ODI Bowlers - E/R V Wickets

[Richard]

Think you tend to not give enough thought to who bowls when, Dicko. Having an economy rate of 4.68 as a death/powerplay bowler, as Younis did, has to be worth more than someone averaging around 4 bowling during the middle overs, before the wicket-taking even comes into account.

Apart from the fact Waqar was not a good death bowler at all (he gave runs away in all game-forms as he attempted so many Yorkers that he got plenty wrong even with the hundreds of deadly ones he got right)...

The fact is, you need both types of bowlers. You need bowlers who can keep the rate to a reasonable one in death overs and bowlers who can keep an excellent rate (ie, under 4-an-over) in non-Powerplay early overs. If you have exclusively one or exclusively the other, you'll struggle.

It's difficult to compare an Ealham to a Waqar really. The only thing you can say is that Wasim Akram > Shaun Pollock, because Wasim did the early and death jobs brilliantly, while Pollock did only one, even though he did do it slightly better than Wasim.

 

[zaremba]

Waqar was not a good death bowler at all

A startling claim and, in my view, an entirely inaccurate one

 

[Manee]

Give me Lee, Shoaib, Waqar and Malinga over Ealham, Larsen, Utseya and Collymore everyday of the week.

Lee, Akhtar, Waqar and Malinga, good attack. Perhaps we could do without the latter and get in Shaun Tait.

 

[Richard]

I always think of Peter Taylor (who?) as the classic example illustrating this debate. He was a fine ODI bowler but essentially a cricketing travesty - an emblem of all that was bad about ODI cricket - the epitome of negative play over attacking play. 10-1-35-0 is not what entertaining cricket is about, for my money.

So I will build my team around Waqar and if I lose I will grin and bear it.

I don't know. I personally absolutely love seeing a Harbhajan Singh or a Kumara Dharmasena thwart repeated scoring attempts from batsmen in the middle overs of an innings. I don't mind whether they don't get wickets at all.

Each to his own has always been a philosophy of mine, but there's something quite wonderful to my mind about really good defensive bowling, plus really good defensive captaincy, in a limited-overs game.

I agree 100% that there's nothing more dreary than captain drops all fielders bar 4 back, bowls bit-part half-decent seamers\spinners who're more in the side for their batting who get milked around for 4.5-5-an-over for 20 overs though. Under such circumstances, I always long to see (and sometimes get) batsmen simply going hell-for-leather and smacking it anyway. I hate to see both sides accepting mediocrity. That's why I always say I want five specialist bowlers in a ODI side.

But I love seeing really good accurate and sharp-witted bowling, with 6 men in the circle, wicketkeeper up to the stumps and grabbing everything that misses the bat, with the batsman fighting with himself and maybe eventually settling for the singles he can get after nearly losing his wicket several times. Then the bowler ending with, say, 10-32-0, the batsman being on 44* as the last 10 overs come, and carnage ensuing as the death-bowling is below-par. That's what I call really enthralling one-day cricket.

 

[Richard]

A startling claim and, in my view, an entirely inaccurate one

Whenever I watched he usually went for plenty at the end. I also recall Ramiz Raja saying in one of my earliest Waqar-watching games "Moin needs to bowl Waqar out now, he's expensive at the end".

I didn't watch his earlier career however, and Ramiz Raja making an inaccurate observation isn't exacly unheard of.

 

[zaremba]

Cricket is a game where batsmen try to score runs and bowlers try to take wickets. If the aim of ODIs is to promote the former to the exclusion of the latter then it's not the game for me

 

[Richard]

You're right, cricket is a game where bowlers try to take wickets (though also to not concede runs, obviously). I've always maintained that the First-Class game is cricket, and one-day cricket is just that - one-day cricket. A stance some (one Mr Geggory Thomas to the fore) criticise me for of times.

I enjoy cricket for the virtues of cricket, and I enjoy one-day cricket for the virtues of one-day cricket. The more different they are, the more I can enjoy each.

 

[zaremba]

Whenever I watched he usually went for plenty at the end. I also recall Ramiz Raja saying in one of my earliest Waqar-watching games "Moin needs to bowl Waqar out now, he's expensive at the end".

I didn't watch his earlier career however, and Ramiz Raja making an inaccurate observation isn't exacly unheard of.

My abiding recollection of Waqar is from the late 80s / early 90s. This may give me an unbalanced picture of him. But the Waqar of the mid- to late-90s was a different bowler: still a fast bowler, but a fast bowler with significantly reduced pace. And still a very fine bowler but one far from his peak. (See Botham / Thomson circa 1985, and Ian Bishop at any stage after his back injury).

And at his peak Waqar was, in my opinion, just about as good a wicket-taking bowler as there has ever been in the history of the game.

 

[Richard]

Oh, I don't dispute that for a second. I wasn't watching Pakistan in the early-1990s (saw one or two bits and pieces in 1992 but aged just 6 couldn't truly appreciate what it was I was seeing) but I've never had any doubt that Waqar between 1990/91 and 1994/95 was at worst as deadly as anyone else has ever been. I can tell that from watching assorted highlights, reading from people who watched and faced him, and examining his figures.

Bowling fast, full and with the ability to swing the ball both ways (Waqar of course swung new ball out and old in) has always been a recipe for serious wicket-taking, even though your economy-rate is near-certain to be up on "ideal" levels.

I've tended to get the impression that what we've seen with Dale Steyn the last couple of years comes somewhere close to it. Fast, full, low trajectory, and sharp, late swing. I also wonder if we'll see it at international level someday - however briefly - with Shaun Tait.

Don't get me wrong - I've never doubted Waqar's wicket-taking prowess. A truly mouth-watering prospect if you enjoy seeing stumps smashed. Possibly the most so in the history of the game. I've made a few posts to that affect myself down the years - it's just they've referred to Test cricket so the admiration has been more obvious on my part.

 

[Migara]

As for Jayasuriya, I can't really consider him as good as Croft myself TBH. He was good for a batsman who bowled (which is what he eventually became, having started the other way around) but he wasn't someone you could always bank on for 10 good overs. He had a brilliant quicker-ball Yorker though, one of the best I've seen.

Croft - 49 inn, 45 wickets @ 38.7, ER - 4.24, SR - 54.8
Jayasuriya - 352 inn, 310 wickets @ 36.6, ER - 4.76, SR - 46

Croft had a better Economy rate. But Jayasuriya had a better strike rate. With ability to bowl in the death, my preference would be Jayasuriya any day over Croft even as bowlers.

Chandana, I was always less convinced about than some. As for Raju, Chauhan, Joshi and Kalpage, never have taken much note of any (though admittedly I did mention Joshi earlier and I know he certainly wasn't bad) so I'd have to get back to you on them.

Well, well, Chandana had taken 151 wickets @ 31.9, with an ER - 4.7 and SR of 40.6 if you call that not impressive, I just have to say "excuse me?"

 

[Richard]

Croft - 49 inn, 45 wickets @ 38.7, ER - 4.24, SR - 54.8
Jayasuriya - 352 inn, 310 wickets @ 36.6, ER - 4.76, SR - 46

Croft had a better Economy rate. But Jayasuriya had a better strike rate. With ability to bowl in the death, my preference would be Jayasuriya any day over Croft even as bowlers.

Jayasuriya was certainly a far better death bowler than Croft and TBH I was always surprised he didn't bowl at the end more often than he did.

However, when it comes to bowling in the middle of the innings, I'd have Croft every time.

Well, well, Chandana had taken 151 wickets @ 31.9, with an ER - 4.7 and SR of 40.6 if you call that not impressive, I just have to say "excuse me?"

None-too-impressive economy-rate, average over 30. Neither part is terribly impressive, and while Chandana certainly bowled well on more than a few occasions he also had plenty of times when he was ineffective, and that's reflected in his career figures.

 

[Ponting Man]

I would like somebody who took wickets and was consistent and also had a alright average and also a pretty nice strike rate.

 

[Migara]

Now let's see it like this.

There are bowlers who are tight because they take wickets, and there are some who take wickets, because they are tight.

McGrath, Pollock, Saqlain, Wasim, Donald, Warne in the first category
Vaas, Adam Dale, Bracken, Bradshaw, Kumble, Harbhajan are in the second category.

Murali is somewhere in between.

Now who would you prefer?

 

[Matt79]

^ Would say that McGrath and Pollock were in the second category tbh...

The very best bowlers consistently do both. Ideally your attack will have both types, but definitely a couple of wicket takers to strike some early blows...

 

[Richard]

The point is that most of the best early wicket-takers are also bowlers capable of bowling economically.

 

[Matt79]

The point is that most of the best early wicket-takers are also bowlers capable of bowling economically.

Not necessarily. Brett Lee is the prime counter-example, although I acknowledge you're saying most...

 

[Richard]

Yeah, I am. For every Waqar Younis or Brett Lee there are quite a few Wasim Akrams, Shaun Pollocks, Glenn McGraths, Curtley Ambroses, Angus Frasers, Allan Donalds, Craig McDermotts, Fanie de Villierses, Alan Mullallys, Paul Reiffels, Craig Matthewses, Andy Caddicks, Chaminda Vaases, Shane Bonds, Darren Goughs, Jason Gillespies, Nathan Brackens, Andrew Flintoffs and Damien Flemings. Albeit not all the aforementioned were out-and-out always opening bowlers, but all bowled early-ish in the innings almost without fail.