be situations where Bowler B is taking as many top order wickets per match as Bowler A but Bowler B still has a worse average value per wicket because on top of that, he's also taking more tail end wickets which is an absurd result. This is why a blanket average value per wicket stat like 40% or 60% is useless without corresponding wpm stats.

 

[harsh.ag]

Nosrenda is better imo (where do you get those names from?)