• 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.

Jimmy Anderson

ankitj

ankitj

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Teja. said:
Two caveats to that hypothetical:

i) Realistically, bowling pinpoint yorkers and bouncers and being an accurate back fo a length bowler is a more reliable tactic to be excellent across all surfaces than most tactics which rely heavily on the new ball.

ii) average value per wicket can be a deceptive stat if Bowler B is taking more wickets per match than Bowler A. If Bowler B is taking 4.3 wickets per match and Bowler A is taking 3.8 wickets per match, there can be situations where Bowler B is taking as many top order wickets per match as Bowler A but Bowler B still has a worse average value per wicket because on top of that, he's also taking more tail end wickets which is an absurd result. This is why a blanket average value per wicket stat like 40% or 60% is useless without corresponding wpm stats.
Click to expand...
That's why you normalise average value of wickets with bowling average. So you get a ratio of number of runs you give away for average value of wicket. It's better to give away 30 runs for getting average wicket value of 40 than to give away 25 runs for average wicket value of 20.
 
Teja.

Teja.

Global Moderator
ankitj said:
That's why you normalise average value of wickets with bowling average. So you get a ratio of number of runs you give away for average value of wicket. It's better to give away 30 runs for getting average wicket value of 40 than to give away 25 runs for average wicket value of 20.
Click to expand...
Yeah, agreed, was more commenting on the hypothetical posted by vcs tbh.
 
Magrat Garlick

Magrat Garlick

Rather Mad Witch
There was once a rule about English posts only (i.e. posts written in the English language). It's been relaxed a bit but beware of annoying other posters with it.

The discussion of erythropoietin is probably best left to people with faulty hearts and their doctors.
 
S

SteveNZ

International Coach
Starfighter said:
Utter bollocks, a bowler's average is not dependent on their bowling style. You might expect a difference in strike rates (though I doubt this would be significant compared to other factors). If Anderson has to concede more runs to take the same number of wickets that makes him worse bowler. Nothing to do with having to bowl fuller. Steyn bowled plenty full and never seen someone suggest he would average better if he pulled the length back a bit.

Yes, which is a point against your argument, not for it.
You can make anyone look better by excluding their bad performances.
Click to expand...
You're either not getting what I'm saying or you're hard headed and not interested in trying. Yes, a bowler's average is absolutely somewhat dependent on their bowling style and their role in a side. Anderson's job throughout his career was to bowl full of a length and swing it. Walsh's was not. Even in non-ideal conditions, Walsh was hard to score off. Anderson, when it is not swinging, is easier to score from. He doesn't extract the same bounce nor bowl a natural length that hits the splice. And cricinfo bears out what I'm saying. Their strike rates are almost identical, but Walsh's average is lower because he went for less runs an over. Which is to the word what I'm saying.

You've completely missed the point in regards to the Steyn part too. I said Walsh bowled back of a length because he was 6 foot 5 and able to get guys out bowling that way. Anderson is not. And Steyn is a better bowler because he's Anderson's skill with 10km/ph extra who can scare pure **** out of people. No one, including me, said anything about Steyn pulling his length back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top