Who's Done the Most Damage?

[subshakerz]

Steyn averages 27 against Aus, McGrath averages 27 against SA. Reality is that the gulf in quality between these records is vast but on CW it's not as much because of blind average reading with few taking the time to see the real match impact and how McGraths record is actually a blemish while Steyns is a strength.

We had not long ago Kyear arguing that Imran taking 48 wickets in 8 games in WI was below ATG standards because he averaged 25, yet he classified Ambrose taking 13 wickets in 4 tests in SA as an ATG showing because of low average.

There is something seriously off on CW when it comes to knowing how to evaluate average.

I'm sorry, taking more wickets matters more than taking less but cheaply.

 

[subshakerz]

First impression is not a part of judging a player's record, at least for me. As it can be very misleading.

My point was that we use those first impressions broadly to at least filter players with big enough differences. That is undeniable

 

[TheJediBrah]

You didn't answer my question. Isn't it a reflex to look at the ratio of wickets to games? It obviously is.

Yes average is important but I won't look at that in isolation without SR and WPM. Otherwise I would consider Philander a bowler in the Steyn class.

Second time you've mentioned Philander, you are in error using him as an example. He isn't rated as highly as his average suggests because he was overly conditions reliant and played an unusually high proportion of games on greentops that offered a lot of assistance, and was mostly useless in decent batting conditions. Nothing to do with his WPM.

Average isn't the be all and end all because there are factors that influence average. WPM isn't one of them though

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you assume similar conditions and level of teammates for 2 pacers with numbers like:
23 avg 4 WPM
24 avg 5 WPM
I'm going to ofc pick the second option, the extra wicket per game for 1 run more on avg is going to be much more impactful. The rest of bowlers, in general, would be avging 30+, so my best bowler picking an extra wicket is just much better practically

This scenario doesn't make sense for most players. If the WPM is varying that much between 2 bowlers with near identical averages it's almost certainly external factors causing it, which become nullified in a hypothetical where they will both be playing in the same position in a side. The exception to this being if they are vastly differing in the ER:SR ratio, in which case their relative value depends on team balance & conditions.

If you have 10 players chosen and 1 spot to fill, the 23 avg/4wpm will probably be the better choice in most cases. Examples of bowlers whose lower average is causatively linked to having to bowl less (ie taking fewer wickets per match) is very small

 

[Thala_0710]

If you have 10 players chosen and 1 spot to fill, the 23 avg/4wpm will probably be the better choice in most cases.

How? I don't see any reason for that.

 

[subshakerz]

Second time you've mentioned Philander, you are in error using him as an example. He isn't rated as highly as his average suggests because he was overly conditions reliant and played an unusually high proportion of games on greentops that offered a lot of assistance, and was mostly useless in decent batting conditions. Nothing to do with his WPM.

Average isn't the be all and end all because there are factors that influence average. WPM isn't one of them though

Dude of course Philander having a vast difference in WPM influences folks to see Steyn as better.

You honestly think if he had a 5WPM there wouldn't be serious comparisons being made between him and Steyn?

Yes and of course he was conditions dependent. Nobody is denying that.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How? I don't see any reason for that.

Because the opposition will make on average less runs, and the team that makes the most runs will win the match.

You're missing that the difference in WPM between those 2 bowlers is not going to be relevant if they are to be filling the same role, in the same side. One isn't going to take 4 wickets and the other 5 wickets if they are filling the same role. It was almost certainly other factors that led to the difference in WPM throughout their careers

 

[subshakerz]

How? I don't see any reason for that.

There isn't any really. The higher WPM can either be bowling more due to better fitness, or just be like Steyn, slightly more expensive but more penetration.

But at the end of the day, the team is getting more wickets for a smaller cost.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Dude of course Philander having a vast difference in WPM influences folks to see Steyn as better.

It's not. That's just you, you keep projecting your misguided criteria onto the general population

 

[subshakerz]

Because the opposition will make on average less runs, and the team that makes the most runs will win the match.

You are applying LOI thinking to a test setting.

Priority is on wickets even at a few more runs. Getting 20 wickets in a test consistently is not easy.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There isn't any really. The higher WPM can either be bowling more due to better fitness, or just be like Steyn, slightly more expensive but more penetration.

But at the end of the day, the team is getting more wickets for a smaller cost.

But this is unlikely to be the case. It's far more likely for a difference in WPM to be the result of external factors than style of bowling/fitness/more penetration etc

You are applying LOI thinking to a test setting.

Priority is on wickets even at a few more runs. Getting 20 wickets in a test consistently is not easy.

Then talk about strike-rate, not WPM. They are not the same thing

 

[subshakerz]

It's not. That's just you, you keep projecting your misguided criteria onto the general population

Please. One of the reasons Kallis gets rated so high is folks looking at raw numbers. And I'm no Kallis fan.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Please. One of the reasons Kallis gets rated so high is folks looking at raw numbers. And I'm no Kallis fan.

You've lost me with this one, I don't see the relevance

 

[Thala_0710]

Because the opposition will make on average less runs, and the team that makes the most runs will win the match.

They won't. Since the other bowlers are obviously going to be much worse than these 2, so that extra wkt is going to easily cost higher for the guy with the 23 avg.
And here were judging their actual careers as they happened in real life. In the theoretical scenario where they actually play together, their stats are going to look a lot different due to the obviously enhanced support.
And why are you insisting that the wpm difference is due to external circumstances?

 

[subshakerz]

But this is unlikely to be the case. It's far more likely for a difference in WPM to be the result of external factors than style of bowling/fitness/more penetration etc

Then talk about strike-rate, not WPM. They are not the same thing

You have several examples of folks with close averages but notable differences in WPM bowling together. Donald Pollock, Steyn Philander.

SR and WPM are linked but WPM can cover stuff like bowling load, enduring injuries over the course of a career, etc. So WPM translates into real match impact. I consider both.

 

[TheJediBrah]

They won't. Since the other bowlers are obviously going to be much worse than these 2, so that extra wkt is going to easily cost higher for the guy with the 23 avg.
And here were judging their actual careers as they happened in real life. In the theoretical scenario where they actually play together, their stats are going to look a lot different due to the obviously enhanced support.
And why are you insisting that the wpm difference is due to external circumstances?

Because in the majority of cases, it is. It's not because one is inherently more wicket-taking than the other. It's very, very unlikely that 2 bowlers with a near identical average will be that far removed in wicket-taking ability when filling the same role. Even more unlikely that the one averaging less will be less wicket-taking. Your theory doesn't align with reality

 

[subshakerz]

You've lost me with this one, I don't see the relevance

My point is as quick reference folks are looking at these ratios and then filtering. It's not a coincidence that the top ATGs we all select have WPM around 4.

Don't pretend I am the only one.

 

[TheJediBrah]

My point is as quick reference folks are looking at these ratios and then filtering. It's not a coincidence that the top ATGs we all select have WPM around 4.

Don't pretend I am the only one.

Not trying to be a smartass (this time) but I really think maybe it's just you that does this

 

[Thala_0710]

Because in the majority of cases, it is. It's not because one is inherently more wicket-taking than the other. It's very, very unlikely that 2 bowlers with a near identical average will be that far removed in wicket-taking ability when filling the same role. Even more unlikely that the one averaging less will be less wicket-taking. Your theory doesn't align with reality

Firstly I mentioned that in my scenario, both bowled in similar conditions and had similar level of bowling support. What other external circumstances could there be possibly?
And all these caveats against WPM could be applied to avg as well, which is affected by all these circumstances as well.
What is inarguable though is the impact that the higher wpm for great bowlers makes on minimizing the opposition score.

 

[subshakerz]

It's very, very unlikely that 2 bowlers with a near identical average will be that far removed in wicket-taking ability when filling the same role.

Donald Pollock, Steyn Philander. Lindwall Miller. I'm sure there are more.