England's Bowlers

[GIMH]

In the England-India stenchfest thread last week, Furball asked how many bowlers had had a series in Australia this century that stood up to Anderson's. Cribbage posted a link from statsguru but because I am better than him I have improved this query and sorted by series.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

What's my point? Sure this is a pissweak Australian batting line-up, but given the expectations of how our guys would go, it is quite something. Bresnan second on the list, Anderson third, and Tremlett fourth, if sorted by average. Sort by wickets taken and Anderson and Tremlett stay near the top as well, but obviously Anderson has an advantage over most on that one because he played five games; at the same time that tells you what an effort it is to maintain an average like that, over five Tests, a series length no other fast bowler has dealt with in the last year or so (since the last Ashes basically).

I always tend to take bowling averages with a pinch of salt; I certainly don't think Bresnan had a better series than Steyn did a couple of years back. Nonetheless, if you want to know why we won three games by an innings, this is a good place to start.

Anderson and Tremlett are gonna destroy India at home tbh.

 

[Burgey]

Lies, damn lies and statistics

 

[Jacknife]

Bresnan's stats are very impressive 25 maidens from 82 overs going at 2.6 rpo, I bet he can't believe how it's gone for him this series. I don't know if it's down to Saker, or a confidence thing, but all the bowlers, maybe with the exception of Finn, were unbelievably accurate and the skills they brought to the table, by all of them were outstanding. The speed they got the ball reversing was great, sometimes as early as the 15th over and whether with it be the new or the old ball, Jimmy made it talk, which moving into the future, especially abroad will be a key asset . Even Tremlett, who you wouldn't think would be able to reverse the ball, got it going brilliantly, that over he bowled towards the end of day 4 of the 5th test, where he got Haddin and Johnson, was a thing of beauty.

 

[Howe_zat]

Lies, damn lies and statistics

Shows the level of superiority, you would have to say, rather than the level of skill.

I've often said that the most important thing to look for in a stat is what's left out. In this case it's the decline in Australian batting over the last few years that would be relevant.

Still, some great numbercruching.


Economy rates would be good to look into too. England have bowled so well as a pack rather than relying on individual stardom as in 05 and 09

 

[Furball]

What I've found so good about Anderson's series is that he's taken almost 5 wickets per Test - despite taking no more than 4 wickets in an innings. You would expect a bowler taking that number of wickets to have had at least one outstanding Test like the one Johnson had.

As an aside, England's attack was the only Test attack to average under 30 last year.

 

[Cevno]

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

 

[marc71178]

So what exactly do these stats conceal then?

 

[Cevno]

So what exactly do these stats conceal then?

While the England bowlers were great this series ,the Aussie batting was piss poor.

And has been for a short while now.

 

[marc71178]

Clearly you can't use the India Australia series to praise Indian bowlers to the hilt then - in a series that was far far closer than the Ashes turned out FWIW.

 

[Cevno]

Clearly you can't use the India Australia series to praise Indian bowlers to the hilt then - in a series that was far far closer than the Ashes turned out FWIW.

Is anyone ,tbh?

Zaheer was great in that series like the english bowlers in this. But at same Aussie batting was poor except Watson ,Paine and to an extent Ponting.

In fact if you look at it Zaheer had the best performance by a pace bowler for india ,In terms of averages against Australia ever -

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

And that is both home and away.
And the pitches weren't really ideal for fast bowling too.

And how was that series far closer than the Ashes ,btw?

Yes the first test was close but 2 out of 2 is better than 3 out of 5 with one going the other way.

 

[Furball]

Is anyone ,tbh?

Zaheer was great in that series like the english bowlers in this. But at same Aussie batting was poor except Watson ,Paine and to an extent Ponting.

In fact if you look at it Zaheer had the best performance by a pace bowler for india ,In terms of averages against Australia ever -

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

And that is both home and away.
And the pitches weren't really ideal for fast bowling too.

And how was that series far closer than the Ashes ,btw?

Yes the first test was close but 2 out of 2 is better than 3 out of 5 with one going the other way.

But it's two Tests. Who's to say Australia wouldn't have squared a 4 or 5 match series?

England won their 2 most recent Tests by an innings, in away conditions.

 

[marc71178]

Wrong GF, it was 3 innings victories.

 

[Cevno]

But it's two Tests. Who's to say Australia wouldn't have squared a 4 or 5 match series?

England won their 2 most recent Tests by an innings, in away conditions.

But it still is a whitewash and a 100 percent record.

There is no way to tell for certain ,but i am confident that India would have won the series had it been 4 or 5 tests too.

Similarly had the ashes been a two test series it would have been 1-0 win to England while if it had been a 3 test one like Ind-SA it would have been 1-1 with one each massive wins for both sides.

 

[Spark]

I think you're really clutching at straws if you think the scoreline automatically means that the gap between India and Australia in that series was bigger than the gap between England and Australia in this one. Anyone who actually watched both would tell you that's a long long long way from the truth.

 

[Uppercut]

Think we need to dig up a few pre-Ashes posts on this subject because people have only started calling the Watto/Katich/Ponting/Clarke/Hussey/xx/Haddin top seven "pissweak" since England owned their poor little souls. If anyone had used that label before the series everyone would have laughed and called them a bell-end. The exact same batsmen had been taking visiting attacks apart in Australia for years. But I guess that's what a world-class attack does to reputations.

 

[Spark]

It hasn't helped that Katich has had a dreadfully unfortunate series, and that Ponting and Clarke have run into the worst form of their careers.

If those two are in reasonable touch then boy do things change.

 

[Cevno]

I think you're really clutching at straws if you think the scoreline automatically means that the gap between India and Australia in that series was bigger than the gap between England and Australia in this one. Anyone who actually watched both would tell you that's a long long long way from the truth.

Did you have the same opinion after 3 tests though?
While one match was closer in the India - Aust series it was still 2-0 after two matches.

I am sure almost all of the Indian and SA fans will tell you that the last two series of SA in India were evenly matched despite it being in a similar situation to the ashes after 2 tests -

Results | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

Results | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

There were big wins for both sides in one game each in both the series.
How would you compare those with the ashes after 3 matches? Maybe one of the teams could have one the rest of the matches by a innings had their been 5?

I am not saying either way but it is a bit unfair to say one series of 2 matches won 2-0 was closer, or "lot closer" compared to a 5 test series which had 3 massive wins for one team and one massive win for another team,i.e 3-1.
There is no way to tell how the other series would have ended up.

 

[Spark]

How is it unfair? The difference in the standard of cricket between the two sides was clearly much narrower in India than it was here. Simple as.

 

[Uppercut]

It hasn't helped that Katich has had a dreadfully unfortunate series, and that Ponting and Clarke have run into the worst form of their careers.

If those two are in reasonable touch then boy do things change.

That's circular logic, the only evidence you have that Ponting was out of form is that England kept getting him out.

 

[Cevno]

How is it unfair? The difference in the standard of cricket between the two sides was clearly much narrower in India than it was here. Simple as.

You know what this a pointless and useless debate not relating to the topic of thread any way.

But Just a simple question for you to ponder upon, did you have the same opinion after 3 tests of the Ashes were over?