ODI Bowlers - E/R V Wickets

[Richard]

Wickets only. The best way to keep an economy rate down is by taking wickets.

It isn't though. The only way to keep an economy-rate down is by bowling accurately. Wickets falling will mean accurate bowling is rewarded to a greater degree than them not falling, however.

Good economy-rates also = wickets falling.

 

[Richard]

I'd pick Waqar first and build the attack around him.

No good ODI attack, IMO, can be built around a bowler who regularly concedes plenty of runs. A really economical bowler - whether he takes wickets of not, and obviously the best do both - is the most vital part of any ODI attack.

Comparing him with Ealham is like comparing Mozart with Phil Collins

I don't think so. I think it's more like comparing Pete Waterman with Bernie Taupin. Two flawed but nonetheless hugely popular (one often outshining his artists but nonetheless dependent on them, one whose success owes everything to his main collaborator but who is given great credit in the right circles) contributors who perform totally different but equally essential roles.

As I've said before, I think you sometimes fail to differ between ODIs and Tests enough. Because Waqar was so enormously better than Ealham in Tests the notion that both are in their different ways excellent at ODIs is outrageous to you.

 

[Richard]

Are you feeling okay? We're comparing bowlers, where in one case one is more economical but is less likely to take wickets against another bowler who is less economical but who is more likely to take wickets.

No, more the virtue of economy-rate.

Then it seems you just don't know how to read.

Yes, I do, I'm afraid.

LMAO, the denial of your own limits is laughable. You are a running joke on this site

It's rather more laughable that you constantly trot this out without having a clue what you're on about. You have absolutely no idea about the attitudes of, well, anyone really, on this site. If you're going to try to patronise people, try learning some truths first.

 

[Ikki]

LOL, sure I don't Rich. After 3-4 years on this site I've just imagined people come out and call you a dolt time after time. They didn't really just do it; it was all in my imagination.

But don't waste time on me. Go email the English selectors, tell them of your extensive knowledge and exemplify with the player comparisons you make. I am sure you will get a seat at the board.

 

[Richard]

LOL, sure I don't Rich. After 3-4 years on this site I've just imagined people come out and call you a dolt time after time. They didn't really just do it; it was all in my imagination.

No they don't actually. Apart from anything it's not allowed - direct abuse is banned as per forum rules.

There are a few people who think I don't know much about cricket, and they tend to babble on about it quite often. However, such types are actually in a very small minority. You'd know this if you spoke to people rather than took stuff on face value. However, it's pretty obvious even if I didn't know it for a fact that you don't, because of the comically incorrect stuff you have in your head about people's attitudes to me. As I say, learn about relevant matters before trying to patronise people.

BTW you've barely been on this site for 3 years. Certainly nowhere near 4. And I've been absent for about 1 year of that time too.

 

[Manee]

For people who value E/R over wickets, what is the opinion of Prosper Utseya, who has a good ODI economy rate but a poor average.

 

[Richard]

Always thought Utseya was a terrific little bowler myself, obviously. That's alluded to in a few places in the forum's history. A real shame he's never - and is never likely to - play in a genuine ODI side.

England - and most other teams - would kill for a spinner who could bowl that economically. AND England have Swann at the current time, who is certainly not bad.

 

[Manee]

Do you buy the thought that perhaps he is a good ODI bowler, but has such a tremendous economy as runs are so readily available elsewhere in the attack. Moreover, why do you think he picks up so few wickets in OD crcket.

 

[NUFAN]

Prosper would certainly go for more runs and most likely take more wickets if he played for a better side. 4.08 econ, 53 average is an interesting record, he's still only 23 though, so perhaps he'll improve and start taking wickets as he develops his spin a bit more.

 

[Richard]

Do you buy the thought that perhaps he is a good ODI bowler, but has such a tremendous economy as runs are so readily available elsewhere in the attack. Moreover, why do you think he picks up so few wickets in OD crcket.

It'd depend, actually. Say he was in a side with 2 or 3 good seamers, it could go up due to runs being less readily available elsewhere, but equally it could also stay the same or even come down due to wickets falling.

There's no doubt he can't by himself make Zimbabwe much of a side and that batsmen will often look to play him while smashing the rest, but the former is no different to any bowler in history and the latter would not be the case if he himself was poor either.

 

[Goughy]

Utseya is pretty much a nothing bowler. He brings little to the team. Can be milked for whatever is needed.

His record is vastly massaged by numerous games against the lesser nations and the people I have known that have played against him dont have a particularly high opinion of him.

 

[Goughy]

Well lets take a quick look.

Since 2000 in games won all bowlers combined have- (sample size= 1200 games)
Bowling average= 23.64
Econ= 4.27
A bowler taking 5+ wicket in an inning = 1 every 9.84 games

Since 2000 in games lost all bowlers combined have- (sample size= 1200 games)
Bowling average= 46.65
Econ= 5.21
A bowler taking 5+ wicket in an inning = 1 every 52.17 games

Conclusion
Economy rate is obviously important but it is still secondary to taking wickets. In losses, bowling averages double and econ increases by less than 1. A batting team only has 10 wickets and every one carries great value. It is the inability to take wickets that costs games and, IMO, also leads to a higher team economy.

 

[Uppercut]

Well lets take a quick look.

Since 2000 in games won all bowlers combined have- (sample size= 1200 games)
Bowling average= 23.64
Econ= 4.27
A bowler taking 5+ wicket in an inning = 1 every 9.84 games

Since 2000 in games lost all bowlers combined have- (sample size= 1200 games)
Bowling average= 46.65
Econ= 5.21
A bowler taking 5+ wicket in an inning = 1 every 52.17 games

Conclusion
Economy rate is obviously important but it is still secondary to taking wickets. In losses, bowling averages double and econ increases by less than 1. A batting team only has 10 wickets and every one carries great value. It is the inability to take wickets that costs games and, IMO, also leads to a higher team economy.

Research problem is that a lot of ODIs are one-sided. I.e. if Sri Lanka play Zimbabwe or Ireland, they'll almost always bowl them out. Wouldn't disagree with the conclusion though.

 

[Goughy]

Research problem is that a lot of ODIs are one-sided. I.e. if Sri Lanka play Zimbabwe or Ireland, they'll almost always bowl them out.

hmm, some games are one sided because one team takes a lot of wickets therefore data showing that wickets are important is devalued?

Your point further emphasises my point. One sided ODIs are not usually one sided because a team bowls very economically but because a team loses lots of wickets. It further shows why wickets are so valuable.

Good teams are not outclassing lesser opponents by having them at 120-2 after 50 overs. It is the taking of wickets that crushes them.

Also, I dont think the top teams play enough 'minnows' to overly distort the statistics.

 

[Richard]

Wickets also pretty well invariably fall in the second-innings, because of the economy-rate.

A team that loses by failing to chase yet bats 50 overs is rare. Wickets are thrown away because the economy-rate of the bowlers has been better than the run-rate required by the batting side.

Wickets come because of economical bowling. The importance of wicket-taking deliveries at certain times (ie, the start and sometimes in the middle of the innings) is not in dispute, but I'd hazard a guess that far, far more wickets than not in ODIs come because batsmen a) feel they're not scoring quickly enough in a first-innings (this can often be interpreted as not hitting every ball for four in the last 5-6 overs) or b) know they're not scoring quickly enough in a second-innings. And only a minor percentage from batsmen being genuinely defeated by the sort of bowling that would be expected to take wickets in Test cricket.

 

[krkode]

True, but where do you draw the line between "Oh that was a wicket-taking delivery" and "Oh, the batsman got himself out?" It's somewhat subjective, no?

I still think a balance overall is best.

 

[Richard]

I'd say that you can say 95%, maybe more, of the time what is and isn't a wicket-taking delivery. Not all wicket-taking deliveries have to be RUDs (that's realistically unplayable deliveries for those who don't know) and indeed a RUD is pretty rare. Mostly batsmen are to an extent at fault; but there's a difference between a batsman being to an extent at fault and exclusively at fault.

A good general rule - though not an all-encompassing one - would be that if a ball bounces less or more than could reasonably be expected, moves sideways at all, doesn't move sideways following a large number that have, or is of Yorker length, then it can be classed as a wicket-taking delivery should it get a wicket. And if it doesn't, then it cannot be whether it does or doesn't.

As I say - not a rule you can use every single time, but one that would apply on the vast majority of occasions.

 

[Uppercut]

hmm, some games are one sided because one team takes a lot of wickets therefore data showing that wickets are important is devalued?

Your point further emphasises my point. One sided ODIs are not usually one sided because a team bowls very economically but because a team loses lots of wickets. It further shows why wickets are so valuable.

Good teams are not outclassing lesser opponents by having them at 120-2 after 50 overs. It is the taking of wickets that crushes them.

Also, I dont think the top teams play enough 'minnows' to overly distort the statistics.

The thinking was more, if Ireland play South Africa, they're almost always going to get bowled out, more due to the quality difference than the nature of the bowling. Therefore, if they did play each other often, statistics would show that the team who took a lot of wickets always came out on top. It's quite hard to explain, but Ireland never gave South Africa the chance to win as the result of a superior economy rate. So your analysis will show more matches won by wicket-taking than economical bowling as a result.

I don't doubt it would have shown that anyway, and big quality differences probably don't happen often enough to have a massive effect, but it's still worth mentioning.

 

[Richard]

Utseya is pretty much a nothing bowler. He brings little to the team. Can be milked for whatever is needed.

No one player can bring anything to the current Zimbabwe side. Being a good player in such a side is next to pointless.

 

[Richard]

Ireland never gave South Africa the chance to win as the result of a superior economy rate.

As I say, virtually no team ever appears in the final analysis to have won by virtue of superior economy-rate. Teams who fail to reach their targets batting second almost always get bowled-out, and if they don't absolutely invariably finish 7 or 8 down.

Wickets come because of the fact that the batsmen cannot match the run-rate required. Always. A good economy-rate (whatever that is in the context of the game) will always - with no exceptions - result in wickets falling.

But wicket-taking will only improve the chances of accurate bowling becoming economical. It will make accurate bowling more economical, but wayward bowling will still concede runs.

A good economy-rate can be earned one way and one way only. Wicket-taking, however, is more often than not as a result of economical bowling, and much less often the result of actively looking to take wickets in itself.