How valuable is that wicket!

[ankitj]

some interesting stat there..

is there anyway you can get a similar stat on Saqalin Mushtaq and shoaib akhtar please.. some people have argued that most of his wickets were tailenders.. so lets see what you can come up with.

Waqar > Wasim

wow.. those inswinging Yorkers to Brian Lara may have helped him a bit i guess

Here are Shoaib and Saqlain, and also Fazal Mahmood (whom I should have included in the original shortlist)

Bowler		Wickets	Bow Ave	Avg value Discount Factor
Fazal Mahmood	139	24.7	30.56	80.83%
Shoaib Akhtar	178	25.69	31.23	82.26%
Saqlain Mushtaq	208	29.83	30.18	98.83%

 

[ankitj]

Hi Ankit,

Could you do the Indian spin quartet as well? I don't know enough about them, but it'd be interesting to see how they stack up statistically.

As I had expected, they cut a very sorry figure

Included the "under-rated" Subhash Gupte too:

[B]Bowler			Wkt	Bow Ave	Avg val	Discount Factor[/B]
Bishen Bedi		266	28.71	28.95	99.18%
BS Chandrashekhar	242	29.74	28.18	105.54%
E Prasanna		189	30.38	27.86	109.04%
Subhash Gupte		149	29.55	26.24	112.61%
S Venkataraghavan	156	36.11	28.02	128.86%

I think their away performances have really hurt them bad on this analysis.

 

[vcs]

As I had expected, they cut a very sorry figure

Included the "under-rated" Subhash Gupte too:

[B]Bowler			Wkt	Bow Ave	Avg val	Discount Factor[/B]
Bishen Bedi		266	28.71	28.95	99.18%
BS Chandrashekhar	242	29.74	28.18	105.54%
E Prasanna		189	30.38	27.86	109.04%
Subhash Gupte		149	29.55	26.24	112.61%
S Venkataraghavan	156	36.11	28.02	128.86%

I think their away performances have really hurt them bad on this analysis.

Right, I have the excuse I needed to put Kumble in my all-time Indian XI.

 

[smash84]

Right, I have the excuse I needed to put Kumble in my all-time Indian XI.

 

[ankitj]

For the interested people, I posted venue wise details of Warne and Murali on the official thread.

 

[AaronK]

Here are Shoaib and Saqlain, and also Fazal Mahmood (whom I should have included in the original shortlist)

Bowler		Wickets	Bow Ave	Avg value Discount Factor
Fazal Mahmood	139	24.7	30.56	80.83%
Shoaib Akhtar	178	25.69	31.23	82.26%
Saqlain Mushtaq	208	29.83	30.18	98.83%

well that took care of the arguments that most of Saqlain's wickets were tailenders.. thanx man..

also shoaib as good as Mcgrath..

 

[ankitj]

well that took care of the arguments that most of Saqlain's wickets were tailenders.. thanx man..

also shoaib as good as Mcgrath..

I am actually not surprised that Saqlain has a better average value of wicket than Wasim/Waqar. What little got captured in my mind about Pakistan's matches during second half of 90's, Saqlain was getting a lot of good batsman out, while 2Ws wreck havoc on the tail.

 

[vcs]

I am actually not surprised that Saqlain has a better average value of wicket than Wasim/Waqar. What little got captured in my mind about Pakistan's matches during second half of 90's, Saqlain was getting a lot of good batsman out, while 2Ws wreck havoc on the tail.

This must have happened a fair amount in the early '90s also, because they are well below a lot of their contemporaries in terms of average value of their wickets. It's hard to explain. Or maybe there were a lot fewer top-order batsmen back then who ended up with high career averages.

 

[Ikki]

Here's how some of the bowlers of that era stack up:

[B]Rank	Bowler		Wickets	Bow Ave	 Avg value Discount Factor[/B]
1	J.J. Ferris	61	12.7	20.34	62.45%
2	Sydney Barnes	189	16.43	25.02	65.67%
3	George Lohman	112	10.75	15.92	67.53%
4	Charlie Turner	101	16.53	23.52	70.28%
5	Charlie Blythe	100	18.63	24.90	74.82%
6	Hugh Trumble	141	21.78	26.16	83.27%
7	Bobby Peel	101	16.98	19.61	86.58%
8	Fred Spofforth	94	18.41	20.01	92.00%
9	Johnny Briggs	118	17.75	17.42	101.89%
10	Wilfred Rhodes	127	26.96	26.21	102.85%
11	Monty Noble	121	25	24.13	103.62%
12	Aubrey Faulkner	82	26.58	23.02	115.49%

I put the number of wickets too because most of them had fairly short careers. Only Ferris could beat Barnes and Lohman there.

Thanks for going through the trouble of getting them.

 

[AaronK]

I am actually not surprised that Saqlain has a better average value of wicket than Wasim/Waqar. What little got captured in my mind about Pakistan's matches during second half of 90's, Saqlain was getting a lot of good batsman out, while 2Ws wreck havoc on the tail.

long time a go i read a thread on anil kumble vs Saqlain in test matches here in this forum...

that is where those arguments came.. i am not implying in anyways that Saqlain was better than Kumble.. i just wanted to see if there were any realities to those claims as I always saw Saqi bothering and creating problems for top order batsmans.


i remember back in 97 in a tour of Aus, Steve Waugh had a hard time facing saqlain in ODIs and got him bowled a couple of times

 

[smash84]

This must have happened a fair amount in the early '90s also, because they are well below a lot of their contemporaries in terms of average value of their wickets. It's hard to explain. Or maybe there were a lot fewer top-order batsmen back then who ended up with high career averages.

some of this might be true because McGrath played most of his cricket in late 1990s and 2000s which has been been a very batsman friendly era......such a pity that ESPN did not find a place for McGrath even in their 2nd XI.......seems to have a better record than Lillee in most places........

 

[GotSpin]

This must have happened a fair amount in the early '90s also, because they are well below a lot of their contemporaries in terms of average value of their wickets. It's hard to explain. Or maybe there were a lot fewer top-order batsmen back then who ended up with high career averages.

Think it's fair to say that batting was more difficult in the 90s than it is now though.

 

[vcs]

some of this might be true because McGrath played most of his cricket in late 1990s and 2000s which has been been a very batsman friendly era......such a pity that ESPN did not find a place for McGrath even in their 2nd XI.......seems to have a better record than Lillee in most places........

Think it's fair to say that batting was more difficult in the 90s than it is now though.

Hard to explain why there's a marked difference between those two and Ambrose/Walsh/Kumble, who played through most of the same era.

 

[NUFAN]

Nice analysis Ankit.

The key thing that I'll take out of this is for cricketers who played almost all of their careers for the same team at the same time, so like McGrath and Warne for instance.

I wouldn't consider this set of stats that important overall though for a few reasons
- Batting averages themselves should be subject to the same scrutiny as the bowlers are in this exercise. For instance a bowler shouldn't be rewarded more for getting out Charlie Davis (54.20) over Gavaskar (51.12)
- Also batsman who played a very minimal number of tests would on many occasions not have a true batting average. So the bowlers who dominated a batsman and made them never be picked again are not getting great value for getting them out.

 

[ankitj]

Nice analysis Ankit.

The key thing that I'll take out of this is for cricketers who played almost all of their careers for the same team at the same time, so like McGrath and Warne for instance.

I wouldn't consider this set of stats that important overall though for a few reasons
- Batting averages themselves should be subject to the same scrutiny as the bowlers are in this exercise. For instance a bowler shouldn't be rewarded more for getting out Charlie Davis (54.20) over Gavaskar (51.12)
- Also batsman who played a very minimal number of tests would on many occasions not have a true batting average. So the bowlers who dominated a batsman and made them never be picked again are not getting great value for getting them out.

Agree. It becomes a little circular. In an era where lot of great fast bowlers assembled (like 80's), they would in general reduce value of wickets for each other. So Gavaskar's wicket has lesser value than Samarweera's. And if one is the only great fast bowler in a given era (say Steyn), he feeds off the inflated value created by his contemporary bowlers.

Nonetheless, the results are comparable within same eras at least. And the methodology is wonderfully elegant in principle and is easily the best number game I ever came across.

 

[ankitj]

Also, one should not read too much into the small differences in the discount factors. In the 300 club, there is one clear cluster comprising Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath. Next cluster between 74%-77% comprising Trueman, Donald, Hadlee, Imran, Lillee and Pollock. Then there's Murali alone around the 80% mark. Between 80%-90% are Walsh, Waqar, Willis, Wasim, Warne (all W's ). Below 90% are those who laboured to get there wickets mostly. That's how I will read it.

 

[NUFAN]

Agree. It becomes a little circular. In an era where lot of great fast bowlers assembled (like 80's), they would in general reduce value of wickets for each other. So Gavaskar's wicket has lesser value than Samarweera's. And if one is the only great fast bowler in a given era (say Steyn), he feeds off the inflated value created by his contemporary bowlers.

Nonetheless, the results are comparable within same eras at least. And the methodology is wonderfully elegant in principle and is easily the best number game I ever came across.

I think that players from the same era would still need to be reviewed a little bit first before coming to a definite conclusion that x was better than y using your method, just due to the factors I mentioned last post.

Honestly though the reason for my comments is more for the people who have said comments jokingly like, "now I can include Kumble in my India all time XI over the quartet from the 60s".

The idea was awesome and I think you should submit it to Cricinfo before they copy your idea in a few weeks time!

 

[ankitj]

I think that players from the same era would still need to be reviewed a little bit first before coming to a definite conclusion that x was better than y using your method, just due to the factors I mentioned last post.

Honestly though the reason for my comments is more for the people who have said
now they can include Kumble in their all time XI over the quartet from the 60s. The idea was awesome and I think you should submit it to Cricinfo before they copy your idea in a few weeks time!

It's not my idea honestly. I have copied it myself from somewhere, as I said before

 

[vcs]

There's a guy in cricinfo "It Figures" blogs section (Anantha Narayanan) who does a lot of analysis of this type. I've read a few of his articles but not any lately.

 

[vcs]

Agree. It becomes a little circular. In an era where lot of great fast bowlers assembled (like 80's), they would in general reduce value of wickets for each other. So Gavaskar's wicket has lesser value than Samarweera's. And if one is the only great fast bowler in a given era (say Steyn), he feeds off the inflated value created by his contemporary bowlers.

Nonetheless, the results are comparable within same eras at least. And the methodology is wonderfully elegant in principle and is easily the best number game I ever came across.

This is a really interesting point that I hadn't thought of. It puts Marshall's greatness into even clearer perspective.