ODI Bowlers - E/R V Wickets

[Uppercut]

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.

They should have been. When England went back in for the innings break, did anyone honestly think they were going to win the match? Extremely rare, particularly these days, are ODI pitches in India where lower than 300 is a par score. With six wickets in hand, and batting right down to Broad, they surely had to take a shot at getting more.

 

[Richard]

Batting down to ten maybe, but I think had more wickets fallen England'd have got less, not more. None of the remaining batsmen had any notable hitting skill.

And as I say - I reckon a better bowling attack could conceivably have defended that total. Only against a poor attack is a team chasing 270 the favourites.

 

[Uppercut]

Batting down to ten maybe, but I think had more wickets fallen England'd have got less, not more. None of the remaining batsmen had any notable hitting skill.

And as I say - I reckon a better bowling attack could conceivably have defended that total. Only against a poor attack is a team chasing 270 the favourites.

Uhh well, if you consider the past ten ODIs in India, five against England, five against Pakistan, 270 would have been a winning score on, by my count, one occasion. Two at a considerable stretch. It's a mental leap for me to adjust to 270 being a below-par score, but that's how it is in that part of the world, all things considered.

 

[Burgey]

Terrifies me that Mark Ealham has been compared to Waqar Younis as a bowler in any context, in any format, at any ground, in any era, on any planet.

The fact he may at some point have been a more viable option as an ODI bowler than Waqar Younis pretty much sums up why ODIs are a **** form of cricket.

 

[Ikki]

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 isn't. It's 4 runs per match, maximum. Small and insignificant.

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.

Lee's record really is only questioned by McGrath. Otherwise, his overall record is as good, if not better, and his WC record IIRC, is phenomenal.

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.

It is obvious. But it is an argument that you constructed yourself. No one said bowlers who are different economically yet strike at the same rate aren't different or that the bowler who is economic isn't better. That's obvious, because if SR is the same then they provide the same wicket-taking prowess, whilst one saves more runs.

The real argument was of bowlers who average the same/similar per wicket, yet one superior in ER and one superior in SR, who is better? That is where the real difference is. Not in your irrelevant comparison.

 

[Ikki]

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.

That's bull****. Why do you think the WIndies were seen as a quartet and not just 4 separate bowlers? Because of the unrelenting assault all four would bring. Batsmen, as the nature of cricket seems to imply, have to be settled. They aren't going to be unsettled by lines that just attempt to restrict runs. You have absolutely no appreciation for the mental aspect of the game. You've shown this plenty of times on this board. One comes to the conclusion that you've never played anything bar backyard cricket.

 

[Richard]

Uhh well, if you consider the past ten ODIs in India, five against England, five against Pakistan, 270 would have been a winning score on, by my count, one occasion. Two at a considerable stretch. It's a mental leap for me to adjust to 270 being a below-par score, but that's how it is in that part of the world, all things considered.

Look at the bowling attacks in those games though. None of England or Pakistan have much of an attack currently, and India's is certainly far from outstanding.

 

[Richard]

Terrifies me that Mark Ealham has been compared to Waqar Younis as a bowler in any context, in any format, at any ground, in any era, on any planet.

The fact he may at some point have been a more viable option as an ODI bowler than Waqar Younis pretty much sums up why ODIs are a **** form of cricket.

Dunno about that. I like the contrast. I like the fact that different virtues are rewarded.

Mark Ealham is a far better bowler than many people give him credit for. Yes, he's diminutive, has never been slimline and doesn't bowl at 90mph. However, he has some of the best control of line and length we've had in the game in this country for the last couple of decades and he can move the ball both ways.

Some people seem to have the idea he's some sort of Anwar Hossain Monir esque pie-chucker. He isn't. Ealham is a good bowler. Not Test-standard, obviously. But a pretty damn good bowler by any standards other than Test.

 

[Richard]

No it isn't. It's 4 runs per match, maximum. Small and insignificant.

No, economy-rates don't work like that. A difference of 0.4-an-over doesn't equate to 4 runs every match, and is a considerable one.

Lee's record really is only questioned by McGrath. Otherwise, his overall record is as good, if not better, and his WC record IIRC, is phenomenal.

No, it's not. Lee's record is not even close to being as good as Pollock's, Ambrose's or quite a few others'.

It is obvious. But it is an argument that you constructed yourself. No one said bowlers who are different economically yet strike at the same rate aren't different or that the bowler who is economic isn't better. That's obvious, because if SR is the same then they provide the same wicket-taking prowess, whilst one saves more runs.

The real argument was of bowlers who average the same/similar per wicket, yet one superior in ER and one superior in SR, who is better? That is where the real difference is. Not in your irrelevant comparison.

The one with the better economy-rate is obviously far superior. Wickets are not essential in ODI cricket; economy-rate only becomes irrelevant with massive numbers of wickets being taken with great regularity. Something which is exceptionally rare, because ODIs only last 50 overs.

 

[Richard]

That's bull****. Why do you think the WIndies were seen as a quartet and not just 4 separate bowlers? Because of the unrelenting assault all four would bring. Batsmen, as the nature of cricket seems to imply, have to be settled. They aren't going to be unsettled by lines that just attempt to restrict runs. You have absolutely no appreciation for the mental aspect of the game. You've shown this plenty of times on this board. One comes to the conclusion that you've never played anything bar backyard cricket.

Well one's wrong then. Not that it matters, you can learn about the game by watching every bit as much as playing.

In forms of the game where there's no limit on the overs, of course batsmen aren't going to be unsettled by restriction of runs alone. However, when there is a limit, they are, for obvious reasons. You can't just plod to 170 in 50 overs.

 

[Ikki]

No, economy-rates don't work like that. A difference of 0.4-an-over doesn't equate to 4 runs every match, and is a considerable one.

No, it is an average of 4 runs per match stretched out over a career. It can be at times 8 runs difference and at times 0 runs difference (depending if the difference in some games is halved or doubled, with respect to the variance in performance/ER) and anything in between and not likely to be much more...either way, it is small.

No, it's not. Lee's record is not even close to being as good as Pollock's, Ambrose's or quite a few others'.

Again, cheap talk with little or no sense.

The one with the better economy-rate is obviously far superior. Wickets are not essential in ODI cricket; economy-rate only becomes irrelevant with massive numbers of wickets being taken with great regularity. Something which is exceptionally rare, because ODIs only last 50 overs.

No, they're not. In your opinion, maybe. Although it's not a surprise to hear you warp things up again. This coming from someone who thinks they can learn all they need to by watching the game - as opposed to playing it - and someone who thinks he knows more about the game than the Test cricketers themselves.

 

[Ikki]

Well one's wrong then. Not that it matters, you can learn about the game by watching every bit as much as playing.

No, you can't.

This is precisely why you have no idea.

 

[Athlai]

That logic implies Healy knows something.

Oh my.

 

[Richard]

No, you can't.

This is precisely why you have no idea.

I do, actually, and however many times you try to change the fact I have plenty of idea, you aren't able to. Hence, saying "you have no idea" repeatedly is a pointless comment and borders on spamming the forum.

 

[Richard]

No, it is an average of 4 runs per match stretched out over a career. It can be at times 8 runs difference and at times 0 runs difference (depending if the difference in some games is halved or doubled, with respect to the variance in performance/ER) and anything in between and not likely to be much more...either way, it is small.

No, it's not. After, say, 300 overs, look at how many overs it will take to push one up to the other.

Again, cheap talk with little or no sense.

It isn't, the sense is obvious and has already been mentioned.

No, they're not. In your opinion, maybe. Although it's not a surprise to hear you warp things up again. This coming from someone who thinks they can learn all they need to by watching the game - as opposed to playing it - and someone who thinks he knows more about the game than the Test cricketers themselves.

Yeah, I know more about than the game than plenty of Test cricketers. Ian Healy is given as one example above, and there are many besides.

 

[Ikki]

No, it's not. After, say, 300 overs, look at how many overs it will take to push one up to the other.

You see, you can only bowl 10 overs a match, maximum. So the most you can hinder your side, in that case, is 4 runs. Negligible, and no real difference.

Yeah, I know more about than the game than plenty of Test cricketers. Ian Healy is given as one example above, and there are many besides.

Sure you do. You also said you know more than Test selectors. You are living in a dreamland.

I do, actually, and however many times you try to change the fact I have plenty of idea, you aren't able to. Hence, saying "you have no idea" repeatedly is a pointless comment and borders on spamming the forum.

No, if I were to explain to you why experience at Test level, or experience playing cricket at all, is necessary to gauge the importance of certain happenings within the game...THEN I'd be spamming the forum.

 

[Uppercut]

Look at the bowling attacks in those games though. None of England or Pakistan have much of an attack currently, and India's is certainly far from outstanding.

Is there any good reason why that shouldn't be taken into account when deciding what a good first innings score is?

 

[Richard]

A good first-innings score and a good second-innings score are essentially the same thing. It's just that obviously in the second you're chasing something someone's already made, so if that's above-par you'll probably be knocked-over for less than par, and if it's below-par you can obviously only exceed it by a run or two.

 

[Richard]

You see, you can only bowl 10 overs a match, maximum. So the most you can hinder your side, in that case, is 4 runs. Negligible, and no real difference.

No it's not.

The difference between 3.8-an-over and 4.2-an-over would be more accurately described as there being an excellent chance of bowling a good spell (say, 10 overs for 40 or less) and there being merely a good chance of that. Less chance of being belted for 50 or 55. Someone with an economy-rate of 3.8 will only very rarely go for that; someone with one of 4.2-an-over will do so a bit more often, though once more, far from unacceptably often.

See, the difference between 10-38-0 and 10-42-0 isn't much. But the difference between a career economy-rate of 3.8-an-over and 4.2-an-over is considerable. The former is much better.

Sure you do. You also said you know more than Test selectors. You are living in a dreamland.

No, I'm not. Both things are true. There's plenty of clueless selectors and plenty of clueless commentators out there. Many, many people besides me say this all the time. Anyone who argues that someone who has played or selected for Test cricket automatically knows better about, well, anything really, doesn't have a clue what they're on about. Fortunately, hardly anyone suggests such a thing.

No, if I were to explain to you why experience at Test level, or experience playing cricket at all, is necessary to gauge the importance of certain happenings within the game...THEN I'd be spamming the forum.

By playing, all you're doing is actually doing the thing that other people are watching you do. You have no greater ability to know how it's done, you just have the ability to actually do it whereas most don't.

 

[Ikki]

No it's not.

The difference between 3.8-an-over and 4.2-an-over would be more accurately described as there being an excellent chance of bowling a good spell (say, 10 overs for 40 or less) and there being merely a good chance of that. Less chance of being belted for 50 or 55. Someone with an economy-rate of 3.8 will only very rarely go for that; someone with one of 4.2-an-over will do so a bit more often, though once more, far from unacceptably often.

The difference would be that you are likely to bowl a better spell of conceding less runs - not "excellent, bowling a good spell". Whilst someone with a superior strike rate will also be more likely to have a better spell at taking wickets.

There is a trade-off somewhere and the best way to gauge that is to take their overall career figures. Because if you are going to argue one is more likely to concede more runs then conversely one is more likely to take wickets.

The difference being 4 runs per match or being closer to taking a wicket. Small, insignificant difference.

See, the difference between 10-38-0 and 10-42-0 isn't much. But the difference between a career economy-rate of 3.8-an-over and 4.2-an-over is considerable. The former is much better.

See, you just proved you're not listening and are digressing into your own non-sense again. The difference between the 2 you mentioned is not only of AVERAGE but of ECONOMY RATE as well - irrelevant comparison.

The relevant example/comparison is between two bowlers of SIMILAR AVERAGE whilst one has a BETTER ECONOMY RATE and one that has a SUPERIOR STRIKE RATE.

So something like: 10-38-1.25 and 10-45-1.5.

No, I'm not. Both things are true. There's plenty of clueless selectors and plenty of clueless commentators out there. Many, many people besides me say this all the time. Anyone who argues that someone who has played or selected for Test cricket automatically knows better about, well, anything really, doesn't have a clue what they're on about. Fortunately, hardly anyone suggests such a thing.

They may say a stupid or biased thing or make a stupid or biased decision...but they are FAR superior to you in cricketing knowledge - especially that with reference to actually playing the game. There are many more people on this board alone more intelligent than you with regards to cricket.

By playing, all you're doing is actually doing the thing that other people are watching you do. You have no greater ability to know how it's done, you just have the ability to actually do it whereas most don't.