-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
ODI Bowlers - E/R V Wickets
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
Robertinho
Cricketer Of The Year
Bucking the trend 
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
It's not as simple as picking one or the other, as both are useful, and one can lead to the other. Usually a team that collapses to a barrage of wickets will slow down, against other bowlers if not the wicket taker, while similarly very tight bowling can lead to wickets being thrown away. In general though I think a reasonable haul of wickets in an expensive spell will be more useful than 0/20 or whatever. You're going to do more overall damage to the size of the total by knocking good batsmen over than by merely keeping it tight an allowing the opposition to score off weaker bowlers. In a team with one very good bowler (like say Sri Lanka) and relatively easy pickings elsewhere, it's a reasonably effective stategy to allow the good bowler tight overs in an effort to stop them taking wickets and attack the other bowlers. Australia did this in ODIs in recent years with Daniel Vettori, when New Zealand's other effective ODI bowlers were injured. That was also the approach against Murali in Sri Lanka in 03/04.
A bowler who takes big wickets regularly but sometimes goes for runs (like Lee for instance) is always going to be of value in the ODI format, and their impact is often underrated.
Incidentally, there was a pretty classic example of these different kinds of OD success in the domestic match between South Australia and Western Australia yesterday. In the WA innings, Jason Gillespie took 1/26 from his 10 overs, while Tait opened with him and got 4/62, with all his wickets coming from the top 7 batsmen. WA won by 1 wicket chasing 206, with 3 balls to spare. I'd argue Tait was the more effective bowler, but I suppose you could go either way. Given the size of the target, I doubt SA ever would have had a chance to win without taking wickets, and Tait provided that. Keeping it tight only goes so far.
A bowler who takes big wickets regularly but sometimes goes for runs (like Lee for instance) is always going to be of value in the ODI format, and their impact is often underrated.
Incidentally, there was a pretty classic example of these different kinds of OD success in the domestic match between South Australia and Western Australia yesterday. In the WA innings, Jason Gillespie took 1/26 from his 10 overs, while Tait opened with him and got 4/62, with all his wickets coming from the top 7 batsmen. WA won by 1 wicket chasing 206, with 3 balls to spare. I'd argue Tait was the more effective bowler, but I suppose you could go either way. Given the size of the target, I doubt SA ever would have had a chance to win without taking wickets, and Tait provided that. Keeping it tight only goes so far.
Last edited:
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
The classic 'pro wicket takers' example would be Imran and his 'cornered tigers' speech where he told Wasim to stop worrying about no-balls, wides, runs etc and just bowl as dangerously as possible.
The speach has obviously entered folklore and is heavily atributed to turning Pakistan around in the 92 WC and helping them win it.
The speach has obviously entered folklore and is heavily atributed to turning Pakistan around in the 92 WC and helping them win it.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
It's all made to look far, far too simple...
The reality of the situation is, if you have 4 or 5 bowlers who are capable of keeping the economy-rate tight (eg 3.7-3.8-an-over), you WILL keep your opponents to low totals. It doesn't matter if a team is 180\2 after 50 overs, that's far better than 260\9.
It's no use taking a wicket or two at the top of the innings, going for 5-an-over in your first 6 overs, then coming back at or near the death and taking another couple while going for 7-an-over. That doesn't help your team at all. But it looks good for your average when you get 10-58-4. And if you were to bowl well next spell and take, say, 10-37-3, then people would react "ah, see, wicket-taking is key". This is very typical of, for example, Brett Lee and James Anderson.
A more persuasive case for the opposition is Makhaya Ntini. Typically, his figures tend either to be 7-48-1 or 10-38-3. He either goes for plenty and poses little threat, or he takes wickets and keeps it relatively tight. THIS is more the sort of bowler you want, if you can't have the Pollocks, McGraths, Frasers whose good days vastly outnumber the bad and whose tactics to take wickets and bowl economically always go hand-in-hand.
However, if you have 4 Mark Ealham\Gavin Larsen type bowlers, you won't go far wrong. These types of bowlers will give you far more low totals to go after than will the Andersons of this World.
The trouble at the current time is that there aren't enough bowlers capable of bowling in that way. Too much emphasis is placed on bowlers who appear to be wicket-takers, but who in reality take few wickets and usually get belted to boot. One pertinent example is given in this poll - Sajid Mahmood couldn't exemplify the case better.
It shouldn't be ignored that the vast majority of the best ODI bowlers (Donald, de Villiers, Matthews, Dale, Fleming, Gillespie, Vaas, Wasim Akram, Gough, Caddick, Mullally) have been more than capable of bowling economically and taking wickets.
What should be patently obvious to even the non-Einsteins of this World, though, is that batsmen don't just happily plod along at 3.5-an-over for 40 overs - they make some sort of attempt to up the rate! And thereby often gift their wickets away without the need to bowl wicket-taking deliveries. One thing, though - bowling economically is about more than just bowling length. At some stage in a one-day game, you need to switch from standard-good-length to blockhole-length. Bowlers capable of doing that have always been precious, and there are very few around at the current time, meaning that if a side makes 180\3 off 40 overs they can have a decent chance of smashing 80-100 off the last 10, thereby making a decent total. But with good death-bowlers, 180\3 off 40 is much more likely than not to turn into 220\9 off 50 or maybe even 210ao off 46.
The only way taking wickets is going to be better than bowling economically is if you can bowl your opposition out for 190 off 38 overs.
The reality of the situation is, if you have 4 or 5 bowlers who are capable of keeping the economy-rate tight (eg 3.7-3.8-an-over), you WILL keep your opponents to low totals. It doesn't matter if a team is 180\2 after 50 overs, that's far better than 260\9.
It's no use taking a wicket or two at the top of the innings, going for 5-an-over in your first 6 overs, then coming back at or near the death and taking another couple while going for 7-an-over. That doesn't help your team at all. But it looks good for your average when you get 10-58-4. And if you were to bowl well next spell and take, say, 10-37-3, then people would react "ah, see, wicket-taking is key". This is very typical of, for example, Brett Lee and James Anderson.
A more persuasive case for the opposition is Makhaya Ntini. Typically, his figures tend either to be 7-48-1 or 10-38-3. He either goes for plenty and poses little threat, or he takes wickets and keeps it relatively tight. THIS is more the sort of bowler you want, if you can't have the Pollocks, McGraths, Frasers whose good days vastly outnumber the bad and whose tactics to take wickets and bowl economically always go hand-in-hand.
However, if you have 4 Mark Ealham\Gavin Larsen type bowlers, you won't go far wrong. These types of bowlers will give you far more low totals to go after than will the Andersons of this World.
The trouble at the current time is that there aren't enough bowlers capable of bowling in that way. Too much emphasis is placed on bowlers who appear to be wicket-takers, but who in reality take few wickets and usually get belted to boot. One pertinent example is given in this poll - Sajid Mahmood couldn't exemplify the case better.
It shouldn't be ignored that the vast majority of the best ODI bowlers (Donald, de Villiers, Matthews, Dale, Fleming, Gillespie, Vaas, Wasim Akram, Gough, Caddick, Mullally) have been more than capable of bowling economically and taking wickets.
What should be patently obvious to even the non-Einsteins of this World, though, is that batsmen don't just happily plod along at 3.5-an-over for 40 overs - they make some sort of attempt to up the rate! And thereby often gift their wickets away without the need to bowl wicket-taking deliveries. One thing, though - bowling economically is about more than just bowling length. At some stage in a one-day game, you need to switch from standard-good-length to blockhole-length. Bowlers capable of doing that have always been precious, and there are very few around at the current time, meaning that if a side makes 180\3 off 40 overs they can have a decent chance of smashing 80-100 off the last 10, thereby making a decent total. But with good death-bowlers, 180\3 off 40 is much more likely than not to turn into 220\9 off 50 or maybe even 210ao off 46.
The only way taking wickets is going to be better than bowling economically is if you can bowl your opposition out for 190 off 38 overs.
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
Well that was stating the obvious
Personally i think a mix of both in your side works nicely - like Lee and McGrath or as was said Tait and Gillespie for South Australia. It means you can attack at times and defend at times as appropriate.
If i was going to load my side with one or the other i would go the wicket takers though. For me a tight spell can be pretty easily beaten by a few good overs - and in todays game, with the ropes in a and flat pitches etc that happens more often. Someone like Gilchrist, Symonds or Cam White can hit you for 6 no matter where you bowl.
A batsman however cannot score more runs when they are out, and losing wickets heaps the pressure back onto the batting side, which allows the captain to attack more. Especially against sides with long tails like England, a few quick wickets can destroy their chances of making a big total.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
No-one in the history of cricket has ever been able to hit a ball aimed at their feet for six, because it's not possible to get under it. Nor one out of their reach (possible if they give themselves a bit of room and you go Yorker or Full-Toss a decent bit outside Off).
And those wickets are likely to come whether you bowl wicket-taking balls or not.
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
shots can be manufactured to hit anything though, its not impossible. Batsmen would usually back away or walk down the pitch to create something though.
Did you see Ryan Campbell playing his scoop shot a few years back for Australia A?
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
Strike bowlers who can take wickets plus a couple of all-rounders who can keep it tight is the perfect situation IMO.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Bowlers who can keep it tight are a rarity in themselves; bowlers who can keep it tight and bat are precious few.
Bowlers who can bat and take wickets are probably more common.
Anyway as I've said before, the main thing is that in ODIs the only time taking wickets is of real use is if you take 3 or 4 and take them early on. Wickets in the middle are not much use and wickets at the end are completely meaningless and serve only to make your figures look better than you deserve them to be.
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
Then the two would probably even themselves out. Either 20 runs per wicket at an ER of 6 giving you 200 all out in 33 overs, or 50 runs per wicket at an ER of 4 giving you 200/4 in 50 overs.Yeah of course, but what if you had to pick an attack entirely consisting of one or the other?
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
That's kind of what I meant, strike bowlers early and the rest to keep it as tight as possible, helped by the fact the batting team are already 3/4 down.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I went for the wickets option, because early wickets improve the economy rates of the entire team for that match. Still, it's a difficult question to answer. Much easier to compare individual players, everyone's a certain mix of economy and wicket-taking ability.