ODI Bowlers - E/R V Wickets

[Ikki]

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.

You don't seem to understand, you will never get totally one or the other. Wasim Akram may have not been the best economically (he was still good) but the ability he had to take wickets in a bunch and change the game is what made him more important, not the fact that he restricted runs/had a decent ER. It doesn't matter if the others do or do not perform. But the latter bowler's figures suggests he rattled the opposition more and this can only make it easier for his fellow bowlers to take wickets. Whether they do or not is outside the context of my point.

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.

No, as long as the wicket-takers have a good enough* average it doesn't matter.

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.

Plausible? How? Bowlers like Lee and Wasim are known for threatening throughout the game. As I said, if your average per wicket is fine, then I don't care if your ER is higher than usual.

*good enough meaning they are not expensive in terms of runs per wicket - regardless what they give up per over.

 

[krkode]

Just as a side note, Wasim Akram had a phenomenal E/R. Under 4!

I think Waqar Younis is a more apt comparison... someone with a superb average and strike rate, but also someone who arguably exceeded too many runs.

As it were, there was an interesting analysis done on one of the cricinfo related blogs the other day concerning the best ODI bowling performances. I forget where Waqar's 6-59 was placed, but I just remember he had a lot of performances in the top. But I guess that's Waqar for you - phenomenal on a good day, quite horrible at other times.

And to answer the original question (which I realize is a year old by now!) I would generally want both kinds of bowlers in a lineup. There will always be the exception of a guy like McGrath or Akram who are both tidy and capable of picking up wickets/troubling the batsmen. But then there's guys like Agarkar/Waqar who were more about taking wickets but exceeded a lot of runs. And since Akrams and McGraths are really once in a generation, you just have to settle for some of these "lesser bowlers.."

Come to think of it, who is an example of a bowler who didn't take too many wickets but was "tidy" as per the OPs criteria? Could it be argued that a lot of bowlers who were truly tidy also happened to be decent wicket-takers...? Pollock, McGrath, Akram, etc. were definitely no slouches when it came to picking up wickets in ODIs... Sure maybe they weren't on the level as Waqar Younis or Shane Bond with their 29-30 strike rate, but frankly, who is?

 

[albo97056]

Would you rather have:

Waqar Younis - sr 30, econ 4.68
Mark Ealham sr 48, econ 4.0

Lots more ridiculous ones but its obvious econ isnt everything.... Ealham wasnt bad but he wouldnt exactly make the batsmen worried

I think Rich is an Ealham fan though so this might not be the best example

 

[Richard]

You don't seem to understand, you will never get totally one or the other. Wasim Akram may have not been the best economically (he was still good) but the ability he had to take wickets in a bunch and change the game is what made him more important, not the fact that he restricted runs/had a decent ER. It doesn't matter if the others do or do not perform. But the latter bowler's figures suggests he rattled the opposition more and this can only make it easier for his fellow bowlers to take wickets. Whether they do or not is outside the context of my point.

Wasim Akram is the best ODI bowler in modern ODI history because he could bowl economically at the start and the end of the innings - as well as take wickets at the start. If he couldn't do one of the above, there'd be someone who was better than him. However, no-one else did it to the effect he did.

Had Wasim's economy-rate been poor, either at the start or end, he'd only have been a middling bowler and the likes of Pollock and Ambrose would've been vastly superior.

No, as long as the wicket-takers have a good enough* average it doesn't matter.
*good enough meaning they are not expensive in terms of runs per wicket - regardless what they give up per over.

It does matter. An average of 23 at 3.72-an-over (for example) > an average of 23 at 4.63-an-over. If you offer the ability to take wickets only, and no control, you ask more of the rest of the attack. If you offer both, you offer something to the rest of the attack.

Plausible? How? Bowlers like Lee and Wasim are known for threatening throughout the game. As I said, if your average per wicket is fine, then I don't care if your ER is higher than usual.

In which case you don't understand what makes a good one-day bowler. A good economy-rate + a good strike-rate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a poor economy-rate and a good strike-rate. And yes, average is a combination of the two, but a good average earned through a good economy-rate > one earned through a good strike-rate. This puts less pressure on other bowlers.

 

[Richard]

Would you rather have:

Waqar Younis - sr 30, econ 4.68
Mark Ealham sr 48, econ 4.0

Lots more ridiculous ones but its obvious econ isnt everything.... Ealham wasnt bad but he wouldnt exactly make the batsmen worried

I think Rich is an Ealham fan though so this might not be the best example

Worrying the batsmen isn't the important thing - stopping them scoring is.

In answer as to who you'd rather have: at the start, Waqar. In the middle, Ealham. Waqar was damn good for taking wickets at the start of the innings, but he went for runs doing it. Ealham offered control of the highest order when you needed it most.

As for the comparison between a Waqar or Pollock\Ambrose\McGrath\Vaas\etc. it isn't even close. You have the economical wickets over the expensive wickets ANY DAY.

 

[Ikki]

Wasim Akram is the best ODI bowler in modern ODI history because he could bowl economically at the start and the end of the innings - as well as take wickets at the start. If he couldn't do one of the above, there'd be someone who was better than him. However, no-one else did it to the effect he did.

Had Wasim's economy-rate been poor, either at the start or end, he'd only have been a middling bowler and the likes of Pollock and Ambrose would've been vastly superior.

The difference between Wasim Akram's economy and Warne's is about 3 runs per match. Yet one is seen as having a good economy and the other is seen as having a bad one. This frankly, is ridiculous. Even bigger differences between other players are exaggerated.

The ability to change the game to take a wicket > the ability to not concede much.

It does matter. An average of 23 at 3.72-an-over (for example) > an average of 23 at 4.63-an-over. If you offer the ability to take wickets only, and no control, you ask more of the rest of the attack. If you offer both, you offer something to the rest of the attack.

No, it doesn't matter. One player will give concede 9 less runs whilst the other is more likely to take a wicket. You trade off and see what you need. Frankly, I would rather someone like Lee than someone like Hadlee.

In which case you don't understand what makes a good one-day bowler. A good economy-rate + a good strike-rate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a poor economy-rate and a good strike-rate. And yes, average is a combination of the two, but a good average earned through a good economy-rate > one earned through a good strike-rate. This puts less pressure on other bowlers.

Richard, you're verging back into the "crap-talking" part of your posting again. Give your point of view, but don't be so pretentious to actually try and state what is what and then say it is "undeniable, without a doubt, invariably true".

Anyway the difference would be: a not-so-good economy rate + a great strike rate vs a good average + a good economy rate.

 

[Richard]

The difference between Wasim Akram's economy and Warne's is about 3 runs per match. Yet one is seen as having a good economy and the other is seen as having a bad one. This frankly, is ridiculous. Even bigger differences between other players are exaggerated.

The ability to change the game to take a wicket > the ability to not concede much.

No-one has said Warne's economy-rate is poor, it's simply not from the very top bracket. Warne was an excellent ODI bowler. But no, economy-rates don't work like you suggest they do. People don't do the same thing every game. The difference between an economy-rate of 3.8 and 4.2 is considerable.

No, it doesn't matter. One player will give concede 9 less runs whilst the other is more likely to take a wicket. You trade off and see what you need. Frankly, I would rather someone like Lee than someone like Hadlee.

Lee and Hadlee played in different ODI eras so are incomparable, but someone preferring Lee to a Pollock, McGrath or Ambrose doesn't have a clue how to select a good ODI bowler.

Richard, you're verging back into the "crap-talking" part of your posting again. Give your point of view, but don't be so pretentious to actually try and state what is what and then say it is "undeniable, without a doubt, invariably true".

I'd have thought it was so obvious it barely even needed to be stated as opinion, frankly. How one can prefer expensive to economical when wicket-taking factors are the same is completely beyond me.

 

[morgieb]

A balance of both, but preferably wickets.

 

[morgieb]

No-one has said Warne's economy-rate is poor, it's simply not from the very top bracket. Warne was an excellent ODI bowler. But no, economy-rates don't work like you suggest they do. People don't do the same thing every game. The difference between an economy-rate of 3.8 and 4.2 is considerable.

Lee and Hadlee played in different ODI eras so are incomparable, but someone preferring Lee to a Pollock, McGrath or Ambrose doesn't have a clue how to select a good ODI bowler.

Oh, 4 extra runs makes a huge difference doesn't it.
Also, while Amrose/Pollock/McGrath are all better bowlers than Lee, he's still a good bowler.

 

[Richard]

Oh, 4 extra runs makes a huge difference doesn't it.

As I've said more times than I can remember, economy-rates don't work like that and those who think they do don't have a clue how ODI cricket works. 3.8-an-over doesn't mean you always concede 38 in 10 overs; 4.2-an-over doesn't mean you always concede 42. The former means you've got an excellent chance of bowling a good spell and very rarely bowl a poor one; the latter means you've got merely a good chance and only rarely-ish bowl a poor one.

The difference between 3.8-an-over and 4.2-an-over is quite a bit over a lengthy career.

 

[albo97056]

Worrying the batsmen isn't the important thing - stopping them scoring is.

In answer as to who you'd rather have: at the start, Waqar. In the middle, Ealham. Waqar was damn good for taking wickets at the start of the innings, but he went for runs doing it. Ealham offered control of the highest order when you needed it most.

As for the comparison between a Waqar or Pollock\Ambrose\McGrath\Vaas\etc. it isn't even close. You have the economical wickets over the expensive wickets ANY DAY.

Obviously - noone would take a wicket taker with high economy over someone who can do both, thats not the question

If you have 1 spot in your team and you have to pick one or the other who do you go for? Waqar or Ealham? Simple question.. totally hypothetical, but worthwhile none the less

I think economical bowlers are essential for control, but who gives them that control? Imagine Ealham coming on after the ball gets smashed around.. say 100 off 15, compared to 50/4, hes going to be twice as effective in the second instance at keeping runs down, simply because the strike bowlers have gotten wickets up top. If you have an economical bowler who doesnt take wickets up top... the pressure falls on those change bowlers, it doesnt matter if they are the best line and length bowlers in the world ever.. they will go for 6 an over at least if the batting side are none down.

Your talk of having a side 200/3 in 50 instead of 230 ao is a non starter...no team would do that (these days) even against the best econ bowlers... if you are 100/0 you take risks and either fold or get 300. Economy always comes from wicket taking. I bet none of your so called middle over guys ever did better than their career econ after a side went wicketless in the first 20 overs!

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

IMO the comparisons with the mid-90s bowlers are as outdated as those from the 80s now. Using Mark Ealham as an example in current cricket just doesn't work because there's no way he could average out at less than 4-an-over over a long period of time.

As has been said, the two are (to some extent) interdependent. If you've got someone bowling 10-0-25-0 from one end, wickets will eventually tumble at the other. Likewise I'm not really bought by the 'wickets other than at the start of the innings are useless' argument, purely because of the number of occasions (second innings predominantly) you see a genuine strike bowler return and remove a set batsman, turning the course of the game. And while wickets near the death don't massively curtail the run rate, having two set batsmen at the crease for the duration of the last 10 - provided both can keep the boundaries flowing - is the ideal situation.

 

[Flem274*]

Does anybody elses eyes go blurry when they read the endless Richard vs someone persistent post wars?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Does anybody elses eyes go blurry when they read the endless Richard vs someone persistent post wars?

Add that to the long list of good reasons not to read them.

 

[Richard]

IMO the comparisons with the mid-90s bowlers are as outdated as those from the 80s now. Using Mark Ealham as an example in current cricket just doesn't work because there's no way he could average out at less than 4-an-over over a long period of time.

Well, there is really. Shaun Pollock did, easily, and he was only a bit more accurate than Ealham. And both were of the right pace for the wicketkeeper to stand-up while never going down remotely close to the "medium-pace" bracket of the likes of Bryan Strang.

 

[Richard]

Obviously - noone would take a wicket taker with high economy over someone who can do both, thats not the question

If you have 1 spot in your team and you have to pick one or the other who do you go for? Waqar or Ealham? Simple question.. totally hypothetical, but worthwhile none the less

I think economical bowlers are essential for control, but who gives them that control?

They do, via their own accuracy. Without this, no bowler will bowl economically. Wickets having fallen earlier can help and make what might otherwise end-up 10 overs for 40 produce 10 overs for 23 instead, but this is nowhere near so important as the accuracy of the bowler. Every bowler depends on himself infinitely more than he depends on his team-mates, because good batsmen play each ball on its own merits, regardless of what's come before.

Imagine Ealham coming on after the ball gets smashed around.. say 100 off 15, compared to 50/4, hes going to be twice as effective in the second instance at keeping runs down, simply because the strike bowlers have gotten wickets up top. If you have an economical bowler who doesnt take wickets up top... the pressure falls on those change bowlers, it doesnt matter if they are the best line and length bowlers in the world ever.. they will go for 6 an over at least if the batting side are none down.

Ealham (and similar bowlers) can and have done plenty of times come on in such situations and dramatically cut the scoring-rate. That is the capability of such bowlers. Yes, of course they'll get smashed sometimes, but everyone does - no-one can bowl well all the time, and sometimes risk-taking pays-off so even if you bowl OK you can sometimes get tap.

I won't ever want to take one bowler out of Ealham and Waqar the every time, it depends on who the rest of the attack is. If I already have, for example, Geoff Allott, Brett Lee, Makhaya Ntini and Saqlain Mushtaq, I'll have Ealham every time. If I already have Alan Mullally, Gavin Larsen, Stephen Elworthy and Harbhajan Singh, I'll obviously have Waqar.

Your talk of having a side 200/3 in 50 instead of 230 ao is a non starter

Read it. I never said anything of the sort. I talked of having a side 140-3 in the 40th, or something along those lines. No-one is ever going to finish with loads of wickets intact with 50 overs up and a small scoring-rate.

 

[Uppercut]

Read it. I never said anything of the sort. I talked of having a side 140-3 in the 40th, or something along those lines. No-one is ever going to finish with loads of wickets intact with 50 overs up and a small scoring-rate.

England did that today. But they're just **** i guess.

 

[Richard]

5.6-an-over isn't exactly what I'd call a small scoring-rate TBH.

 

[Uppercut]

5.6-an-over isn't exactly what I'd call a small scoring-rate TBH.

It was certainly below par though.

 

[Richard]

Maybe. Who's to know what might've happened had England had a decent bowling-attack. India had a mini-wobble even with the rabble they did have. Only exceptionally rarely is chasing 5.6-an-over over 50 overs going to be a complete cakewalk with no slip-ups.

It's never going to be a rate you're going to go into the shed thinking "we should've burnt more wickets trying for a better rate than that" though, the way 4-an-over or 4.3-an-over would be.