Graphs of Wickets by Batting Order for Good Bowlers

[watson]

I appreciate the effort by harsh.

I wouldn't be getting my little fella rising so much at the sight of all that blue without thinking about the opposition lineups, bowlers role in team and teammates.

Off you go then NUFAN. After you.

 

[harsh.ag]

I appreciate the effort by harsh.

I wouldn't be getting my little fella rising so much at the sight of all that blue without thinking about the opposition lineups, bowlers role in team and teammates.

Thanks Nuf (Deliberately ignoring the next line )

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I sometimes think that Clive Lloyd had some sort of non-cricketing grudge against Sylvester Clarke and even more so Wayne Daniel who was as good a bowler as any. His ludicrous preference for Colin Croft who was an inferior bowler and also assaulted umpires (not saying the idiot Goddall didn't deserve it, but that's not the point) can only have been personal.

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah it's a good effort. What do you think the graph teaches us?

I think getting out the middle order is pretty much as useful as getting out the top order and there are situations where the lower order stats could be misleading. England for instance play a night watchman quite regularly which makes Prior as valuable a wicket as Chris Martin and then James Anderson or Steve Finn as important as Don Bradman to exaggerate my point.

There are also situations where teams declare/reach victory targets not many down which boosts the top order stats.

Like most comparisons the best ones are of the players who played most regularly together so Warne&McGrath, Donald&Pollock, The Windies quicks from the 80s were the graphs I liked the most.

 

[benchmark00]

I appreciate the effort by harsh.

I wouldn't be getting my little fella rising so much at the sight of all that blue without thinking about the opposition lineups, bowlers role in team and teammates.

.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah it's a good effort. What do you think the graph teaches us?

I think getting out the middle order is pretty much as useful as getting out the top order and there are situations where the lower order stats could be misleading. England for instance play a night watchman quite regularly which makes Prior as valuable a wicket as Chris Martin and then James Anderson or Steve Finn as important as Don Bradman to exaggerate my point.

There are also situations where teams declare/reach victory targets not many down which boosts the top order stats.

Like most comparisons the best ones are of the players who played most regularly together so Warne&McGrath, Donald&Pollock, The Windies quicks from the 80s were the graphs I liked the most.

Yup, agree about the middle order being as important as top order part. Everything else evens out I guess. Maybe the lower middle order is better in the modern game as compared to earlier, with keeper-batsmen and all.

I thought about making comparisons across eras, but then thought country-wise would be more useful in the long run. Plus, there would be a pile in the 70s-80s post, but too few in the othere

 

[kyear2]

Great job Harsh.

Top and middle just important, don't want to high a percentage of the lower order though.

 

[harsh.ag]

Great job Harsh.

Top and middle just important, don't want to high a percentage of the lower order though.

Thanks

Waqar's record seems superior to Wasim, what do you think?

 

[uvelocity]

nice work.

reckon it would be interesting (and i guess impossible) to show the strike rate for bowlers against the three categories

 

[Coronis]

Damn, thats excellent for Bond.

 

[kingkallis]

Kapil Dev, such a gun!

 

[doesitmatter]

I second that... Kapil Dev Nikhanj what a superstar..

 

[harsh.ag]

nice work.

reckon it would be interesting (and i guess impossible) to show the strike rate for bowlers against the three categories

Thanks

Nah, I don't think that's possible.

I was thinking of putting in some comparisons with respect to bowlers who we usually compare. So, first the 90s generation of pacers - Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, Donald ( I am excluding McGrath because his figures transcend those of the others since he played well into a different era of flat pitches)

 

[fredfertang]

Yes thanks harsh, top job

Was mildly surprised at the figures for Botham as he always seemed so good at coming back and knocking over the tail.

The other thing Botham was absolutely brilliant at, and this isn't intended as a criticism of him in any way, was taking wickets with ****e deliveries - shame that is so subjective, else I'd invite you to a graph for that too

 

[Satyanash89]

I don't really consider the percentage of top-order wickets as a good indicator of how good a bowler is, because for example:

Suppose Bowler A takes 3/50 with the wickets being the top 3, and Bowler B takes 7/50, including the top 3, but also takes out four other batsmen, his percentage of top-order wickets actually goes down... he gets punished for being better

In isolation it's a stat which doesn't really tell us much in my opinion, but the effort put into the graphs is much appreciated, top effort. But it does indicate how deadly bowlers like McGrath were with the new ball (large chunk of his new ball victims being Atherton).

The other thing Botham was absolutely brilliant at, and this isn't intended as a criticism of him in any way, was taking wickets with ****e deliveries - shame that is so subjective, else I'd invite you to a graph for that too

Ha, yeah... my dad would never shut up about how Botham would take bagfuls of wickets by just bowling pies outside off which would somehow end up in the hands of a fielder.

 

[smash84]

I was looking forward to Srinath's wickets....you didn't post them harsh

 

[Satyanash89]

The breakup for Steyn could be quite interesting... he's great with the new ball, obviously, but plenty of times, he's come back and cleaned up the tail pretty quickly. I reckon he'll have a comparatively higher number of lower order wickets

 

[harsh.ag]

Yes thanks harsh, top job

Was mildly surprised at the figures for Botham as he always seemed so good at coming back and knocking over the tail.

The other thing Botham was absolutely brilliant at, and this isn't intended as a criticism of him in any way, was taking wickets with ****e deliveries - shame that is so subjective, else I'd invite you to a graph for that too

Thanks, Fred Nice to get appreciation from you.

Useful figures overall, aren't they? Yeah, Botham's were the pretty mild compared to others.

Here are Willis' numbers (much better than Botham)

 

[harsh.ag]

The breakup for Steyn could be quite interesting... he's great with the new ball, obviously, but plenty of times, he's come back and cleaned up the tail pretty quickly. I reckon he'll have a comparatively higher number of lower order wickets

I already put Steyn's graph up. The numbers are in there.

I was looking forward to Srinath's wickets....you didn't post them harsh

Here you go, smali. Yeah, I didn't think of him to be honest (Fat lot of an Indian fan I am )

Great stats for him. Must say.

 

[smash84]

thanks for this harsh......yep, more than 3 quarters of Srinath's wickets were in the top order. I remember Srinath bowling 92-93 mph in the 99 WC. I thought he was pretty quick for an Indian fast bowler up till that point