ODI Bowlers - E/R V Wickets

[Uppercut]

A good first-innings score and a good second-innings score are essentially the same thing. It's just that obviously in the second you're chasing something someone's already made, so if that's above-par you'll probably be knocked-over for less than par, and if it's below-par you can obviously only exceed it by a run or two.

The point is, England knew that against India, with the state of the pitch, the quality of their batting lineup and the quality of the England attack (which is a lot better than their performances this series would suggest), 270 was definitely not enough. Yet still they settled for it.

 

[Richard]

The difference would be that you are likely to bowl a better spell of conceding less runs - not "excellent, bowling a good spell". Whilst someone with a superior strike rate will also be more likely to have a better spell at taking wickets.

There is a trade-off somewhere and the best way to gauge that is to take their overall career figures. Because if you are going to argue one is more likely to concede more runs then conversely one is more likely to take wickets.

The difference being 4 runs per match or being closer to taking a wicket. Small, insignificant difference.

Why you're even mentioning wickets is beyond me, they're irrelevant to how good an economy-rate is. There is no reason to suspect less runs is likely to = less wickets. In fact, the opposite is true.

See, you just proved you're not listening and are digressing into your own non-sense again.

No, I'm just not listening to your nonsense. Big difference.

The difference between the 2 you mentioned is not only of AVERAGE but of ECONOMY RATE as well - irrelevant comparison.

The relevant example/comparison is between two bowlers of SIMILAR AVERAGE whilst one has a BETTER ECONOMY RATE and one that has a SUPERIOR STRIKE RATE.

So something like: 10-38-1.25 and 10-45-1.5.

None of this makes the remotest sense.

They may say a stupid or biased thing or make a stupid or biased decision...but they are FAR superior to you in cricketing knowledge - especially that with reference to actually playing the game. There are many more people on this board alone more intelligent than you with regards to cricket.

There are a few yeah - and these people are also superior to a lot of selectors and commentators. Your ability to overestimate someone's analytical skills based on their playing skill is laughable.

 

[Richard]

The point is, England knew that against India, with the state of the pitch, the quality of their batting lineup and the quality of the England attack (which is a lot better than their performances this series would suggest), 270 was definitely not enough. Yet still they settled for it.

I see. Well, I still reckon that had they aimed higher, they'd have got lower.

In any case, it's a dangerous game to think "we've got a rubbish attack so what's par against their attack needs to be exceeded". IMO, you have to play the attack in front of you and back your own bowlers, however much you may know they've performed poorly in the past.

 

[Ikki]

Why you're even mentioning wickets is beyond me, they're irrelevant to how good an economy-rate is. There is no reason to suspect less runs is likely to = less wickets. In fact, the opposite is true.

Are you feeling okay? We're comparing bowlers, where in one case one is more economical but is less likely to take wickets against another bowler who is less economical but who is more likely to take wickets.

None of this makes the remotest sense.

Then it seems you just don't know how to read.

There are a few yeah - and these people are also superior to a lot of selectors and commentators. Your ability to overestimate someone's analytical skills based on their playing skill is laughable.

LMAO, the denial of your own limits is laughable. You are a running joke on this site, and still have the gall to come here and say you know more about cricket than those that play it and say that by watching it alone you can garner such a position.

This to-and-fro has run it's course. Per usual, we've hit the "Richard Wall".

 

[zaremba]

I won't ever want to take one bowler out of Ealham and Waqar the every time, it depends on who the rest of the attack is. If I already have, for example, Geoff Allott, Brett Lee, Makhaya Ntini and Saqlain Mushtaq, I'll have Ealham every time. If I already have Alan Mullally, Gavin Larsen, Stephen Elworthy and Harbhajan Singh, I'll obviously have Waqar.

I'd pick Waqar first and build the attack around him.

Comparing him with Ealham is like comparing Mozart with Phil Collins

 

[GIMH]

Can we just clarify which musician you are comparing Waqar to?

 

[zaremba]

Can we just clarify which musician you are comparing Waqar to?

Mozart!

 

[zaremba]

Collins and Ealham both thrive on dodgy tracks

 

[GIMH]

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Collins and Ealham both thrive on dodgy tracks

Pun and a half

 

[Burgey]

Dunno about that. I like the contrast. I like the fact that different virtues are rewarded.

Mark Ealham is a far better bowler than many people give him credit for. Yes, he's diminutive, has never been slimline and doesn't bowl at 90mph. However, he has some of the best control of line and length we've had in the game in this country for the last couple of decades and he can move the ball both ways.

Some people seem to have the idea he's some sort of Anwar Hossain Monir esque pie-chucker. He isn't. Ealham is a good bowler. Not Test-standard, obviously. But a pretty damn good bowler by any standards other than Test.

I don't doubt that Rich. My comment was more directed at the format than the player.

 

[Migara]

Today's game IMO, ER is more important. Because it is the one that is increasing from 4.2 odd to 4.7 odd in last 30 years. Neither SR nor Bowling average has been changing that dramatically. And if statsguru is used, it will show that batting of 8-11 have infact improved greatly, while overall SR has not chaged much of the bowlers. Accoring to the current trend ER is geeting more importance than SR.

 

[Uppercut]

Today's game IMO, ER is more important. Because it is the one that is increasing from 4.2 odd to 4.7 odd in last 30 years. Neither SR nor Bowling average has been changing that dramatically. And if statsguru is used, it will show that batting of 8-11 have infact improved greatly, while overall SR has not chaged much of the bowlers. Accoring to the current trend ER is geeting more importance than SR.

Batsmen 8-11 average 14.06 in ODIs since 2000.
In the 90s they averaged 12.42.
In the 80s, 12.56.
In the 70s, 13.12.

Overall, batsmen since 2000 have averaged 27.73.
In the 90s, 27.08.
In the 80s, 26.43.
In the 70s, 24.52.

Don't think tail-end batting has improved as much as it's seemed to. Certainly not enough to change the game as dramatically as you seem to think.

 

[satheeshv37]

E/R V Wickets

It's the bowler who took wickets will be useful for the team..

 

[Precambrian]

Batsmen 8-11 average 14.06 in ODIs since 2000.
In the 90s they averaged 12.42.
In the 80s, 12.56.
In the 70s, 13.12.

Overall, batsmen since 2000 have averaged 27.73.
In the 90s, 27.08.
In the 80s, 26.43.
In the 70s, 24.52.

Don't think tail-end batting has improved as much as it's seemed to. Certainly not enough to change the game as dramatically as you seem to think.

Do you have the SRs as well? Also don't forget the stats include those of minnows.

 

[Uppercut]

Do you have the SRs as well? Also don't forget the stats include those of minnows.

Yeah you could define those boundaries on statsguru if you want a more accurate picture. I seem to remember someone doing some similar research on test batting and coming to the conclusion that it really isn't that much better though. But i might be mistaken so have a look.

 

[Ikki]

I'm not sure about ODIs, but I did this analysis with Tests and as ERs rose, SR's dropped and Avg. went up a bit.

 

[Arjun]

Wickets only. The best way to keep an economy rate down is by taking wickets. Only economy rates below three really make sense, as they can change a match, and they're always accompanied by a lot of wickets.

 

[tooextracool]

Clearly you require a combination. 4 ealhams are hardly going to win you a match just like 4 Brett Lees are not going to. Honestly, anyone if anyone thinks that any team can be restricted to 180-2, asssuming of course that Ramiz Raja isnt playing for them, off 50 overs is seriously deluding himself.

 

[Migara]

I'm not sure about ODIs, but I did this analysis with Tests and as ERs rose, SR's dropped and Avg. went up a bit.

It's very well seen in ODIs