Progression of the 'best fast bowler' title post war

[AndrewB]

Medium pace. I should have put "pace bowler" (i.e. "not a spinner") rather than "fast bowler". (I also included Sobers and Greig who both bowled both pace and spin, and excluded faster spin bowlers like Doug Wright and Derek Underwood).

 

[Red]

"Toshack, who was Australia's second-oldest Test cricketer after Bill Brown, played just 12 Tests for Australia in the space of 2 years immediately after World War II. But in that time he established an enduring reputation as a bowler capable of routing any batting side when the conditions suited him.

A left-armer, Toshack bowled medium-pace cutters or slower orthodox spin with great accuracy, and on a turning pitch no bowler was more dangerous. Against England in 1946-47, he took 6-82 on a rain-affected Gabba pitch and in the following season, also at a rain-affected Gabba, he took 5-2 and 6-29 against India - 11-31 in the match."

https://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/12/1052591739034.html

 

[Starfighter]

Does Marshall's surprising ranking have anything to do with competition for wickets in his own team? I assume wickets per match would be an important factor in these rankings.

Neither of Johnston or Lindwall took a match ten-for yet achieved ratings of 900 and 898 respectively, I think there may be something else going on.

He should have been very glad that he was white.

Murali's being called had everything to do with his dodgy-bye-eye action and nothing to do with his skin. Why bring that into it?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I did too. Must have bowled medium cutter sort of things as best I can gather. Cricinfo lists him as left arm medium.

The prototypical Nathan Bracken

Does Marshall's surprising ranking have anything to do with competition for wickets in his own team? I assume wickets per match would be an important factor in these rankings.

wickets per match is garbage to use as a factor. It's entirely dependant on how many overs a bowler bowls a game, and has nothing to do with bowlers' quality that isn't already taken into account with average & strike rate.
At best you could argue it can show, at times, that a bowler has stamina but that's still very highly dependant on other factors.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Wpm is also dependant on team efforts, the prototypical example is RJ Hadlee, who got to bowl stuff all overs in the second innings as against the first innings due to NZ losing by an innings so often in his career due to weak support bowling and weak batting. I am sure he would have loved to bowl more on 5th day wickets with dubious bounce and got more wickets. But his team denied him the opportunity to do so much.

Whereas, for Malcolm Marshall, while it may be argued that his is lessened due to competition and overs bowled, this meant he bowled more overs fresh, and more overs at new batsmen not set, who are at their most easy and vulnerable to get out.

If you don't see balance between first and second innings bowling efforts, you can tell the guy played for a weaker team. If you see low wpm at a great sr or average but more balance between first and second innings, typically they were in a very good bowling team like Marshall (or presumably Miller).

Second innings averages are normally more bowler friendly due to tired pitches.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I did too. Must have bowled medium cutter sort of things as best I can gather. Cricinfo lists him as left arm medium.

Wpm is also dependant on team efforts, the prototypical example is RJ Hadlee, who got to bowl stuff all overs in the second innings as against the first innings due to NZ losing by an innings so often in his career due to weak support bowling and weak batting. I am sure he would have loved to bowl more on 5th day wickets with dubious bounce and got more wickets. But his team denied him the opportunity to do so much.

Hadlee's probably a bad example, his wpm is higher than contemporaries would be, as by the same token the weaker the team, the less competition for wickets. eg. Murali as well as Hadlee. Anything Hadlee lost in terms of wpm as a result of your reasoning is more than made up for by the lack of competition from his teammates. This is evident by looking at his wpm & average, compared with other similarly rated bowlers.

Hadlee: 5 wpm, avge 22.29 (42 overs per match)
McGrath: 4.5 wpm, avge 21.64 (39.31 overs per match)

McGrath had a lower wpm despite having a slightly better average. This shows that competition for wickets in Australia's team was comfortably more of a hindrance to the "wpm" stat than the other factors you put forward.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Hadlee's probably a bad example, his wpm is higher than contemporaries would be, as by the same token the weaker the team, the less competition for wickets. eg. Murali as well as Hadlee. Anything Hadlee lost in terms of wpm as a result of your reasoning is more than made up for by the lack of competition from his teammates. This is evident by looking at his wpm & average, compared with other similarly rated bowlers.

Hadlee: 5 wpm, avge 22.29 (42 overs per match)
McGrath: 4.5 wpm, avge 21.64 (39.31 overs per match)

McGrath had a lower wpm despite having a slightly better average. This shows that competition for wickets in Australia's team was comfortably more of a hindrance to the "wpm" stat than the other factors you put forward.

Now do what I said, and break it down to first and second innings wickets

I think you're going to be in for a nasty surprise.

 

[TheJediBrah]

With regards to the 1st innings/2nd innings thing if you look at the stats there isn't really much difference at all. McGrath averages basically the same in 1st and 2nd innings and Hadlee averages less than 1 run less in the 2nd innings than the 1st.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

With regards to the 1st innings/2nd innings thing if you look at the stats there isn't really much difference at all. McGrath averages basically the same in 1st and 2nd innings and Hadlee averages less than 1 run less in the 2nd innings than the 1st.

What are the wickets total?

Then read my full post again, not just the bit you quoted.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What are the wickets total?

Then read my full post again, not just the bit you quoted.

I understand what you're trying to say, that someone from a weaker team misses out on bowling as much ie. in the 2nd innings, but I don't think you caught what my point was.

It's not a disadvantage for the player in terms wpm. This is shown quite clearly through the stats. Just using Hadlee as an example his wpm was 5. Which is bout has high as it gets. And this is despite him not having a better average than his contemporaries, so clearly all things considered playing in a weaker team does not seem to be a disadvantage in terms of wpm, for a stronger bowler

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I understand what you're trying to say, that someone from a weaker team misses out on bowling as much ie. in the 2nd innings, but I don't think you caught what my point was.

It's not a disadvantage for the player in terms wpm. This is shown quite clearly through the stats. Just using Hadlee as an example his wpm was 5. Which is bout has high as it gets. And this is despite him not having a better average than his contemporaries, so clearly all things considered playing in a weaker team does not seem to be a disadvantage in terms of wpm, for a stronger bowler

No, it appears to me that you have no idea at all what I am trying to say.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Maybe, I thought you were trying to say that playing in a weaker team would lead to a lower wpm figure.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Maybe, I thought you were trying to say that playing in a weaker team would lead to a lower wpm figure.

It is more complex than that.


Fact 1 - if NZ had better batsmen solely, Hadlee's wpm potential increases by virtue of his bowling increasing in second innings. His second innings average is lower than his first, so this will likely reduce too.

Probable Argument - if NZ had better support bowlers, Hadlee's wpm may stay the same or decrease pending how many there were, as more games go into the second innings, but if it decreases (say 3 great support bowlers) his bowling average would likely reduce as bowling more balls to non set batsmen.

This is all based on known truths, you need runs on the board to make the opposition bat twice, and batsmen are most likely to get out when new.

Now you can take Hadlee's first and second innings split and compare it to McGrath and Lillee who had Punter and Waugh, Hayden, and Chappel and Chappel respectively - and it will reveal itself to you.

Or you can avoid the fact that their first and second innings splits are so vastly different. Over to you.

I wouldn't be surprised if Marshall's Windies and McGrath's Australia averaged 18 to 19 wickets per game and Hadlee's NZ about 12 maybe 13 at best. But to say NZ "lacked competition for wickets" is erroneous, cos there were wickets there to be taken, they just weren't. There was no competition as the wickets were so often not taken at all. That is why SK Warne's argument is fallacious.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It is more complex than that.


Fact 1 - if NZ had better batsmen solely, Hadlee's wpm potential increases by virtue of his bowling increasing in second innings. His second innings average is lower than his first, so this will likely reduce too.

Probable Argument - if NZ had better support bowlers, Hadlee's wpm may stay the same or decrease pending how many there were, as more games go into the second innings, but if it decreases (say 3 great support bowlers) his bowling average would likely reduce as bowling more balls to non set batsmen.

This is all based on known truths, you need runs on the board to make the opposition bat twice, and batsmen are most likely to get out when new.

Now you can take Hadlee's first and second innings split and compare it to McGrath and Lillee who had Punter and Waugh, Hayden, and Chappel and Chappel respectively - and it will reveal itself to you.

Or you can avoid the fact that their first and second innings splits are so vastly different. Over to you.

I wouldn't be surprised if Marshall's Windies and McGrath's Australia averaged 18 to 19 wickets per game and Hadlee's NZ about 11 or 12 at best.

I definitely see your logic and I don't disagree with any of your reasoning, but the conclusion that a bowler's wpm is lower because he played in a weaker team doesn't hold up. (If that's your overall conclusion, it seems to be but just ignore me if it's not.)

Statistics quite clearly show that weaker overall team (especially weaker supporting bowling attack) = higher wpm

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I definitely see your logic and I don't disagree with any of your reasoning, but the conclusion that a bowler's wpm is lower because he played in a weaker team doesn't hold up. (If that's your overall conclusion, it seems to be but just ignore me if it's not.)

Statistics quite clearly show that weaker overall team (especially weaker supporting bowling attack) = higher wpm

If you understand my reasoning, you will see the error of yours.

More balls in the second innings, means more wpm potential. It is that simple.

McGrath's Australia and Marshall's West Indies were operating at close to max potential by virtue of them winning so often, a weak team never is.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

For Dale Steyn to be undisputed number one for so long is a remarkable achievement. One could argue it wasn't the greatest era for pace bowling outside of him (arguably the best fast bowler Australia had at that point never played international cricket), but that should not devalue Steyn's brilliance, was consistently world class for a long time.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you understand my reasoning, you will see the error of yours.

More balls in the second innings, means more wpm potential. It is that simple.

What error in my reasoning? I'm looking directly at the stats which paint quite a clear picture.

While there is no "error" in your reasoning, the conclusion you've come to is patently false. Just because something looks like it should work, doesn't mean it does. If it did then we wouldn't need clinical trials to test new medication, we would just know that they work. All the reasoning in the world can show that a new treatment should physiologically and pharmacologically serve a purpose, but do you know how often it actually does clinically? Rarely.

The only data that can actually show whether a hypothesis is correct or not is the end result. The reasoning behind it is irrelevant. This is the basis of all science and reason.

In this case the hypothesis of "weaker team, higher wpm" is clearly shown to be false.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

What error in my reasoning? I'm looking directly at the stats which paint quite a clear picture.

While there is no "error" in your reasoning, the conclusion you've come to is patently false. Just because something looks like it should work, doesn't mean it does. If it did then we wouldn't need clinical trials to test new medication, we would just know that they work. All the reasoning in the world can show that a new treatment should physiologically and pharmacologically serve a purpose, but do you know how often it actually does clinically? Rarely.

The only data that can actually show whether a hypothesis is correct or not is the end result. The reasoning behind it is irrelevant. This is the basis of all science and reason.

In this case the hypothesis of "weaker team, higher wpm" is clearly shown to be false.

The first error of your reasoning is you totally took Hadlee's teammate's batsmen out of the equation to allow bowlers like himself a genuine second crack at the opposition.

The second error is that you assumed that NZ was operating at potential for competition of wickets to even matter, when NZ was so far from averaging 20 wickets a game, it just isn't significant.

The third error is that you overlook if more bowlers are taking wickets, then the opposition score less, then the game is more likely to give the bowlers a second crack at the opposition.

NZ were not operating at near potential, they just didn't win often enough.

Shall I go on? Or can you fit the rest of the puzzle together yourself?

And if you cannot find the error with my reasoning nor my facts, there is absolutely no point trying to suggest my logical conclusion is false. You just make yourself look illogical and waste my time.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The first error of your reasoning is you totally took Hadlee's teammate's batsmen out of the equation to allow bowlers like himself a genuine second crack at the opposition.

The second error is that you assumed that NZ was operating at potential for competition of wickets to even matter, when NZ was so far from averaging 20 wickets a game, it just isn't significant.

The third error is that you overlook if more bowlers are taking wickets, then the opposition score less, then the game is more likely to give the bowlers a second crack at the opposition.

Shall I go on? Or can you fit the rest of the puzzle together yourself?

I'm not arguing with any of your reasoning. You stated a hypothesis and you had solid reasoning for supporting your hypothesis.

But your hypothesis is already proven wrong. Statistics show it very clearly. It's that simple.

You can go and create your own specific scenarios about Hadlee, ie "If he had much better batsmen on his team, but the bowlers weren't any better, he'd have higher wpm" etc. and that's fine.

But the original hypothesis, that in general playing in a weaker team leads to a lower wpm, is already proven false. Clearly.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I'm not arguing with any of your reasoning. You stated a hypothesis and you had solid reasoning for supporting your hypothesis.

But your hypothesis is already proven wrong. Statistics show it very clearly. It's that simple.

You can go and create your own specific scenarios about Hadlee, ie "If he had much better batsmen on his team, but the bowlers weren't any better, he'd have higher wpm" etc. and that's fine.

But the original hypothesis, that in general playing in a weaker team leads to a lower wpm, is already proven false. Clearly.

You don't get it and you're now wasting my time.

You wish to deny the fact that is blatantly obvious that Hadlee bowled stuff all in the second innings as against the first.

Why you want to do this I do not know. And I do not care. But it is a fact. And you are trying so desperately to avoid it.

You may as well deny the Holocaust.