Progression of the 'best fast bowler' title post war

[TheJediBrah]

details please

You know you're not fooling anyone? You lose a lot more respect doing what you're doing now then just coming out and admitting your premise turned out to be wrong. It really wouldn't have been a big deal.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

TJB - seeing you think it is not explained:

The question is not why are great bowlers in great teams more limited in wpm per match than in weaker teams, I think we can see from Marshall at 4.6 if there is sufficient batting (and with Greendige, Hayne, Richards and Richardson there more often was than not and they won) it is the competition for wickets limit hits them at the 20 wicket point far more readily [Holding, Garner, Roberts, Ambrose, Walsh] than it does for a great bowler in a weaker team but with good batting like Murali, who ends up with 6 wpm or an even weaker without good batting team like Hadlee at 5 wpm who is being limited not by the 20 wickets taken, but by the team running out runs.

What factor [actually] limiting wpm potential effecting Warne and Marshall TJB - Put McGrath in here , do not effect Murali and Hadlee [the same]. And Murali had more runs to play in the second innings and bowl more hence has a higher wpm than Hadlee.

But I also accept that competition for wickets in reducing wpm also typically reduces bowling averages of the bowlers involved, as there are more chances at bowling to new non set batsmen. So all these dynamics are interrelated.

So even though NZ's Hadlee was a weaker team than the great WI or Aus, he still could have taken more wickets per game if the batting was better. Same for Imran whose 4.6 wpm per match, is not at all like Marshall's! But still better than split than Hadlee's.

Its not just the bowling that matters, its the runs the bowlers have to play with. It is that simple.

Heck I can even rewrite it with Waugh, Hayden, Gilly and Punter - oh wait - I had that in an earlier post :P

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You know you're not fooling anyone? You lose a lot more respect doing what you're doing now then just coming out and admitting your premise turned out to be wrong. It really wouldn't have been a big deal.

Again, no details.

 

[Starfighter]

You may think you have pointed out flaws, but if you cannot point to a flaw in the detail, beyond "physical limit" which is largely disproven anyway in that Hadlee bowled more in draws actually and prorata than he did in losses (and this includes NZ batting twice and opposition once and vice versa), it just doesn't go anywhere without further details.

Detail does not matter if the underlying assumptions are wrong. Have you heard of the 'reproducibility crisis' in science? Surficial statistical soundness does not mean much if wrong assumptions are made or other factors ignored.

 

[TheJediBrah]

TJB - seeing you think it is not explained:



Heck I can even rewrite it with Waugh, Hayden, Gilly and Punter - oh wait - I had that in an earlier post :P

How does any of that explain why McGrath playing in a better team had a lower wpm than Hadlee?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Detail does not matter if the underlying assumptions are wrong.

Heh, I'd expect details of which assumption is wrong and why.

 

[Starfighter]

I gave you my table and my conclusions. Either disagree with the detail. Or supply your own counter table and show me that bowlers of weak batting teams get just as many opportunities pro rata as they do the first to bowl in the second innings as the great team's bowlers.

Or you could just keep it simple and deal specifically with Hadlee. Which is really what is causing all the fuss it would appear.

The problem is that what you were arguing in when this circlejerk started in not that bowlers of weak batting teams get fewer get opportunities for second innings wickets. I think you'll find if you put in even a modicum of effort to understand what TJB, NotMcKenzie and I are saying that none of have disputed that this is the case. It checks out theoretically.

What we are disputing is that in the case of R.J. Hadlee, and in cricket in the real world, that this effect is important in terms of the total wickets per match that a bowler obtains. What I was asking you to do was prove that in a robust manner. You haven't. Pro rata is irrelevant when it comes to overall effect, as total balls bowled is more important.

You remind me of a certain much loved poster we used to have here. Name was a colloquialism for a defensive shot turned into an adjective, could also be used to describe something of squarish, stout construction, or the surface of an andesitic lava flow. Please, go into a thread under site discussion with 'announcements' in the title (capitalised) and find where this poster is mentioned. See how many likes are on the relevant post and what factor is stated in it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You remind me of a certain much loved poster we used to have here. Name was a colloquialism for a defensive shot turned into an adjective, could also be used to describe something of squarish, stout construction, or the surface of an andesitic lava flow. Please, go into a thread under site discussion with 'announcements' in the title (capitalised) and find where this poster is mentioned. See how many likes are on the relevant post and what factor is stated in it.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if they turned out to be the same guy. Stubbornest bloke I've ever come across.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

How does any of that explain why McGrath playing in a better team had a lower wpm than Hadlee?

You want me to translate it from Marshall to McGrath?

The question is not why are great bowlers in great teams more limited in wpm per match than in weaker teams, I think we can see from McGrath at 4.x if there is sufficient batting (and with Gilchrist, Hayden, Langer, Punter, Hussey there more often was than not and they won) it is the competition for wickets limit hits them at the 20 wicket point far more readily [Warne, Gillespie, Flemming] than it does for a great bowler in a weaker team but with good batting like Murali, who ends up with 6 wpm or an even weaker without good batting team like Hadlee at 5 wpm who is being limited not by the 20 wickets taken, but by the team running out runs.

Which factors [actually] limiting wpm potential effecting McGrath, Warne and Marshall - Put McGrath in here , do not effect Murali and Hadlee [the same]. And Murali had more runs to play in the second innings and bowl more hence has a higher wpm than Hadlee.

But I also accept that competition for wickets in reducing wpm also typically reduces bowling averages of the bowlers involved, as there are more chances at bowling to new non set batsmen. So all these dynamics are interrelated.

So even though NZ's Hadlee was a weaker team than the great WI or Aus, he still could have taken more wickets per game if the batting was better. Same for Imran whose 4.6 wpm per match, is not at all like Marshall's! But still better than split than Hadlee's.

Remember there's 20 wickets to be balanced against the runs, competition for wickets kicks in limiting potential when 20 wickets are taken.

Its not just the bowling that matters, its the runs the bowlers have to play with. It is that simple.

 

[Starfighter]

Heh, I'd expect details of which assumption is wrong and why.

Your table does not take into account total balls bowled and the factors affecting that. Proportions mean nothing without context. That Hadlee has a large difference across innings means nothing compared to the fact he bowled more balls overall. You assertion 'he could simply have bowled even more' means nothing as it is not what actually happened. You are struggling to make the leap from your sound but theoretical premise to whether it is actually significant in practice. You are like those socialists who whinge about income inequality while ignoring that having a smaller income proportion in a rich economy likely makes you much better off overall than having a larger proportion in a poor one. Absolutes are important.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The problem is that what you were arguing in when this circlejerk started in not that bowlers of weak batting teams get fewer get opportunities for second innings wickets. I think you'll find if you put in even a modicum of effort to understand what TJB, NotMcKenzie and I are saying that none of have disputed that this is the case. It checks out theoretically.

What we are disputing is that in the case of R.J. Hadlee, and in cricket in the real world, that this effect is important in terms of the total wickets per match that a bowler obtains. What I was asking you to do was prove that in a robust manner. You haven't. Pro rata is irrelevant when it comes to overall effect, as total balls bowled is more important.

You remind me of a certain much loved poster we used to have here. Name was a colloquialism for a defensive shot turned into an adjective, could also be used to describe something of squarish, stout construction, or the surface of an andesitic lava flow. Please, go into a thread under site discussion with 'announcements' in the title (capitalised) and find where this poster is mentioned. See how many likes are on the relevant post and what factor is stated in it.

What TJB is saying for McGrath vs Hadlee may be true, but it isn't true for Hadlee vs Murali.

 

[Starfighter]

You want me to translate it from Marshall to McGrath?

The question is not why are great bowlers in great teams more limited in wpm per match than in weaker teams, I think we can see from McGrath at 4.x if there is sufficient batting (and with Gilchrist, Hayden, Langer, Punter, Hussey there more often was than not and they won) it is the competition for wickets limit hits them at the 20 wicket point far more readily [Warne, Gillespie, Flemming] than it does for a great bowler in a weaker team but with good batting like Murali, who ends up with 6 wpm or an even weaker without good batting team like Hadlee at 5 wpm who is being limited not by the 20 wickets taken, but by the team running out runs.

Which factors [actually] limiting wpm potential effecting McGrath, Warne and Marshall - Put McGrath in here , do not effect Murali and Hadlee [the same]. And Murali had more runs to play in the second innings and bowl more hence has a higher wpm than Hadlee.

But I also accept that competition for wickets in reducing wpm also typically reduces bowling averages of the bowlers involved, as there are more chances at bowling to new non set batsmen. So all these dynamics are interrelated.

So even though NZ's Hadlee was a weaker team than the great WI or Aus, he still could have taken more wickets per game if the batting was better. Same for Imran whose 4.6 wpm per match, is not at all like Marshall's! But still better than split than Hadlee's.

Remember there's 20 wickets to be balanced against the runs, competition for wickets kicks in limiting potential when 20 wickets are taken.

Its not just the bowling that matters, its the runs the bowlers have to play with. It is that simple.

There is nothing in there which explains TJB's contention.

What part of this don't you get? Causality please.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Your table does not take into account total balls bowled and the factors affecting that. Proportions mean nothing without context. That Hadlee has a large difference across innings means nothing compared to the fact he bowled more balls overall. You assertion 'he could simply have bowled even more' means nothing as it is not what actually happened. You are struggling to make the leap from your sound but theoretical premise to whether it is actually significant in practice. You are like those socialists who whinge about income inequality while ignoring that having a smaller income proportion in a rich economy likely makes you much better off overall than having a larger proportion in a poor one. Absolutes are important.

Actually, I will happily do the table again for you with % balls bowled in 1st and 2nd innings. It still won't change the discrepancy.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

There is nothing in there which explains TJB's contention.

What part of this don't you get? Causality please.

Actually, TJB's whole premise is in fact in there :P

TJB is arguably right with McGrath vs Hadlee, but he's wrong in Hadlee vs Murali.

He overlooks that there are great bowlers in great batting and bowling teams, or weak batting teams and/or weak bowling teams.

Hence it is more nuanced.

But if you disagree with it re McGrath vs Hadlee, you're disagreeing with both me and TJB.

So maybe read it again?

 

[TheJediBrah]

What TJB is saying for McGrath vs Hadlee may be true, but it isn't true for Hadlee vs Murali.

Why are you even comparing Hadlee and Murali? There is far too many differences between them. Why you think that comparison would have any weight is bewildering.

The reason we were comparing Hadlee and McGrath is because they were similar bowlers, with similar stats.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Murali bowled 55 overs a match
Hadlee bowled 42 overs a match

That is the difference in wpm.

Using those 2 as an example to prove any point is just, yeah, ****ing weird

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Why are you even comparing Hadlee and Murali? There is far too many differences between them. Why you think that comparison would have any weight is bewildering.

The reason we were comparing Hadlee and McGrath is because they were similar bowlers, with similar stats.

Because Murali, like Hadlee, wasn't competing with wickets like McGrath was!

You need to explain top down and front to back or you do not have a coherent whole.

 

[Starfighter]

Actually, I will happily do the table again for you with % balls bowled in 1st and 2nd innings. It still won't change the discrepancy.

You are still talking proportions. Not absolutes.

Let me break it down: a bowler has a 50:50 split and bowls 200 balls a match. Another bowler has a 35:65 split and bowls 260 balls.

The first bowler bowls 100 balls/2nd innings. The second will bowl 91. Clearly the first bowler has a greater opportunity to take second innings wickets, but the second will take more per match purely by bowling more, even if they have a more skewed distribution.

Let me say it again: proportions are meaningless without context.


And stating that you said something does not say you did. You wouldn't get very far in a scientific debate or a court of law asking people to find your arguments that you are too lazy to present and prove yourself.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You are still talking proportions. Not absolutes.

Let me break it down: a bowler has a 50:50 split and bowls 200 balls a match. Another bowler has a 35:65 split and bowls 260 balls.

The first bowler bowls 100 balls/2nd innings. The second will bowl 91. Clearly the first bowler has a greater opportunity to take second innings wickets, but the second will take more per match purely by bowling more, even if they have a more skewed distribution.

Let me say it again: proportions are meaningless without context.

Dude, I heard ya, and I said I would do it for ya. You will have it later. But I am warning you, the first innings bowled between second variance, is going to remain very similar.

 

[Starfighter]

Dude, I heard ya, and I said I would do it for ya. You will have it later. But I am warning you, the first innings bowled between second variance, is going to remain very similar.

You don't give any indication that you have understood my point. The variance is unimportant compared to the overall balls bowled per match.

Prove that absolute wickets per match is directly related to a teams batting strength. Variance between first innings and second innings wickets is not relevant.