Progression of the 'best fast bowler' title post war

[TheJediBrah]

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.

Lol competing for wickets is the major basis for why wpm is affected by the strength of the team they're playing in. By deliberately ignoring that, any conclusion you come to is pure garbage, and clearly not going to be accurate.

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.

variance is irrelevant m8, this has been made clear

 

[trundler]

*wakes up*
Woah, my thread has 15 pages! ****... never mind. :

 

[Burgey]

Great food. No doubt that you'll be eating a mediocre attempt at it given you're in Australia, but bad Lebanese food > authentic Australian cuisine (whatever that is)

Enjoy yourself

Was the sort of Lebanese feast you’d only dream of in Hong Kong.

 

[Starfighter]

*wakes up*
Woah, my thread has 15 pages! ****... never mind. :

Six pages.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Here you go starfighter, I have done your heavy lifting.

And - Hadlee is still wayyyyy outside.

Hadlee 289 and 142 - less than 33% or 34% variance
Balls: 14807 and 7111 - less than 33% or 34% variance
Ave 22.7 and 21.3
SR 51 and 50

McGrath 329 and 234 - 42% or 16% variance
Overs 2846.5 and 2027.5 - 41.6% or 16.8% variance
Ave 22 and 21
SR 52 and 52

Lillee 208 and 147 - 41% - 18% variance
Balls 10208 and 8259 - 44.7% - 10.3% variance
SR 49 and 55
Ave 23 and 25.5 (Lillee is the only bowler who gets worse in the second innings, and yes this is not typical)

Marshall 200 and 176 (Wow this team was strong and got in a winning position a lot) - 47% a 6% variance
Overs 1636.2 and 1294.2 - 44.16% - 11% variance
SR 49 and 44
Ave 22.5 and 19

Murali 458 and 342 - 43% - 14% variance
4421 and 2918 40% second innings 20% variance
SR 57.9 and 51
ave 24 and 21

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Lol competing for wickets is the major basis for why wpm is affected by the strength of the team they're playing in. By deliberately ignoring that, any conclusion you come to is pure garbage, and clearly not going to be accurate.



variance is irrelevant m8, this has been made clear

Yeah, you still don't seem to get it. You seem to understand McGrath vs Hadlee, but not Hadlee vs Murali where there is much less competition for wickets.

As for Hadlee vs McGrath, I have never ignored competition for wickets. Read my posts again. I even translated it into Australian cricketers for you.

Variance is simply the difference of the percentage from 50% doubled to give a ratio. It is the same information presented in an easier to digest manner.

 

[Starfighter]

Still talking proportions.

Hadlee bowled 255 balls a match to Marshall's 217. That is more important than the variance. The variance is irrelevant.

The question I am asking is does a bowler in a weaker batting team take fewer wickets per match? Is WpM related to team batting average?

Once again, the proportional split does not matter. Absolute wickets per match is the only thing that matters.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Still talking proportions.

Hadlee bowled 255 balls a match to Marshall's 217. That is more important than the variance. The variance is irrelevant.

The question I am asking is does a bowler in a weaker batting team take fewer wickets per match? Is WpM inversely related to team batting average?

Once again, the proportional split does not matter. Absolute wickets per match is the only thing that matters.

Well Hadlee also bowled 8953 balls in 36 draws (248.8), 7157 balls in 28 losses (255) and 5808 (264) balls in 22 wins .

So it seems to be if he could bowl more in wins, in some of those losses he ran out of runs no? :P

Unless you want to say he was physically limited in all those losses and draws.

 

[Starfighter]

Well Hadlee also bowled 8953 balls in 36 draws (248.8), 7157 balls in 28 losses (255) and 5808 (264) balls in 22 wins .

So it seems to be if he could bowl more in wins, in some of those losses he ran out of runs no? :P

Nope. Try again.

Please give some proof that WpM and team average are related, (for good - great, say average under 26. We don't need Rubel Hossain polluting the analysis).

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, you still don't seem to get it. You seem to understand McGrath vs Hadlee, but not Hadlee vs Murali where there is much less competition for wickets.

As for Hadlee vs McGrath, I have never ignored competition for wickets. Read my posts again. I even translated it into Australian cricketers for you.

Variance is simply the difference of the percentage from 50% doubled to give a ratio. It is the same information presented in an easier to digest manner.

I "get it" completely, i have always understood what you've been trying to say. It just doesn't support the contention.

You're still just talking about the reasoning behind your premise and posting statistics to support your reasoning. It doesn't and never has supported your premise. You're in the exact same spot you were 4 pages ago.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Nope. Try again.

Please give some proof that WpM and team average are inversely related, (for good - great, say average under 26. We don't need Rubel Hossain polluting the analysis).

How can they ever be if Murali jumps with good batting, and McGrath goes down? That's the whole point.

This is multi dimensional.

It is like TJB is fixated on competition for wickets in great teams with good bowling and batting, and you're fixated on solely great bowlers in weak bowling attacks but with varying weak and strong batting teams.

There two limits for taking wickets if bowling - 20 wickets (and declarations) and running out of runs.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I "get it" completely, i have always understood what you've been trying to say. It just doesn't support the contention.

You're still just talking about the reasoning behind your premise and posting statistics to support your reasoning. It doesn't and never has supported your premise. You're in the exact same spot you were 4 pages ago.

details please

 

[TheJediBrah]

How can they ever be if Murali jumps with good batting, and McGrath goes down? That's the whole point.

This is multi dimensional.

It is like TJB is fixated on competition for wickets in great teams with good bowling and batting, and you're fixated on solely great bowlers in weak bowling attacks but with varying weak and strong batting teams.

There two limits for taking wickets if bowling - 20 wickets (and declarations) and running out of runs.

Lol I'm not fixated on anything, my entire stance comes directly from the big picture, the career stats. I'm not focused on about individual factors because there are too many to accurately quantify, and we dont need to because we know the result!

Starfighter's doing the same, he just zeroed in on the one factor in attempt to humour you and show you the silliness of your entire argument

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Lol I'm not fixated on anything, my entire stance comes directly from the big picture, the career stats. I'm not focused on about individual factors because there are too many to accurately quantify, and we dont need to because we know the result!

Starfighter's doing the same, he just zeroed in on the one factor in attempt to humour you and show you the silliness of your entire argument

There are 20 wickets in a match max for a bowler to take.

Winning teams typically take 20 wickets bar the rare and celebrated 4th innings declaration chase.

Competition for wickets kicks in as a limit to a bowler getting any more wickets when 20 wickets have fallen, so it effects those who played in winning teams more than those who played in losing teams.

Runs kicks in for bowlers when they don't have the runs to bowl with, cos they've lost, or still batting to build a lead to bowl again. So it effects drawing and especially losing teams more.

This really isn't rocket science. If Hadlee's team don't have the runs on the board, he bowls less in the second innings. If Murali's team does, he bowls.

Marshall, Holding, Roberts, McGrath, Warne - they feel the effects of 20 wickets as a limit far more readily than Hadlee or Murali do. We agree on this BUT Murali bowls more secondings pro rata than Hadlee as his team has the runs on the board to let him continue bowling for longer.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Well Hadlee also bowled 8953 balls in 36 draws (248.8), 7157 balls in 28 losses (255) and 5808 (264) balls in 22 wins .

So it seems to be if he could bowl more in wins, in some of those losses he ran out of runs no? :P

Unless you want to say he was physically limited in all those losses and draws.

So, would an extra 9 balls really make a difference? Dividing the number of balls bowled a match by his strike rate, we could get 5.20 wickets when winning, and 5.05 wickets when losing (and 4.90 in drawn matches). Question is, does this difference really indicate anything?
Particularly given that he was New Zealand's main bowler for much of his career, you could say that he wasn't bowling as well in the matches they lost compared to those they won, and that that could explain the discrepancy, taking up more balls to get a wicket, and a poorer performance (or at least lower strike rate) contributing to the loss.
Of course, resolving that contribution from other factors may be impossible, but it shows another possibility.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

So, would an extra 9 balls really make a difference?

At that point the 20 wickets are taken. And he has bowled a proper second innings effort :P Remember his career split is 2/1 - far more than the rest on the list.

It also doesn't mean he wouldn't still bowl more in the games drawn or lost so as to get the win.

Dividing the number of balls bowled a match by his strike rate, we could get 5.20 wickets when winning, and 5.05 wickets when losing (and 4.90 in drawn matches). Question is, does this difference really indicate anything?
Particularly given that he was New Zealand's main bowler for much of his career, you could say that he wasn't bowling as well in the matches they lost compared to those they won, and that that could explain the discrepancy, taking up more balls to get a wicket, and a poorer performance (or at least lower strike rate) contributing to the loss.
Of course, resolving that contribution from other factors may be impossible, but it shows another possibility.

Well now you're into a world of greater unknowns. I do have a view on this - but right now let me put TJB and Starfighter to bed. And then I will happily discuss this with you.

 

[Starfighter]

There are 20 wickets in a match max for a bowler to take.

Winning teams typically take 20 wickets bar the rare and celebrated 4th innings declaration chase.

Competition for wickets kicks in as a limit to a bowler getting any more wickets when 20 wickets have fallen, so it effects those who played in winning teams more than those who played in losing teams.

Runs kicks in for bowlers when they don't have the runs to bowl with, cos they've lost, or still batting to build a lead to bowl again. So it effects drawing and especially losing teams more.

This really isn't rocket science. If Hadlee's team don't have the runs on the board, he bowls less in the second innings. If Murali's team does, he bowls.

Marshall, Holding, Roberts, McGrath, Warne - they feel the effects of 20 wickets as a limit far more readily than Hadlee or Murali do. We agree on this BUT Murali bowls more secondings pro rata than Hadlee as his team has the runs on the board to let him continue bowling for longer.

Once again you stumble around in the dark. The fact that Murali is a spin bowler and is capable of bowling more overs than Hadlee is more important.

 

[TheJediBrah]

but right now let me put TJB and Starfighter to bed. And then I will happily discuss this with you.

lmao your arrogance in the face of overwhelming reason is impressive, I'll give you that

If Hadlee was in the Aus team instead of McGrath do you honestly think he would have more than 5wpm? or even more than 4.5 wpm? Because that's what you're saying, and if so you must really think Hadlee a much superior bowler to McGrath.

 

[Starfighter]

but right now let me put TJB and Starfighter to bed.

Careful there sonny.

 

[trundler]

Besides, Hadlee was part of a poor team, but not a 2000s Bangladesh-level bad team, or say Headley's West Indies. So, innings defeats wouldn't factor in that much whilst the lack of bowling support would contribute more to WPM. In other words, one could say the magnitude of lack of bowling support overrides the (hypothetical) 4th innings thing.