Best Last Over Bowlers

[FaaipDeOiad]

If he actually did it more often I might be impressed.

Of late, he's been doing it half a dozen times a game or so.

 

[Richard]

You admitted you didn't see the two finals, thus your post means crap all.

I wish you'd watch cricket before making comment. Oh wait you read the scorecard didn't you? That's right.

No, I looked at the fact that bowlers are hardly ever expensive in ODIs if they've bowled accurately.

 

[Richard]

his average would tend to suggest that he bowls well often

Averages can suggest very little for bowlers.

his first chance average would be even more fantastic

Surely even the most avid fans of his wouldn't claim he's a good batsman?

 

[Richard]

He does, you just never watch those games. The normal person would hold back comment when they are unfamiliar about a player's recent form and accomplishments. The normal person that is.

I've still watched just about every delivery of his that's got a wicket to it's name.

 

[Richard]

Of late, he's been doing it half a dozen times a game or so.

Shame he's not got many more wickets than he always has been doing, then.
He's always swung the new-white-ball, and pitched enough full enough to be absolute pearlers - what matters is what he bowls in between (and the fact that he's often so quick that he beats rather than hits the edge).

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Surely even the most avid fans of his wouldn't claim he's a good batsman?

He's not too bad at all. If you saw any of his partnership with Gillespie in the VB series, he's better than he was a few years ago, and he wasn't a bunny then either. He averages 20 or so in tests, which is pretty respectable for a number 9. And I'm not one of his most avid fans by any means, I simply recognise his improvement.

I believe though that he was talking about his bowling first-chance average. Surely if batsmen get an average where they are considered out when they actually were not because you think that they should have been bowlers also get credited for those imaginary wickets?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Shame he's not got many more wickets than he always has been doing, then.

Errm, he already has the best strike rate EVER in ODI cricket after Shane Bond, and is one of only four bowlers in ODI history who averages more than two wickets in standard 10 over spell and has maintained said sub-30 strike rate for three times as long in terms of matches as any of the others. Exactly how many wickets is he supposed to take?

 

[Richard]

He's not too bad at all. If you saw any of his partnership with Gillespie in the VB series, he's better than he was a few years ago, and he wasn't a bunny then either. He averages 20 or so in tests, which is pretty respectable for a number 9. And I'm not one of his most avid fans by any means, I simply recognise his improvement.

I believe though that he was talking about his bowling first-chance average. Surely if batsmen get an average where they are considered out when they actually were not because you think that they should have been bowlers also get credited for those imaginary wickets?

Yes, of course they do - it's called an all-chance average. No such thing as a first-chance average for a bowler.
I don't use it, though - what matters is wickets taken with good deliveries, and you can't use stats where you only count wicket-taking-delivery wickets because then you have to take away all edged runs and add all missed bad deliveries, etc. and no-one could possibly do that.

 

[Richard]

Errm, he already has the best strike rate EVER in ODI cricket after Shane Bond, and is one of only four bowlers in ODI history who averages more than two wickets in standard 10 over spell and has maintained said sub-30 strike rate for three times as long in terms of matches as any of the others. Exactly how many wickets is he supposed to take?

I don't, frankly, give a damn how many wickets he's got against his name - he's got to start bowling more deliveries that deserve to take them instead of getting maybe 1 in 10 wickets with good ones.
It'd be fine if he was bowling accurately in between, because then he'd be putting scoreboard-pressure on the batsmen - but he's not, he's just bowling rubbish and instead of going for runs without wickets, he's getting wickets which seem to compensate for the runs.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't, frankly, give a damn how many wickets he's got against his name

Well, you said he should be taking more wickets. He already takes wickets with more regularity than any other bowler in ODIs ever. Hence I have to wonder how many wickets he can be expected to take.

He's got to start bowling more deliveries that deserve to take them instead of getting maybe 1 in 10 wickets with good ones.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not you think the deliveries are good. How is that even remotely significant? What matters is whether or not they get wickets and whether or not they are scored off. I'm not one to judge players based on their statistical records alone, but honestly how on earth can you possibly think it matters whether or not you think the ball should have got a wicket? It did and that is all that matters. After all, you think the best seamer of the last decade gets his wickets through bad deliveries as well - when exactly do you think McGrath will stop getting lucky and be taken apart like the mediocre bowler he is? If the answer is never as I presume it is, then obviously it doesn't matter in the slightest if he is "lucky" or the Bradman of bowling. The fact is he does better than anyone else.

he's just bowling rubbish and instead of going for runs without wickets, he's getting wickets which seem to compensate for the runs.

They do compensate for the runs, in fact they more than compensate for them. Give me Brett Lee averaging 47 runs off his 10 overs with a strike rate of 28.22 over Gavin Larsen averaging 38 runs with a strike rate of 56.35 any day of the week. Wickets reduce the scoring rate and put pressure on the batsmen, as well as of course creating the potential for bowling the opposition out. Haven't you noticed that the Australia success in ODIs in recent times when the batting has been up and down has relied almost entirely on taking wickets with the ball? In almost all of the games this summer the opposition has been 2 or 3 down within 10 overs and well into the middle order by the 20 over mark, and hence struggle to post big scores. Lee has been a big part of this.

 

[marc71178]

No such thing as a first-chance average for a bowler.

There's no such thing full stop.

 

[Hit4Six]

I don't, frankly, give a damn how many wickets he's got against his name - he's got to start bowling more deliveries that deserve to take them instead of getting maybe 1 in 10 wickets with good ones.
It'd be fine if he was bowling accurately in between, because then he'd be putting scoreboard-pressure on the batsmen - but he's not, he's just bowling rubbish and instead of going for runs without wickets, he's getting wickets which seem to compensate for the runs.

someone gets a wicket its a wicket, u cant discount someones wicket becasue its a bad ball?! thats like saying someone doesnt deserve an A in an exam because the paper's easy

 

[Richard]

There's no such thing full stop.

We've done this before - just because you don't like it, you can't change the fact it exists.

 

[Richard]

someone gets a wicket its a wicket, u cant discount someones wicket becasue its a bad ball?! thats like saying someone doesnt deserve an A in an exam because the paper's easy

But exactly that sort of thing is done - everyone knows which subjects are easy. No-one would ever consider an A in General Studies anything remotely close to an A in Critical Thinking.
And please tell me: what is good bowling about a wicket with a poor delivery?

 

[Richard]

Well, you said he should be taking more wickets. He already takes wickets with more regularity than any other bowler in ODIs ever. Hence I have to wonder how many wickets he can be expected to take.

I was referring to bowling perfectly-pitched outswingers.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not you think the deliveries are good. How is that even remotely significant? What matters is whether or not they get wickets and whether or not they are scored off. I'm not one to judge players based on their statistical records alone, but honestly how on earth can you possibly think it matters whether or not you think the ball should have got a wicket? It did and that is all that matters. After all, you think the best seamer of the last decade gets his wickets through bad deliveries as well - when exactly do you think McGrath will stop getting lucky and be taken apart like the mediocre bowler he is? If the answer is never as I presume it is, then obviously it doesn't matter in the slightest if he is "lucky" or the Bradman of bowling. The fact is he does better than anyone else.

You basically say the exact opposite of me - if someone has good figures, they have to deserve them.

They do compensate for the runs, in fact they more than compensate for them. Give me Brett Lee averaging 47 runs off his 10 overs with a strike rate of 28.22 over Gavin Larsen averaging 38 runs with a strike rate of 56.35 any day of the week. Wickets reduce the scoring rate and put pressure on the batsmen, as well as of course creating the potential for bowling the opposition out. Haven't you noticed that the Australia success in ODIs in recent times when the batting has been up and down has relied almost entirely on taking wickets with the ball? In almost all of the games this summer the opposition has been 2 or 3 down within 10 overs and well into the middle order by the 20 over mark, and hence struggle to post big scores. Lee has been a big part of this.

Exactly - and more often they've been bowled-out.
If McGrath and everyone hadn't been bowling economically at the same time, there'd have been far more problems.
Wickets reduce the totals, but they don't reduce the scoring-rate.

 

[marc71178]

We've done this before - just because you don't like it, you can't change the fact it exists.

Where does it exist then?

You've never shown me any official body who recognise it.

 

[dro87]

I wolud probable chose McGrath and Pollock... And if needed Gough... them three can bowl yorker consistently

 

[Unattainableguy]

Shoaib Akhtar, Brett Lee, Alan Donald ?? Basically, anyone who is quick and can get wickets because you certainly can't stop them from getting 6 runs in an over without bowling them out. And in the 50th over, you are likely to have tail-enders, who are more vulnerable to fast bowlers.-- My philosophy

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I was referring to bowling perfectly-pitched outswingers.

Someone of Lee's pace is more often than not going to lack the accuracy of a McGrath or Pollock. The advantage Lee has is that he has a higher propensity to bowl wicket balls. The issue is not really whether he bowls a perfectly-pitched outswinger 5 or 6 balls an over, but whether or not his perfectly-pitched outswingers, when he does bowl them, get wickets, and of late he has been getting plenty of those.

You basically say the exact opposite of me - if someone has good figures, they have to deserve them.

No, I say that whether or not any individual thinks they deserve them is completely irrelevant. The fact is that they got them. For all the poor deliveries that might get a wicket there's 50 good ones that beat the edge. Part of every sport in the world for every player is luck, and there's also more that goes into every wicket than just the ball that takes it. If Lee bowls 5 beauties in a row that swing away and beat the outside edge and then drifts onto the pads with his 6th and the batsman's eyes light up and he hits it straight down the throat of deep midwicket, there is a lot more to it than just luck, and to dismiss the wicket as undeserved is ridiculous.

Wickets reduce the totals, but they don't reduce the scoring-rate.

And yet just earleir you agreed with my scenario about Lee and McGrath taking early wickets leading to the batsmen being more cautious and hence scoring less in the first 15 overs. So which is it?

 

[dudeurfriend]

Well i would choose Sachin or Jayasuriya