Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, in all seriousness mate, be kind to yourself, eh.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Who's Done the Most Damage?
- Thread starter Thala_0710
- Start date
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The reason is self-evident if you listen to Kimber for more than about 15 minutes tbf
Last edited:
I have not come across any fan who could confuse Steyn and Vern class due due to looking at their career avg. No one puts Jadeja with Warne looking at their career average. It's does not take more than 2 minutes to see break up of any player stats, see it raw break up in different conditions and also compare them with their peers.
ashley bach
International Coach
Try History for sleep(Drowsy historian)
There's basically hundreds of subjects available and it seriously works wonders.
Swamp Witch Hattie
U19 12th Man
Swamp Witch Hattie
U19 12th Man
I'd like to apologise for the above post (which I can no longer delete). Earlier today, I did a Search on Johan's Member name, and his name did not appear:
so I concluded that he may have been banned. I then went to his Members page and it sounds like Johan is in a bad way. I certainly hope things improve for him.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I only do that to the extent of checking to see if they were actually a regular frontline bowler.
Swamp Witch Hattie
U19 12th Man
There were posts about Ambrose's WPM about 11 pages back so I thought I would look into that in more detail.
Ambrose before shoulder injury (his shoulder might have been troubling him even during this time, I don't know):
Ambrose after shoulder injury:
1 = before shoulder injury
2 = after shoulder injury
WPM1 = 4.56
WPM2 = 3.72
WPM2/WPM1 = 0.816 so his WPM was 18.4% worse after his shoulder injury.
Reasons for the decline in his WPM:
WPM = wickets/matches
= (wickets/balls) x (balls/innings) x (innings/matches)
= BPI x (I/M)/SR
WPM2/WPM1 = (BPI2/BPI1) x ((I/M)2/(I/M)1) x (SR1/SR2)
= (117.0/129.8) x (1.76(0)/1.896) x (53.9/55.3)
= 0.901 x 0.928 x 0.975
= 0.815 (same as before, within rounding errors)
BPI = balls/innings = workload per innings
I/M = number of bowling innings bowler is getting per match
SR = strike rate in balls/wicket
You can see that the main contributor to Ambrose's WPM decline was his reduced workload per innings (maybe because his shoulder just couldn't take too much work anymore or they didn't want to risk his breaking down again).
The next major contributor was the drop-off in his number of bowling innings per match. Maybe when Ambrose returned after the shoulder injury, the WI attack (including Ambrose) wasn't as penetrative as before and they found it harder to bowl sides out or maybe the opposition batting improved or maybe the pitches became more placid. Or maybe Ambrose just wasn't bowled and like Garner, was picked for his batting!
The least important factor was Ambrose's SR getting worse. Maybe his SR got only a bit worse despite his pace being down because his accuracy might have improved slightly (as suggested by his smaller Econ) which helped to compensate somewhat (e.g. being able to put the ball in the right place better when the wicket was doing a bit).
I should point out that these factors are not independent, e.g. if Ambrose had bowled a lot more after his shoulder injury and not broken down then his BPI would have gone up but I would anticipate that his SR would have got worse, i.e. also increased.
The specific context I have given above can be expanded upon or corrected by others more knowledgeable about Ambrose or WI cricket.
Individual impacts of the three factors:
1 - 0.901 = 0.099
1 - 0.928 = 0.072
1 - 0.975 = 0.025
Note: 9.9% + 7.2% + 2.5% = 19.6% > earlier 18.4% because of higher-order terms due to the three factors operating simultaneously.
0.099 : 0.072 : 0.025 gives:
Workload per innings: 50.51% --> 51%
Number of bowling innings per match: 36.7% --> 37%
SR: 12.8% --> 13%
(some rounding errors going on here with the final percentages as their sum exceeds 100%)
If this analysis is regarded as being useful for identifying factors involved in why WPM changes (and their relative importance) then, of course, it can be applied to other bowlers as well. I'm tempted to apply it to my favourite, Hadlee, but I would divide his career up into three parts: 1973-77 (inconsistent), 1978-82 (great but (nearly always) off the long run) and 1983-1990 (greater and off the short run).
Ambrose before shoulder injury (his shoulder might have been troubling him even during this time, I don't know):
Ambrose after shoulder injury:
1 = before shoulder injury
2 = after shoulder injury
WPM1 = 4.56
WPM2 = 3.72
WPM2/WPM1 = 0.816 so his WPM was 18.4% worse after his shoulder injury.
Reasons for the decline in his WPM:
WPM = wickets/matches
= (wickets/balls) x (balls/innings) x (innings/matches)
= BPI x (I/M)/SR
WPM2/WPM1 = (BPI2/BPI1) x ((I/M)2/(I/M)1) x (SR1/SR2)
= (117.0/129.8) x (1.76(0)/1.896) x (53.9/55.3)
= 0.901 x 0.928 x 0.975
= 0.815 (same as before, within rounding errors)
BPI = balls/innings = workload per innings
I/M = number of bowling innings bowler is getting per match
SR = strike rate in balls/wicket
You can see that the main contributor to Ambrose's WPM decline was his reduced workload per innings (maybe because his shoulder just couldn't take too much work anymore or they didn't want to risk his breaking down again).
The next major contributor was the drop-off in his number of bowling innings per match. Maybe when Ambrose returned after the shoulder injury, the WI attack (including Ambrose) wasn't as penetrative as before and they found it harder to bowl sides out or maybe the opposition batting improved or maybe the pitches became more placid. Or maybe Ambrose just wasn't bowled and like Garner, was picked for his batting!
The least important factor was Ambrose's SR getting worse. Maybe his SR got only a bit worse despite his pace being down because his accuracy might have improved slightly (as suggested by his smaller Econ) which helped to compensate somewhat (e.g. being able to put the ball in the right place better when the wicket was doing a bit).
I should point out that these factors are not independent, e.g. if Ambrose had bowled a lot more after his shoulder injury and not broken down then his BPI would have gone up but I would anticipate that his SR would have got worse, i.e. also increased.
The specific context I have given above can be expanded upon or corrected by others more knowledgeable about Ambrose or WI cricket.
Individual impacts of the three factors:
1 - 0.901 = 0.099
1 - 0.928 = 0.072
1 - 0.975 = 0.025
Note: 9.9% + 7.2% + 2.5% = 19.6% > earlier 18.4% because of higher-order terms due to the three factors operating simultaneously.
0.099 : 0.072 : 0.025 gives:
Workload per innings: 50.51% --> 51%
Number of bowling innings per match: 36.7% --> 37%
SR: 12.8% --> 13%
(some rounding errors going on here with the final percentages as their sum exceeds 100%)
If this analysis is regarded as being useful for identifying factors involved in why WPM changes (and their relative importance) then, of course, it can be applied to other bowlers as well. I'm tempted to apply it to my favourite, Hadlee, but I would divide his career up into three parts: 1973-77 (inconsistent), 1978-82 (great but (nearly always) off the long run) and 1983-1990 (greater and off the short run).
subshakerz
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Great post.
Yes it's true, Ambrose for half his career after his shoulder injury essentially bowls below par as far as a workload is concerned.
Compare that to Lillee who was bowling way more as his career proceeded, after injury and after WSC towards the end. Almost ten overs more per match on average.
Swamp Witch Hattie
U19 12th Man
Lillee before WSC:
Lillee after WSC:
WPM1 = 5.34
WPM2 = 4.84
WPM2/WPM1 = 0.906 so his WPM was 9.4% worse after WSC.
WPM2/WPM1 = (BPI2/BPI1) x ((I/M)2/(I/M)1) x (SR1/SR2)
= (138.3/141.7) x (1.842/1.938) x (51.3/52.6)
= 0.976 x 0.950 x 0.975
= 0.904 (same as before, within rounding errors)
Individual impacts of the three factors:
0.024 : 0.050 : 0.025 gives:
Workload per innings: 24%
Number of bowling innings per match: 51%
SR: 25%
The last two years two months of Lillee's Test career:
BPI before WSC: 141.7
BPI after WSC: 138.3
BPI last two years two months: 136.4
BPM before WSC: 274.5
BPM after WSC: 254.8
BPM last two years two months: 238.7
Lillee's workload went down but not as much as Ambrose's.
Swamp Witch Hattie
U19 12th Man
Ambrose's workload picked up towards the end:
His last two years seven months:
BPI before shoulder injury: 129.8
BPI after shoulder injury: 117.0
BPI last two years seven months: 121.6
BPM before shoulder injury: 246(.0)
BPM after shoulder injury: 205.9
BPM last two years seven months: 222.9
His last two years seven months:
BPI before shoulder injury: 129.8
BPI after shoulder injury: 117.0
BPI last two years seven months: 121.6
BPM before shoulder injury: 246(.0)
BPM after shoulder injury: 205.9
BPM last two years seven months: 222.9
Last edited:
subshakerz
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Still a fair distance from what Lillee was regularly bowling.
Last edited:
subshakerz
Request Your Custom Title Now!
What's your top ten pace bowling list?
Swamp Witch Hattie
U19 12th Man
Subsz, I see posters like Luffy with (semi-)ordered lists of 100 or even 200 cricketers and others like kyear2 with his multiple tiers and ordering within these tiers and I have no idea how they do that. Even if I had the knowledge, I would struggle with the ordering. With pace bowling, there are many variables to consider: quality, longevity, performance across conditions, different eras, lone wolf versus pack leader, diciness (patriotic umpires and/or overly dedicated ball management), etc. What weightings do we assign to those things? How do we put it all together? I have no clue. Anyway, giving it a go:
1-3: Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee
I think any ordering is acceptable. Marshall was the most proven across all conditions. McGrath had his longevity and performance during the flat pitch era. Hadlee had his longevity, quality and carrying his team.
4: Steyn
He seems a little inconsistent but was absolutely deadly as an out-and-out strike bowler. A case could be made for his joining the above three.
5: Ambrose
Hurt a bit by his reduced output over the second half of his career due to the shoulder injury. If it hadn't been for that, could have joined the others above. Not his fault, he made the best of a difficult situation.
6-9: Lillee, Imran, Holding, Donald
You can shuffle them in any order you please.
10: Trueman or Wasim or Garner or Waqar
I have not considered bowlers who are still playing like Bumrah, Cummins or Rabada, or old-timers like Barnes who by all accounts was a genius.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if I have missed somebody!
Swamp Witch Hattie
U19 12th Man
In my previous posts above, I've been using BPI as a measure of workload per innings but the average speed of the deliveries of the bowler also needs to be taken into account for actual physical workload. Now, as a pacer ages, their average bowling speed tends to decrease so if their BPI also decreases then not only does their workload in terms of balls bowled decrease but their actual physical workload probably does too. However, if a pacer's BPI goes up as they age (like Hadlee's did when he transitioned from the long run to the short run) then while their workload in terms of balls bowled increases, their actual physical workload might more or less stay the same or even decrease since they are probably bowling with a lower average speed. In the case of Hadlee, his short run being short (off 15 paces) compared to his long run (off 23 paces) would have also helped to reduce his actual physical workload.
shortpitched713
Cricketer Of The Year
I like the list, seems very much in line with CW consensus. I woul personally have Steyn and Garner higher, and Holding lower, but regardless is a good list.
