Who is the second great leg spinner ever?

[a massive zebra]

No, economy-rate is every bit as important as strike-rate really.

Well that is a rather simplistic way of looking at things - I do not think it is as black and white as saying economy rate and strike rate are equally important. The relative importance of each statistical variable depends on the demands of the team and therefore what you require a bowler for. For example, when you give the new ball to your opening bowler, many a captain would actually like quick wickets (potentially at the expense of a few runs that would not have been leaked by a less dangerous bowler) in order to expose batsmen 3, 4 and 5 to the new ball. In such circumstances, a bowler who gets wickets quickly but maybe more expensively is your man. However, if your main wicket taking bowlers are your spinners, as was the case with India throught the 70s and Sri Lanka in recent times, you really only want the opening bowlers to take the shine off the new ball and bowl a few tight overs, in which case a very economical but perhaps unthreatening bowler would be ideal.

 

[weldone]

One should not just look at the strike rates of two particular bowlers from completely different eras and blindly assume that one was more dangerous but less accurate than the other because he had a superior strike rate but inferior economy rate. Circumstances in existence at the time must also be taken into account.

In my view, one of the prime reasons for the superior strike rates but inferior economy rates of Murali and Warne in comparison with O'Reilly and Grimmett is the more aggressive mentality of modern batsmen brought on by the prominence of one day cricket. With so much one day cricket being played these days, it is difficult for batsmen not to bring their one day game over to the Test area. With one day time constraints, batsmen must take risks in order to be rewarded with quick runs, but in doing so provide bowlers with higher possibilities for wicket taking.

There is a direct relationship between the increasing prominence of one day cricket and a consistent increase of Test match run rates. With the exception of the 1950s and early 1960s, such run rates were consistent at around 2.6 to 2.7 runs per over thoughout the period 1920-1970, but have since risen on a consistent basis to their current level of around 3.1. Over the entirety of the period mentioned above, there were almost always some spin bowlers with economy rates around 2 per over, from O'Reilly in the 30s to Laker in the 50s to Bedi in the 70s, but these days the lowest that can be seen is Murali's 2.4. This despite the fact that Bradman said "Murali shows perhaps the best discipline of any bowler since the war."

I also believe it is no coincidence that many of the best strike rates shown in SJS's post above were recorded by bowlers who played during the golden age, a period in which run rates were almost on a par with modern times.

Very true...And that's why average is a much better measure of test match bowling performances than strike rate or economy rate because it can pass the test of time...average depends on both s.r. and e.r. and that's why a bowler from previous years who had better e.r. but worse s.r. can be compared to a bowler from recent ages who has the opposite...but of course even averages shouldn't be taken in isolation...so many other factors do play a part like the pitch, the quality of batting, the size of ground, the quality of bats to name a few...

 

[a massive zebra]

Very true...And that's why average is a much better measure of test match bowling performances than strike rate or economy rate because it can pass the test of time...average depends on both s.r. and e.r. and that's why a bowler from previous years who had better e.r. but worse s.r. can be compared to a bowler from recent ages who has the opposite...but of course even averages shouldn't be taken in isolation...so many other factors do play a part like the pitch, the quality of batting, the size of ground, the quality of bats to name a few...

AWTA

 

[weldone]

AWTA

What's the full form of AWTA?

 

[a massive zebra]

What's the full form of AWTA?

Agree with the above.

 

[bagapath]

oreilly took five wickets per test match giving away less that 23 runs per wicket (the best ever for a leggie). he took a wicket, on average, every 12th over.

warne took 4.5 wickets per test conceding less than 26 runs and he, on average, took a wicket every 10th over.

if one was quicker in taking wickets the other one was conceding less runs per scalp despite bowling two more overs. strike rate and economy in this argument should nullify each other. warne struck faster, oreilly bowled tighter. deuce.

look at wickets per test, oreilly comes on top.

 

[weldone]

I am trying to give this Warne vs. O'Reilly debate a new viewpoint...Since O'Reilly played all of his test cricket between ages 27 and 33 due to World War II (except the 1 test that he played in 1946), I wanted to see the performances of Warne between ages 27 and 33 (i.e. between 1996 and 2002) and compare it to performances of O'Reilly -

O'Reilly (1932-1938)
1569 579 3221 136 10 3 7/54 23.68 72.87 2.05

Warne (1996-2002)
2846.1 696 7896 285 13 3 7/94 27.71 59.92 2.77

Though I admit disregarding Warne's other achievements throughout his long career will be criminal, this is just another viewpoint presented by me...

 

[Richard]

Agree with the first part of your post...Didn't get the last part...Are you trying to say that if averages are similar then it's difficult to judge who's better because S.R. and E.R. are equally important?...If that's what you're trying to say then I agree to the fullest...

Pretty much. Strike- and economy-rate combine to make average. Essentially. There is a constant relationship between the three.

 

[weldone]

Pretty much. Strike- and economy-rate combine to make average. Essentially. There is a constant relationship between the three.

Hmmm....but though e.r. and s.r. are equally important in tests, the first is more important than the second in ODIs...i.e. if 2 bowlers have similar averages in ODIs, then the one with better e.r. definitely has the upper hand, s.r. is not of much importance there...but there is also a catch in ODIs, e.r. of bowlers of 70s, 80s and early 90s is bound to be better than than of bowlers in late 90s and later. So a clear-cut comparison can't be made between bowlers of these two ODI eras; although a comparison can be made after discounting by a factor maybe...

 

[Richard]

Well that is a rather simplistic way of looking at things - I do not think it is as black and white as saying economy rate and strike rate are equally important. The relative importance of each statistical variable depends on the demands of the team and therefore what you require a bowler for. For example, when you give the new ball to your opening bowler, many a captain would actually like quick wickets (potentially at the expense of a few runs that would not have been leaked by a less dangerous bowler) in order to expose batsmen 3, 4 and 5 to the new ball. In such circumstances, a bowler who gets wickets quickly but maybe more expensively is your man. However, if your main wicket taking bowlers are your spinners, as was the case with India throught the 70s and Sri Lanka in recent times, you really only want the opening bowlers to take the shine off the new ball and bowl a few tight overs, in which case a very economical but perhaps unthreatening bowler would be ideal.

Of course, matters change with circumstances. It's a decent general rule (the statement in my previous post) but no more than that, as you can fairly safely assume that most careers will take a fairly similar path as players play under different conditions, with different fellow bowlers, etc.

The obvious truth, though, is that good economy-rate > less good economy-rate. And equally obviously, the same applies to strike-rate. Not all forms of attack are polar-opposite to forms of defence. Some bowlers (Glenn McGrath) can use the same means to attack as to defend. Some bowlers (Waqar Younis) use methods of attack which don't go well hand-in-hand with defence.

In a five-day game, though, an average of (for example) 25 is no better or worse through being gained from a SR of 60 and an ER of 2.5-an-over than being gained through a SR of 49 and an ER of 3-an-over. They really are the exact same.

 

[Richard]

Hmmm....but though e.r. and s.r. are equally important in tests, the first is more important than the second in ODIs...i.e. if 2 bowlers have similar averages in ODIs, then the one with better e.r. definitely has the upper hand, s.r. is not of much importance there...but there is also a catch in ODIs, e.r. of bowlers of 70s, 80s and early 90s is bound to be better than than of bowlers in late 90s and later. So a clear-cut comparison can't be made between bowlers of these two ODI eras; although a comparison can be made after discounting by a factor maybe...

I'm only talking about Tests. In ODIs, I honestly don't care greatly about SR - ER is overwhelmingly the more important factor. Even if you don't take any wickets, you can still restrict totals by bowling economically (though obviously the truth is that if you restrict in OD cricket, batsmen don't just play out overs and finish 170 for 2, they'll try and up the rate and end-up throwing their wickets away).

 

[Ikki]

No, economy-rate is every bit as important as strike-rate really.

Sure it is Richie, sure it is.

 

[Ikki]

Very true...And that's why average is a much better measure of test match bowling performances than strike rate or economy rate because it can pass the test of time...average depends on both s.r. and e.r. and that's why a bowler from previous years who had better e.r. but worse s.r. can be compared to a bowler from recent ages who has the opposite...but of course even averages shouldn't be taken in isolation...so many other factors do play a part like the pitch, the quality of batting, the size of ground, the quality of bats to name a few...

No it isn't. Average only gauges the performance in terms of runs conceded per wicket. In tests, you need to take wickets. Averaging low, with a complementing ER, yet striking very slowly does your team no favours in regards to time. The quicker you take wickets and finish off a match the better. Yes, in some instances, speed is not required, but that's not the point. Because when you have two bowlers and you will want wickets you want the one who is able to do so - which is more often than not the situation.

 

[Richard]

Averaging low, with a complementing ER, yet striking very slowly does your team no favours in regards to time. The quicker you take wickets and finish off a match the better.

No, winning in 4 days 2 sessions is no different whatsoever to winning in 2 days 1 session. Test cricket lasts 5 days, 15 sessions, and 450 (or 444 once three changes of innings have happened) overs. As long as you strike quickly enough to take 20 wickets in this time, it's all the same.

 

[Ikki]

oreilly took five wickets per test match giving away less that 23 runs per wicket (the best ever for a leggie). he took a wicket, on average, every 12th over.

warne took 4.5 wickets per test conceding less than 26 runs and he, on average, took a wicket every 10th over.

if one was quicker in taking wickets the other one was conceding less runs per scalp despite bowling two more overs. strike rate and economy in this argument should nullify each other. warne struck faster, oreilly bowled tighter. deuce.

look at wickets per test, oreilly comes on top.

That's because O'Reilly bowls 62 overs a Test whereas Warne bowls about 47. If Warne had bowled the same amount per test he would have more wickets per test - it's that simple. He would also have more big hauls.

Consider the game today, no bowler would be given 62 overs to strike every 12 overs. You need to take wickets faster and one that can is much preferable to one that can't. It's like comparing a Ford and a Ferrari. Both can take you to the same destination within an alotted time, but one can do it faster and gives you the option to do other things.

Let's think of it in this way: Let's say both bowlers take 4 wickets: Warne will concede 101 runs and will take 38 overs to do so; O'Reilly will concede 90 runs and will take 46 overs to do so. The difference is then 11 runs in favour of O'Reilly but 8 overs in favour of Warne. Even at O'Reilly's low ER, if he were to bowl the extra 8 overs, he would concede 16 runs...that's 5 runs over the alotted 11. So in terms of wicket taking AND keeping runs down Warne is ahead. Because, of course, the less overs you bowl the less you concede. And if you can take the same amount of wickets but bowl less and hence concede less runs then you are, in this comparison, superior.

BTW, let's not forget O'Reilly faced a pretty pathetic S.Africa for 7/27 Tests.

 

[Ikki]

No, winning in 4 days 2 sessions is no different whatsoever to winning in 2 days 1 session. Test cricket lasts 5 days, 15 sessions, and 450 (or 444 once three changes of innings have happened) overs. As long as you strike quickly enough to take 20 wickets in this time, it's all the same.

Bowling so many overs per match is always a window to let the opposition in or a risk in weather. Bowling so many overs per match when you can bowl less, give your batsmen a rest and start the next innings is always better. Also, the fact that one can do it quicker than the other is a matter of having more skill, regardless if it is needed or not. I think we had this discussion before, there are many reasons and scenarios where being able to strike quicker is simply better. No one bowls more overs and tries to concede little if they can actually take wickets faster. That would be stupid, just because the time-frame may allow it.

 

[Richard]

Bowling so many overs per match is always a window to let the opposition in or a risk in weather. Bowling so many overs per match when you can bowl less, give your batsmen a rest and start the next innings is always better.

Not really. Some batsmen appreciate maximum time between innings, some always want to bat again soon. And no cricket or cricketer should ever be judged by the fact that the weather has interfered. Never. You play a Test expecting it to last its course. With any luck, we'll eventually have a situation where overs aren't lost and these multiple silly criticisms of cricketers because the weather has disadvantaged them will be removed.

Also, the fact that one can do it quicker than the other is a matter of having more skill, regardless if it is needed or not.

Bowling overs for less runs also involves more skill than bowling the same for more runs - the same difference in skill between taking wickets more quickly or more slowly.

 

[Ikki]

Not really. Some batsmen appreciate maximum time between innings, some always want to bat again soon. And no cricket or cricketer should ever be judged by the fact that the weather has interfered. Never. You play a Test expecting it to last its course. With any luck, we'll eventually have a situation where overs aren't lost and these multiple silly criticisms of cricketers because the weather has disadvantaged them will be removed.

Bowling overs for less runs also involves more skill than bowling the same for more runs - the same difference in skill between taking wickets more quickly or more slowly.

See

"Let's think of it in this way: Let's say both bowlers take 4 wickets: Warne will concede 101 runs and will take 38 overs to do so; O'Reilly will concede 90 runs and will take 46 overs to do so. The difference is then 11 runs in favour of O'Reilly but 8 overs in favour of Warne. Even at O'Reilly's low ER, if he were to bowl the extra 8 overs, he would concede 16 runs...that's 5 runs over the alotted 11. So in terms of wicket taking AND keeping runs down Warne is ahead. Because, of course, the less overs you bowl the less you concede. And if you can take the same amount of wickets but bowl less and hence concede less runs then you are, in this comparison, superior.

BTW, let's not forget O'Reilly faced a pretty pathetic S.Africa for 7/27 Tests."

BTW? Which batsmen in their right mind wants to have more time fielding and less time batting? That's just a bizarre statement. Also, it is not to blame, per say, a player for weather. But the fact is that it's a common end to a match and you'd have to be foolish thinking you can have bowlers with an SR of 70 and expect to get away with it.

 

[Richard]

Let's think of it in this way: Let's say both bowlers take 4 wickets: Warne will concede 101 runs and will take 38 overs to do so; O'Reilly will concede 90 runs and will take 46 overs to do so. The difference is then 11 runs in favour of O'Reilly but 8 overs in favour of Warne. Even at O'Reilly's low ER, if he were to bowl the extra 8 overs, he would concede 16 runs...

... and might take another wicket.

BTW, let's not forget O'Reilly faced a pretty pathetic S.Africa for 7/27 Tests.

South Africa were far from pathetic by the 1930s. They hadn't been so since 1905/06 in fact.

BTW? Which batsmen in their right mind wants to have more time fielding and less time batting? That's just a bizarre statement.

Some batsmen like time between innings - as do near enough all bowlers.

 

[Ikki]

... and might take another wicket.

Not likely, considering he takes 12 on average. And regardless, we are trying to keep the same ratios in terms of average, economy rate and strike rate. So if we were to assume he'd take another wicket we should also give Warne another wicket which would again put him in the lead. This is the difference between SR and ER. If O'Reilly had at least kept the total runs he conceded down despite bowling the extra overs, then that would be a starting point - but he doesn't.

South Africa were far from pathetic by the 1930s. They hadn't been so since 1905/06 in fact.

Look, we've discussed this. I brought a truckload of bowlers and their records Vs S.Africa and pretty much everyone showed very good to amazing figures against them. You'd really have to be stupid not to accept this. This isn't an insult, but a general statement. To ignore that many bowlers and their record Vs S.Africa is just idiocy.

And the link above is just for 3 teams. How many bowlers could 3 teams possible have? ****, even Stan McCabe does well against them. Pretty much all the top ones improved on their career figures. I've seen you go to some depth defying lows, but this one is a new level.

Some batsmen like time between innings - as do near enough all bowlers.

So batsmen like getting tired fielding and then like going in batting with less time than they otherwise would have gotten if the bowlers had bowled faster... Do you EVER read the crap that you type?