Bowling with a strong bowling unit vs without

[Hurricane]

Question does bowling as part of a strong bowling unit like the West Indies great sides lead to an individual bowler having a better bowling average and SR?

I have seen in written in a thread that:

a) Bowler X had no strong support and had to do it all by himself so his bowling statistics suffered

I have also seen it written that

b) Bowler Y suffered because there were so many great bowlers in his side that he didn't get to bowl as many overs and had to share the wickets.

I tend to believe b) that you can't take as many wickets if the other guys are getting in there ahead of you. But I am unsure about statement a). Richard Hadlee was supposed to perform better when he had the foil of Ewen Chatfield to accompany him. But in pulling the stats Richard Hadlee between 1980 and his retirement played 60 tests and had an avg of 19.70. With Chatfield in the line up he played 36 tests for an avg of 19.64 this doesn't sound like much of a difference.

On the other hand in comparing Malcom Marshall (average 20.94) to Richard Hadlee (average over career 22.29) - Marshall bowled less deliveries per inning 116 vs 146. You would have to think that helped Marshall to stay fresh and put more into his bowling for concentrated bursts.

What do you think - could Richard Hadlee have Matched Marshalls average and SR if he had've had another very good bowler or two in his side?

 

[Athlai]

In scenario B your Wickets Per Match may suffer but I strongly doubt your average or strike rate would be badly affected, and potentially helped. I would say in scenario A you would likely have a better WPM but you might in turn have your average and strike rate suffer as it is basically all up to you.

 

[Flem274*]

Worst irrelevant option.

 

[Flem274*]

But yes, I think it would help your average if you're a good bowler because the batsmen will be getting no respite from the other 3/4 world class bowlers.

Wickets per match would go down though.

If you have little support, then it's a far more effective tactic to defend your spell and whack the rest.

 

[Ikki]

In scenario B your Wickets Per Match may suffer but I strongly doubt your average or strike rate would be badly affected, and potentially helped. I would say in scenario A you would likely have a better WPM but you might in turn have your average and strike rate suffer as it is basically all up to you.

Having a higher or lower WPM directly affects your average/SR.

If you have little support, then it's a far more effective tactic to defend your spell and whack the rest.

Traditionally, the lone rangers seem to bowl such a large amount of overs that this tactic is often negated. The bowler will eventually get you or others out. Tactically, if you have a lot of competition it often means taking a more aggressive stance which can often mean going for more runs.

Personally, I think the lone wolf comes out looking better in these comparisons prima facie but I think both situations have strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Flem274*]

Yes and no.

Consistently taking 3/60 will still give you the same average as 4/80 for example.

 

[Hurricane]

@ Athlai and Flem. I think you are both saying that Richard Hadlee would have had a better bowling average if he had've had a world class bowler or two to accompany him. Does this mean that you think he could have equalled Marshall's average and that Hadlee = Marshall as a bowler?

Also why did Hadlee's average not improve with Chatfield? Likewise when I researched Murali and Vaas - Murali did not appear to do any better with Vaas in the line up. If both of your arguments are correct that 'it is all up to you and your SR could suffer without support' then Hadlee and Murali should do worse without those players in the attack. Or does one support bowler like Chatfield or Vaas not make a difference do you need a whole attack to support you before it makes a difference?

 

[Ikki]

One thing I've argued that I've not seen a good counter to is that bowlers who are all-time greats like Murali and Hadlee will more often benefit from their good form than someone like Warne or Marshall would. They will be taking more wickets when on good form whereas Warne and Marshall will have to share their load and wickets regardless of how good they appear - their team does not rely on them to the same extent to bowl so many overs and their teammates will naturally limit the amount of wickets they can take from that match. Whilst this is countered in that the lone wolf bowlers will also be punished much more when on worse form; the likelihood of good form for these all-time greats is much more than them bowling badly hence they'll be benefitted by being a lone wolf much more often than being disadvantaged by it.

I hope that was clear .

 

[Ikki]

Also, it's somewhat curious how people would say that Gillespie would have had better figures/been considered a better bowler if he was in another team (referring to the fact that he had to compete with all-time greats) and on the other hand people may say Warne or McGrath would have been worse without any help.

 

[TumTum]

Check my signature.

 

[Flem274*]

Fair point Ikki. I think it's a sound idea, but there's also the idea that with good/excellent/great support, once wickets start falling they will tumble. Batsmen are vulnerable early (duh Phlegm) and with awesome support at the other end they have no one to get comfortable against, so awesome bowler in good form still has a fantastic chance.

Also, an all time great quick with lesser support has to be given a rest eventually, and then when he comes back on he might have to bowl to set batsmen if the other bowlers struggled. This doesn't apply so much for spinners because they can bowl longer spells.

I'm a big subscriber to great/good bowlers hunt in packs. Even Murali had Vaas, Kapil had all those bloody spinners, and Hadlee had Collinge for a bit irrc then later had Chatfield, who was a decent bowler without being outstanding.

 

[Flem274*]

Also, it's somewhat curious how people would say that Gillespie would have had better figures/been considered a better bowler if he was in another team (referring to the fact that he had to compete with all-time greats) and on the other hand people may say Warne or McGrath would have been worse without any help.

I think Gillespie would have been what he is tbh. He's simply a very, very good bowler and assuming he had test class help then he would have continued being very, very good.

I think there is a floor/ceiling for bowling and batting averages that only a true freak can cross over a decent career. The bowling average being 20 and the batting average being 60.

 

[Teja.]

As to the Hadlee/Marshall question, IMO, None of them are objectively better than the other. It's all down to personal opinion depending on how a person judges the statistics/opinions/performances they view.

As to the original question, I do think averages suffer as a result of being the lone wolf.(Though It is not such a direct relationship with SR)

Also, WPMs have to be one of the most underrated statistics in cricket. For instance, Ambrose's 4 wpm has to be a negative to him while comparing him to other great bowlers of the 90s. Waqar/Donald/McGrath et al. despite having a similar level of competition could take a larger chunk of wickets for their side.

 

[Athlai]

@ Athlai and Flem. I think you are both saying that Richard Hadlee would have had a better bowling average if he had've had a world class bowler or two to accompany him. Does this mean that you think he could have equalled Marshall's average and that Hadlee = Marshall as a bowler?

Also why did Hadlee's average not improve with Chatfield? Likewise when I researched Murali and Vaas - Murali did not appear to do any better with Vaas in the line up. If both of your arguments are correct that 'it is all up to you and your SR could suffer without support' then Hadlee and Murali should do worse without those players in the attack. Or does one support bowler like Chatfield or Vaas not make a difference do you need a whole attack to support you before it makes a difference?

No idea if it would improve his figures any since they were already stellar.

Both Murali and Hadlee's figures appear to improve by 1 in their average with Chatfield and Vaas in their attacks for what thats worth.

I'd also say one good support bowler isn't akin to a whole attack.

 

[Migara]

One thing I've argued that I've not seen a good counter to is that bowlers who are all-time greats like Murali and Hadlee will more often benefit from their good form than someone like Warne or Marshall would. They will be taking more wickets when on good form whereas Warne and Marshall will have to share their load and wickets regardless of how good they appear - their team does not rely on them to the same extent to bowl so many overs and their teammates will naturally limit the amount of wickets they can take from that match. Whilst this is countered in that the lone wolf bowlers will also be punished much more when on worse form; the likelihood of good form for these all-time greats is much more than them bowling badly hence they'll be benefitted by being a lone wolf much more often than being disadvantaged by it.

I hope that was clear .

And that will make the bowlers bowl less deliveries, and make them less injury prone. Hence it will allow long careers for them enabling to take more wickets. Long ranger will tire, and inure himself quickly and will have a shorter career taking less wickets.

 

[Ikki]

Maybe, who knows. But even saying they have shorter careers and take less overall wickets; it does not really affect their SRs or Averages by having shorter careers. It just means they'll have less aggregate wickets over their career.

 

[Migara]

Maybe, who knows. But even saying they have shorter careers and take less overall wickets; it does not really affect their SRs or Averages by having shorter careers. It just means they'll have less aggregate wickets over their career.

The point can be put in reverse. Lone rangers might have more WPM, than a bowler in a good group, but then SR and averages will not change. Good bowler in a pack has an additional advantage of getting more tail enders. The group will usually share the tail enders.

For an example:
Duration (01-01-1995 to 01-01-2005)

The wickets Australia took (8 - 11): (799 - 175) = 624 @ 12.38
All the wickets Australia taken: 2358 - 271 = 2087 @ 25.3
% of tail enders AUS taken = 29.9%

The wickets Sri Lanka took (8-11): (525 - 133) = 392 @ 12.94
All the wickets SL taken: 1618 - 193 = 1425 @ 28.67
% of tail enders SL taken: 27.51

If you take out the minnows you'll see that the gap will widen. Teams with better bowlers take enough top order wickets to arrive at tail enders more often than teams with a single good bowler.

 

[Hurricane]

No idea if it would improve his figures any since they were already stellar.

Both Murali and Hadlee's figures appear to improve by 1 in their average with Chatfield and Vaas in their attacks for what thats worth.

I'd also say one good support bowler isn't akin to a whole attack.

What time period did you put on the filter for Hadlee?

 

[Athlai]

What time period did you put on the filter for Hadlee?

None I just did his stats in matches involving Chatfield.

 

[Hurricane]

None I just did his stats in matches involving Chatfield.

yeah - I don't recommend the analysis of doing a comparison without a time filter - because it compares games at the start of Hadlees career where he was just learning his trade, and his average was a bit higher, against his time with Chatfield where he was more of a seasoned pro. I put a time filter on the query I ran to just restrict it to the 1980s.

Likewise when I ran it on Murali and Vaas - I restricted the time period to the length of Vaas's career - so I excluded the time period before Vaas started playing just in case Murali was learning his chops at that stage.

If you have time run the numbers again with a time filter and compare the results.