Stockies and part-timers have a tough time

[Arjun]

The stock bowlers in a 50-over match always get the job done by finishing a stock of eight (or so) overs. The part-timers always provide an element of surprise by a series of dot-balls or a freak wicket. But in the T20 World Championship, the stockies and part-timers have had a tough time, getting smashed, predictably, by established frontline batsmen or brawny hitters who get an eye in. Look at this table.

STOCK BOWLERS:
A Symonds       6 11.5 0 115   1 1/2  115.00  9.71 71.0  
AD Mascarenhas  5 14.0 0 122   4 3/18  30.50  8.71 21.0 
CT Tremlett     1  4.0 0  45   2 2/45  22.50 11.25 12.0  
PD Collingwood  5  7.0 0   82  2 1/23  41.00 11.71 21.0  
CP Schofield    4 12.5 0   92  4 2/15  23.00  7.16 19.2  
Joginder Sharma 3 11.0 0  118  2 2/37  59.00 10.72 33.0  
JS Patel        2  6.5 0   69  2 1/31  34.50 10.09 20.5  
JDP Oram        6 13.0 0  146  1 1/14 146.00 11.23 78.0  
SB Styris       6 11.0 0   74  2 1/14  37.00  6.72 33.0 
Shoaib Malik    6  3.0 0   18  2 2/15   9.00  6.00  9.0  
Shahid Afridi   6 24.0 1  158 12 4/19  13.16  6.58 12.0  
JJ van der Wath 5 20.0 0  150  6 2/31  25.00  7.50 20.0  
JA Morkel       5 10.0 0   77  3 2/12  25.66  7.70 20.0  
VD Philander    5 13.0 0  104  4 2/23  26.00  8.00 19.5  
ST Jayasuriya   5 12.5 0  102  4 2/4   25.50  7.94 19.2  
G Wijekoon      3 11.0 0  101  2 1/12  50.50  9.18 33.0  
MF Maharoof     2  5.0 0   50  1 1/16  50.00 10.00 30.0  
DJ Bravo        2  4.4 0   73  0   -     -   15.64   -   
DR Smith        2  2.0 0   37  0   -     -   18.50   -   
CH Gayle        2  4.0 0   22  0   -     -    5.50   -  0 

PART-TIME BOWLERS
MJ Clarke       5  7.0 0   72  2 1/13  36.00 10.28 21.0  
BJ Hodge        6  2.0 0   20  0   -     -   10.00   -   
DL Maddy        4  3.0 0   26  3 2/6    8.66  8.66  6.0  
Yuvraj Singh    5  3.0 0   38  1 1/38  38.00 12.66 18.0  
V Sehwag        6  1.0 0   20  0   -     -   20.00   -   
Fawad Alam      1  3.0 0   29  2 2/29  14.50  9.66  9.0  
GC Smith        5  1.0 0   16  0   -     -   16.00   -   
LPC Silva       5  2.0 0   11  0   -     -    5.50   -   
RR Sarwan       2  2.0 0   10  2 2/10  5.00   5.00  6.0  
MN Samuels      2  2.0 0   21  0   -     -   10.50   -   
J Mubarak       5  0.2 0    8  0 - -  24.00   -  
TM Dilshan      5  5.3 0   36  2 2/4  18.00   6.54 16.5

Economy rates over or near 10 have been highlighted. Not surprisingly, Malik (only three overs), Afridi and the South African stock bowlers (some of them make the team on their bowling alone, and are not mere fill-in bowlers) save the day, but the others have been hammered around. Even Sanath, who had decent figures overall, was taken apart in a match against Pakistan for most runs in four overs. The effect is even more pronounced in case of part-time bowlers, with all bar three going for over nine or ten an over. Is this the case of average 50-over bowlers getting shown up in an even shorter format?

[Scaly piscine]

Is this the case of average 50-over bowlers getting shown up in an even shorter format?

Yes I think so.

I expected it personally, the part-timers and bits and pieces bowlers being effective in domestic cricket at times is more because of the lack of quality in the batting combined with cricket bat technology.

Nowadays if you dob the ball there for them and they can line it up and hit it, it'll clear the boundary more often than not. You have to be able to do something that'll make it difficult for the batsmen.

[Jungle Jumbo]

I'm not really sure how fair those assessments are - some of those players have only bowled a couple of overs.

[PhoenixFire]

The reason is that part timers wil usually bowl in the middle overs of an ODI, so generally they will get milked around for 4/5/6 runs an over, without the batsmen taking too many risks. Whereas in a T20 innings, there is generally no time where the batsman will try and consolidate, unless there are loads of wickets fallen, in which there will be a strike bowler bowling to try and blow the order out.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Jungle Jumbo

I'm not really sure how fair those assessments are - some of those players have only bowled a couple of overs.

Exactly, I think you need a cut-off point for this kind of analysis.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by Perm

Exactly, I think you need a cut-off point for this kind of analysis.

There's no point in having a cut-off point for something like this, it simply reduces the amount of data to look at.

You would use a cut-off if you were for instance looking at who had the best economy rate of the tournament, who had the best average and so forth.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

There's no point in having a cut-off point for something like this, it simply reduces the amount of data to look at.

You would use a cut-off if you were for instance looking at who had the best economy rate of the tournament, who had the best average and so forth.

Graham Smith and Virender Sehwag have both only bowl an over each, and Jehan Mubarak has only bowled two balls. You can hardly make a fair analysis with data such as this.

[jeevan]

Why would Md Hafeez not fall into this category? He's not a strike bowler either, by most means. And he's appears to have done a job with Afridi too - 16-0-138-5, ER of 8.6, SR of 19.2.

[Arjun]

Originally Posted by Perm

Graham Smith and Virender Sehwag have both only bowl an over each, and Jehan Mubarak has only bowled two balls. You can hardly make a fair analysis with data such as this.

That one over by Sehwag could have cost the Indian team the semi-final. Four dreadful Sanath overs, his reputation as a stock bowler notwithstanding, did cost the Lankans an entry to the semi-finals. With just four overs per bowler and a full twenty, a bad over shows up, and how.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Arjun

That one over by Sehwag could have cost the Indian team the semi-final. Four dreadful Sanath overs, his reputation as a stock bowler notwithstanding, did cost the Lankans an entry to the semi-finals. With just four overs per bowler and a full twenty, a bad over shows up, and how.

How is this relevant? It's not. 1 over isn't enough to judge a bowler on.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Arjun

That one over by Sehwag could have cost the Indian team the semi-final. Four dreadful Sanath overs, his reputation as a stock bowler notwithstanding, did cost the Lankans an entry to the semi-finals. With just four overs per bowler and a full twenty, a bad over shows up, and how.

One over can obviously be very important in the context of a match. But regardless of the format, two or three overs is hardly a good enough sample size to judge how good a bowler actually is or will perform over a longer time. You can make a judgement on how successful he has been so far, obviously, but you can't use it as an accurate judgement to state his ability.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by Perm

How is this relevant? It's not. 1 over isn't enough to judge a bowler on.

You're not supposed to be judging a bowler on one over, that is obviously pointless. You're supposed to be judging a certain group of bowlers as a whole.

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

You're not supposed to be judging a bowler on one over, that is obviously pointless. You're supposed to be judging a certain group of bowlers as a whole.

Never thought I'd say this but...I agree with Scaly. There's a first time for everything.

Stockies and part timers on the whole have struggled. Sure there could be a few that will have success. Chris Harris springs to mind in our domestic 20/20. On the whole though they have and quite possibly will continue to struggle.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

You're not supposed to be judging a bowler on one over, that is obviously pointless. You're supposed to be judging a certain group of bowlers as a whole.

But the performances of bowlers like Smith, Sehwag and Mubarak can't be assessed fairly, whether on an individual basis or within a certain group of bowlers, that's the point. I agree with your sentiments, but I disagree with how an over (2 balls in Mubarak's case) can be used to strengthen your argument, because those bowlers haven't been given enough chances.