ODI Bowlers - E/R V Wickets

[Richard]

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.

While obviously it helps to have early wickets, good accurate bowling can be economical (and as a result get wickets gifted from non-wicket-taking deliveries) even if a team has made, say, 70-1 off the first 13-14 overs.

You see it often enough on the relatively rare occasion you see poor bowling at the start then better stuff later. A team gets slowed down then loses wickets.

However, something that will never happen is 3 or 4 early wickets allowing inaccurate bowling later on to be economical. If a team is 60-4 after 15 overs then the bowling becomes poor, you will still see plenty of 250-300 totals.

 

[Richard]

I went for the wickets option, because early wickets improve the economy rates of the entire team for that match.

They don't without the bowling in question being economical though.

It's best expressed, IMO, as this:
Inaccurate bowling = high run-rate, regardless of wickets at ANY stage (whether it be before the inaccurate bowling or during it).
Accurate bowling + wicket-taking deliveries = very low run-rate.
Accurate bowling without wicket-taking deliveries = possibility of swinging both ways depending on how good the batting is, but always a decent bet of wickets being gifted due to good economy-rates.

 

[andruid]

I doubt you are going to win matches regularly without bowlers who can get people out.

 

[Richard]

You're going to win even less with bowlers who spray it all over the place regularly.

 

[Richard]

The trouble with the whole thing is that economical bowling and wickets falling are not separate things. Economical bowling causes wickets (though it doesn't work the other way around, contrary to some mistaken belief).

The essential thing of importance is wicket-taking deliveries vs consistent accuracy. The actual bowling, rather than the outcome.

 

[Uppercut]

While obviously it helps to have early wickets, good accurate bowling can be economical (and as a result get wickets gifted from non-wicket-taking deliveries) even if a team has made, say, 70-1 off the first 13-14 overs.

See, that's why it's such a hard question to answer. Keeping it tight in ODIs will almost invariably lead to wickets- if not for that bowler, for the others who players are forced to go after. Likewise, if a team loses early wickets, they'll always make a lower score than they would have with those wickets in hand. It's almost impossible to compare two values linked in a circular like that.

 

[Uppercut]

The trouble with the whole thing is that economical bowling and wickets falling are not separate things. Economical bowling causes wickets (though it doesn't work the other way around, contrary to some mistaken belief).

It most certainly works the other way round. Check the average scores of teams 3-4 down after 20 overs against the average scores of teams 0-1 down after 20 overs and i absolutely 100% guarantee there'll be a massive difference in their final score. Top order batsmen are more efficient at taking advantage of bad deliveries, and are free to take more risks when they have others coming in after them.

 

[Richard]

Checking-out average scores doesn't help. What you need to do is watch how bowling is treated. And I guarantee you, a lower-order batsman will look to (and more often than not will) smash a bad delivery every bit as regularly as a top-order one will.

Early wickets helps accurate bowling be economical, and accurate bowling will be much more economical with early wickets than without. But wayward bowling will be expensive, regardless of whether wickets are falling during it, or have fallen before it.

 

[Uppercut]

Checking-out average scores doesn't help. What you need to do is watch how bowling is treated. And I guarantee you, a lower-order batsman will look to (and more often than not will) smash a bad delivery every bit as regularly as a top-order one will.

Early wickets helps accurate bowling be economical, and accurate bowling will be much more economical with early wickets than without. But wayward bowling will be expensive, regardless of whether wickets are falling during it, or have fallen before it.

Well yeah. Like, if i were to come on in the middle overs of an ODI and bowl my trademark ridiculously inaccurate non-spinning leg-spin, i'm pretty sure i'd go for runs whatever the situation. Likewise if Shaun Pollock came out of retirement and bowled the greatest, most economical spell of all time it wouldn't go for runs, however many wickets in hand there were.

But there's a lot in between. For a bowler like, say, Paul Collingwood, the difference between him going for runs in the middle overs and keeping it tight will often be whether or not wickets were lost at the top. With wickets in hand, anything slightly too wide or straight- not a rank bad delivery, but a slight err in line- is likely to go for a boundary. At four down, he has a lot more leeway.

 

[Richard]

Collingwood (and the like of him) is a difficult one. Collingwood isn't really that good a bowler, but occasionally has bowled well. When he has, he has once or twice slowed a really quick scoring-rate.

However, I've seen him both get smashed after no early wickets and let the pressure off after some early wickets by allowing 4.3-4.4-an-over when a better bowler (Mark Ealham, for instance) would be keeping it to 3.5-an-over or quite possibly less.

It's front-line bowlers, not part-time mediocrities, that need consideration, IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

Collingwood (and the like of him) is a difficult one. Collingwood isn't really that good a bowler, but occasionally has bowled well. When he has, he has once or twice slowed a really quick scoring-rate.

However, I've seen him both get smashed after no early wickets and let the pressure off after some early wickets by allowing 4.3-4.4-an-over when a better bowler (Mark Ealham, for instance) would be keeping it to 3.5-an-over or quite possibly less.

It's front-line bowlers, not part-time mediocrities, that need consideration, IMO.

Yeah there's nothing there that isn't true. But it doesn't refute the claim that middle-overs economy is very much related to how many wickets have fallen.

 

[Furball]

I doubt you are going to win matches regularly without bowlers who can get people out.

In ODIs, that viewpoint doesn't make sense, given that taking wickets isn't a neccessary requirement to win an ODI.

 

[Richard]

Yeah there's nothing there that isn't true. But it doesn't refute the claim that middle-overs economy is very much related to how many wickets have fallen.

My point is and always has been that the run-rate in the middle of the innings has far more to do with the accuracy of the bowling than how many wickets fall, either during this middle period or at the start.

And also that at the start, you have to take lots of wickets - three or four - before it starts becoming a serious consideration. A couple of early wickets is of little use. Because wayward bowling will still disappear.

However, accurate, restrictive early bowling will a) make a couple of early wickets much more useful and b) increase the chance of more wickets from non-wicket-taking deliveries.

The essential point, really, is that the best ODI bowlers both bowl economically and take wickets. It utterly beggars belief to my mind that people would take a Brett Lee or Waqar Younis over a Glenn McGrath, Shaun Pollock or Curtley Ambrose. Economy + wickets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expensive wicket-taking.

 

[Athlai]

Is there any such thing as true wicket taking bowling that leads directly to a high run rate? Or economical bowling which doesn't lead to wickets? They're both joined, and while you can get wickets through serving up pies and a batsman making a mistake, nobody is condoning this as the best way to go about it. 1/30 is not as good as 3/40

That's the difference if the bowling is good. 3/60 is almost certainly not good bowling, somebody probably got out smashing you.

 

[silentstriker]

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.

A bit off topic, but I've seen Dhoni do just that. Haven't seen anyone else though.

 

[Athlai]

A bit off topic, but I've seen Dhoni do just that. Haven't seen anyone else though.

Oram did it off a free hit. Was amazing.

 

[Uppercut]

A bit off topic, but I've seen Dhoni do just that. Haven't seen anyone else though.

Heard about that, wasn't it in the last ODI series against England? Didn't actually see it though, you have a link?

 

[Ikki]

Ideally, you want a balance of both. But for me, someone like Warne is much more valuable to a ODI side than a Hadlee who has a lower ER. People seem to forget the batsmen in this equation. The longer a batsman stays at the crease the more likely he is to start scoring more freely. People overlook how this factors into a side. The bowler in question may bowl tight, but he will at most bowl only 1/5th of the overs in the game. The batsmen may take apart your other bowlers. Whereas a wicket-taker, even an expensive one, will change the course of the game. Not only that, he will trouble batsmen and keep them on the back-foot. Not only that, once a new batsman comes in they have to start and get set again - and getting them out, for your other bowlers, will be easier in comparison to having to bowl to set batsmen. And when even if the difference is 1 whole run per over, it is only 10 runs, and the effect of wicket-taking or bowling "dangerously" is much more valuable IMHO.

 

[Precambrian]

ER, it'd importance can't be overemphasised in today's cricket.

I'd take a Bhajji than an Agarkar.

 

[Richard]

Ideally, you want a balance of both. But for me, someone like Warne is much more valuable to a ODI side than a Hadlee who has a lower ER. People seem to forget the batsmen in this equation. The longer a batsman stays at the crease the more likely he is to start scoring more freely. People overlook how this factors into a side. The bowler in question may bowl tight, but he will at most bowl only 1/5th of the overs in the game. The batsmen may take apart your other bowlers. Whereas a wicket-taker, even an expensive one, will change the course of the game. Not only that, he will trouble batsmen and keep them on the back-foot. Not only that, once a new batsman comes in they have to start and get set again - and getting them out, for your other bowlers, will be easier in comparison to having to bowl to set batsmen. And when even if the difference is 1 whole run per over, it is only 10 runs, and the effect of wicket-taking or bowling "dangerously" is much more valuable IMHO.

One bowler can never make much of an impact on the game. If one bowler gets 10-30-1 or 10-55-4, if the rest of the attack is impenetrative and wayward, the opposition will get a massive score. No two ways about.

The point is more to do with a team. If you've got a lot of accurate bowlers you can restrict teams to 140-3 or so off 40 overs. Equally, if you've got lots of expensive wicket-takers you can have them 230 all out by then.

However, bowling economically is a more plausible skill than bowling lots of wicket-taking deliveries in 40 overs. You're only going to be able to do that on a minority of occasions. However, good bowlers can bowl economically with great regularity.