India Thread

[Evermind]

Since 2006 Harbhajan has the 4th best economy rate in world cricket!

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/280455.html

Within that period, his avg has been 33.25.

Powar's: 25.45.

No contest.

 

[Richard]

Economy-rate > average.

No contest.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Economy-rate > average.

No contest.

I'd take someone with a better average everday.IMO wickets are so important in one day cricket and more so than having a good economy rate.

 

[Richard]

If everyone's economical you get a low total.

Wicket-taking is no use unless you're going to bowl-out your opposition.

 

[Pup Clarke]

I feel wicket taking creates so much pressure however.It can take a while for the new batsmen to adjust to the pitch and the bowling and this is when they can panic and usually when a team gets 1 wicket the 2nd is not far away.

 

[Richard]

It depends.

Bowl waywardly and batsmen never take long to get adjusted!

Wicket-taking is only very rarely any use when it's not done in conjunction with economical bowling. The reverse is not true.

 

[Evermind]

Economy-rate > average.

No contest.

Harbhajan's Econ: 4.14

Powar's Econ: 4.53

Percentage difference: 9.4%

Harby's average: 33.25

Powar's average: 25.45

Percentage difference: 30.6%

Harbhajan's batting average: 12+

Powar's batting average: 16+

No contest.

Powar, over a 10-over spell, will leak on average 4 runs more than Harbhajan. This will be made up exactly by his batting, which is 4 runs higher in terms of average than Harbhajan. So they are exactly level when taking only econ rate and batting into account. But Powar is 30% better when it comes to bowling average as compared to Harbhajan.

Harby's been picked on reputation and not on performance: like about a third of the Indian squad, TBH.

 

[Richard]

So long as the economy-rate is superior it doesn't matter what the % difference relative to average is.

Economy-rate is far more important than strike-rate in ODIs. Added to the fact that Powar's wicket-taking has been far more extensive to date than it's likely to continue to be.

 

[C_C]

If everyone's economical you get a low total.

Wicket-taking is no use unless you're going to bowl-out your opposition.

This is the difference between 'look good on paper' and 'reality'.
Reality is, you will rarely,if ever, have the opposition end their 50 overs with the score 210/2.
Nope not gonna happen.
If you are the 'ideal economic bowler', you will end up getting smashed after the 25 over point if the batting side has lost only 1 or 2 wkt by that time.
Batsmen know that the more runs the team score, the better. So having just containing bowlers would make it a 20-20 game after 30 overs for the batsmen and you'd see them leap from 120/1 after 30 to 270+ for 7-8 after 50 if you packed the side with super-stingy but not attacking bowlers.

In reality, a bowler who takes 4-5 wickets every 10 match more than you, but goes for 10-15 runs more every game than you, is just as valuable.
Ie, in reality, you need a Waqar Younis with the ball just as badly as you need Shaun Pollock. You also forget, that best way to slow down the scoring rate is to take wickets.
So therefore, while i agree that economy rate is more important, it is certainly not an end-all-be-all in ODI bowling and someone with a slightly better economy rate but massively inferior average will not make my team compared to his competition.

 

[adharcric]

Well said.

 

[C_C]

Added to the fact that Powar's wicket-taking has been far more extensive to date than it's likely to continue to be.

While i do not make it my business to predict the future, i must say that i don't agree.
True, Powar will never be a Saqlain Mushtaq in his glory days ( then again, no spinner but possibly Murali has reached that standard) but i do expect him to take more wickets than Harby and do well in the wicket-taking department.
You see, i've seen Powar bowl on more than a few occasions and while he doesn't have as good a control, he loves to the toss the ball up in ODIs instead of adopting a very flat and conservative line as Harby. This means he will get hit more on average but will probably take more wickets than Harby too.

 

[Swervy]

If everyone's economical you get a low total.

Wicket-taking is no use unless you're going to bowl-out your opposition.

I see you are continuing to miss the point Richard... CC sums it up quite nicely however

 

[Richard]

While i do not make it my business to predict the future, i must say that i don't agree.
True, Powar will never be a Saqlain Mushtaq in his glory days ( then again, no spinner but possibly Murali has reached that standard) but i do expect him to take more wickets than Harby and do well in the wicket-taking department.
You see, i've seen Powar bowl on more than a few occasions and while he doesn't have as good a control, he loves to the toss the ball up in ODIs instead of adopting a very flat and conservative line as Harby. This means he will get hit more on average but will probably take more wickets than Harby too.

Why does tossing the ball up make you more likely to take wickets?

It's no use unless the pitch is turning.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why does tossing the ball up make you more likely to take wickets?

It's no use unless the pitch is turning.

It gives you a better chance of beating the batsman in flight.

 

[Richard]

I see you are continuing to miss the point Richard... CC sums it up quite nicely however

Err, no, the "economy alone is no use" brigade miss the point.

This is the difference between 'look good on paper' and 'reality'.
Reality is, you will rarely,if ever, have the opposition end their 50 overs with the score 210/2.

Err, so? When did I say it will? If you restrict a team, wickets are going to be gifted away, so it'll be more like 210\7 or 8.

If you are the 'ideal economic bowler', you will end up getting smashed after the 25 over point if the batting side has lost only 1 or 2 wkt by that time.
Batsmen know that the more runs the team score, the better. So having just containing bowlers would make it a 20-20 game after 30 overs for the batsmen and you'd see them leap from 120/1 after 30 to 270+ for 7-8 after 50 if you packed the side with super-stingy but not attacking bowlers.

That's nonsense, apart from the fact that said "super-stingy" bowlers would likely do far better than 120\1 after 30, it'd probably be more like 100\3.

If you bowl in the right areas - obviously said right areas change as an innings goes on - the batting side won't be able to get away. So they'll throw wickets away trying to. So they won't be able to keep trying. So you'll be able to keep bowling economically.

It's a circular effect.

In reality, a bowler who takes 4-5 wickets every 10 match more than you, but goes for 10-15 runs more every game than you, is just as valuable.
Ie, in reality, you need a Waqar Younis with the ball just as badly as you need Shaun Pollock. You also forget, that best way to slow down the scoring rate is to take wickets.
So therefore, while i agree that economy rate is more important, it is certainly not an end-all-be-all in ODI bowling and someone with a slightly better economy rate but massively inferior average will not make my team compared to his competition.

No, the best way to take wickets is to slow the scoring-rate. The only way to slow the scoring rate is to bowl accurately. Taking wickets won't do so, if you take wickets and bowl waywardly the scoring-rate will still be a fast one. Won't matter if you bowl your oppo out, obviously.

 

[Richard]

It gives you a better chance of beating the batsman in flight.

But you're not going to get wickets just by beating the batsman in the flight - it needs to turn as well.

 

[Goughy]

Why does tossing the ball up make you more likely to take wickets?

It's no use unless the pitch is turning.

It gives you a better chance of beating the batsman in flight.

Agreed EWS.

The basic tennant of spin bowling since its dawn (along with turn) is flight. This means getting the ball above the eyeline of the batsman. This forces him to move his head and his eyes at least twice. At least once up and then once down.

This movement of the head makes judging the ball far more difficult. And makes inducing a false shot far more likely.

Spin101 really.

Wilf Rhodes (amongst others) talked a lot about it and it has been a weapon for as long has spin has been bowled and still is today

 

[Prince EWS]

But you're not going to get wickets just by beating the batsman in the flight - it needs to turn as well.

I disagree there. You probably won't get many stumpings with just flight, but if the batsman doesn't get the pitch of the ball - even if it doesn't turn - it gives you a much greater chance of inducing a catch.

 

[Richard]

Agreed EWS.

The basic tennant of spin bowling since its dawn (along with turn) is flight. This means getting the ball above the eyeline of the batsman. This forces him to move his head and his eyes at least twice. At least once up and then once down.

This movement of the head makes judging the ball far more difficult. And makes inducing a false shot far more likely.

Spin101 really.

Wilf Rhodes (amongst others) talked a lot about it and it has been a weapon for as long has spin has been bowled and still is today

Wilf Rhodes did play in a day when turning pitches were just a tad more commonplace, though.

Sure, loop and drift are essentials of spin-bowling but without turn neither is going to be a wicket-taking weapon in itself.

 

[Richard]

I disagree there. You probably won't get many stumpings with just flight, but if the batsman doesn't get the pitch of the ball - even if it doesn't turn - it gives you a much greater chance of inducing a catch.

Well, yes, but evidence suggests that said catches are going to come pretty irregularly.