Bowling with a strong bowling unit vs without

[fredfertang]

It still depends on the nature of the support bowlers - if they are not very penetrative but economical then the batsman still has to look to score from the great man and that will help him take wickets. If on the other hand the support bowlers are relatively easy to score off and the batsmen can concentrate on keeping the great bowler out, then that won't help him

 

[Athlai]

yeah - I don't recommend the analysis of doing a comparison without a time filter - because it compares games at the start of Hadlees career where he was just learning his trade, and his average was a bit higher, against his time with Chatfield where he was more of a seasoned pro. I put a time filter on the query I ran to just restrict it to the 1980s.

Likewise when I ran it on Murali and Vaas - I restricted the time period to the length of Vaas's career - so I excluded the time period before Vaas started playing just in case Murali was learning his chops at that stage.

If you have time run the numbers again with a time filter and compare the results.

But why restrict anything if we're just looking at how he bowled with Chatfield? Surely every match they bowled together is worthy of looking at.

 

[vcs]

Very interesting thread. I have no real answer to the original question but look forward to forming an opinion based on the good arguments that have been put forward.

 

[Prince EWS]

Having a higher or lower WPM directly affects your average/SR.

Not really, because you'd bowl less overs with better support.

 

[Athlai]

Not really, because you'd bowl less overs with better support.

And more likely to be replaced in the attack if you bowl a spell of pies.

 

[Hurricane]

But why restrict anything if we're just looking at how he bowled with Chatfield? Surely every match they bowled together is worthy of looking at.

My bad Athlai - I was going off my personal memory of Chatfield I remember him coming into the team around 1982 (when I was 10) and just checking cricinfo he actually played in the 1970s. One game in 1975 and three games in 1977 and 1978. So you are right restricting this to 1980s would exclude 4 games that they would have played together.

I am still a bit worried about including the 1970s stuff as they only played 4 games together and Hadlee and Chatfield were still growing. If I had my druthers we would start the filter at 1982 when their real and successful partnership began.

How about we compromise - kick out the 1975 game where chatfield debuted. In looking closely at the stats - Chatfields debut was poor he went for 5 an over and didnt take any wickets. So he wouldn't have helped Hadlee in that game.

Maybe run the filter from 1977 onwards and that will take out Hadlee's learning period that I am worried about and it only drops one game they played together.

If you don't take out the initial years of Hadlees play the mathematics becomes skewed you are really comparing a young hadlee against an older wiser hadlee - instead of comparing the Chatfield factor.

 

[Ikki]

The point can be put in reverse. Lone rangers might have more WPM, than a bowler in a good group, but then SR and averages will not change. Good bowler in a pack has an additional advantage of getting more tail enders. The group will usually share the tail enders.

Why won't their SR and averages change? The lone wolf has more wickets on offer to take because his teammates don't. That very fact means that lone wolf bowler has more opportunity than the one in a group to take more wickets in that match and improve his ratios.

Your evidence seem to contradict itself also. A good bowler in a pack will have competition for wickets whether it's a #3 or a #9. The fact that you say they generally share these wickets means it isn't an "additional advantage" at all. The fact that Aus is 2% more likely than SL to get to tailenders, yet have to share that 2% worth of wickets doesn't really bode well as an "advantage". I'd rather my team be 2% less likely to get to the tailenders yet have much more chance to take them through a lack of support.

 

[Ikki]

Not really, because you'd bowl less overs with better support.

I fail to grasp what you're trying to say. If you have more wickets to aim for, and are raising your wickets per match because of it, you're inherently going to improve your ratios. Things don't really pan out in a linear fashion as we often take career ratios. In a match, the more a bowler is taking wickets in an inning the better it is in comparison to their career ratios. Look at any bowler and look at the matches where he takes more and more wickets in that match. It's more a curve than anything. When you are in a group and do bowl less, then you're likely to take less wickets and won't be able to improve your figures as much. That's my point.

Whilst Athlai brings a good point in that you'd be taken off if you bowl badly...that's often not the case with the bowlers were are talking about (Marshall, McGrath, Warne, et al).

 

[Migara]

Your evidence seem to contradict itself also. A good bowler in a pack will have competition for wickets whether it's a #3 or a #9. The fact that you say they generally share these wickets means it isn't an "additional advantage" at all. The fact that Aus is 2% more likely than SL to get to tailenders, yet have to share that 2% worth of wickets doesn't really bode well as an "advantage". I'd rather my team be 2% less likely to get to the tailenders yet have much more chance to take them through a lack of support.

You don't grasp the situation. A single good bowler will rarely take 7 wickets by himself in every innings to get to the tail enders to get cheap wickets. The most number of wickets per innings by a bowler is around 4, which means you need other 3 to come from somewhere to get to the tail to get your cheap wickets. But in a good attack , almost always you get to the tail, and hence gets opportunity albeit shared to go at tailenders. It's not the case in a lone ranger who gets 6-7 wickets in an innings once in every 10 - 15 bowling innings. For even to have a chance, somebody must take 7 wickets!

 

[Migara]

Why won't their SR and averages change? The lone wolf has more wickets on offer to take because his teammates don't.

But he has to bowl his team mates share to pick it up, against the fatigue. Such players are in a disadvantagous situation.

That very fact means that lone wolf bowler has more opportunity than the one in a group to take more wickets in that match and improve his ratios.

No it's not. You are simply forgetting that he has to bowl more for it and has to race against the fatigue.

 

[Ikki]

You don't grasp the situation. A single good bowler will rarely take 7 wickets by himself in every innings to get to the tail enders to get cheap wickets. The most number of wickets per innings by a bowler is around 4, which means you need other 3 to come from somewhere to get to the tail to get your cheap wickets. But in a good attack , almost always you get to the tail, and hence gets opportunity albeit shared to go at tailenders. It's not the case in a lone ranger who gets 6-7 wickets in an innings once in every 10 - 15 bowling innings. For even to have a chance, somebody must take 7 wickets!

No one talked about cheap wickets. We're talking about wickets in general. The players we're talking about are more than capable of taking any of the batsmen around the world and don't really have to rely on cheap wickets. Therefore the 2% advantage is exaggerated, if not irrelevant.

Furthermore, the player in the group will have teammates taking 2-3 - if not more - wickets regularly, each, in each inning. That means for him to even have a large wicket haul means he has to work harder to take a higher proportion of wickets. If he doesn't have the competition, he is much more likely to take those wickets.

What you've shown is that Aus was 2% more likely to get to the tail than SL, yet their bowlers still had more competition for those 2%.

But he has to bowl his team mates share to pick it up, against the fatigue. Such players are in a disadvantagous situation.

So? He bowls more and takes more wickets. That's a given, that is the point of the discussion. It disadvantages him in terms of it being harder to stay fit bowling more career-wise, but it doesn't really hurt his chance at better figures - because we're only talking about a handful of overs more per match or when the situation arises, to get the ball more.

Also, this is probably more of a problem between pace bowlers. Hadlee for example only bowled 3 overs more than McGrath per match, but has many more bigger hauls - in about 40 less tests - through the lack of competition, which shows that it's not entirely just about bowling more; and having less competition for wickets helps a lot.

No it's not. You are simply forgetting that he has to bowl more for it and has to race against the fatigue.

Again, depends on the bowler. Do you think it's really going to kill a spin bowler to bowl 5 more overs per match? Highly unlikely. It'll be felt more towards the end of his career than during matches.

 

[nick-o]

FWIW, Hadlee and Marshall, if they are being taken as extremes of lone wolf v hunting in a pack, exhibit almost identical breakdowns of upper-, middle-, and lower-order wickets over their careers.

Position 1-4 5-8 9-11
Hadlee 44% 36% 20%
Marshall 44% 38% 18%

McGrath is the one whose breakdown looks different:

Position 1-4 5-8 9-11
McGrath 50% 32% 18%

 

[aussie]

It still depends on the nature of the support bowlers - if they are not very penetrative but economical then the batsman still has to look to score from the great man and that will help him take wickets. If on the other hand the support bowlers are relatively easy to score off and the batsmen can concentrate on keeping the great bowler out, then that won't help him

Yes i think this answers the thread question best.

 

[Uppercut]

It's definitely an advantage to some extent- the biggest factor by far is the opportunity to bowl at a non-set batsman much more often.

But you can't ever really say how one player would have reacted in the circumstances of another- you can only judge them on how well they played the hand they were dealt.

 

[morgieb]

Do think bowling w/ a stronger bowling attack can improve your average, but it's debatable if it's significant or not.

 

[morgieb]

Gunnest ITO though.

 

[ankitj]

On face of it - No difference

Playing in a weak attack would give the batsmen the chance to play you out more carefully. This will improve your economy but will negatively affect your strike rate, combined result of which (all else equal) should be to keep the average unchanged.

 

[Himannv]

Logic tells me that bowling with a strong bowling unit will probably help your average. Reminds me of another thread where someone was equating Garner with Lillee. While Garner was a fantastic bowler in his own right, he didn't really compare with Lillee even though his numbers indicate otherwise. Lillee ran through lineups single handedly at times, while Garner often derrived success with the help of a couple of others. Give the batsmen some credit, its not that easy to bowl a side out single handedly.

 

[Migara]

No one talked about cheap wickets. We're talking about wickets in general. The players we're talking about are more than capable of taking any of the batsmen around the world and don't really have to rely on cheap wickets. Therefore the 2% advantage is exaggerated, if not irrelevant.

Tail end wickets are cheap, whether you accept it or not. And 30% of wickets do fall in to that category whether you like it or not.

Furthermore, the player in the group will have teammates taking 2-3 - if not more - wickets regularly, each, in each inning. That means for him to even have a large wicket haul means he has to work harder to take a higher proportion of wickets. If he doesn't have the competition, he is much more likely to take those wickets.

Still has not grasped the idea. Strong attacks will get to the tail enders quickly. Lone rangers get to them on their own very rarely. Strong attacks will have that 30% of wickets available to them more times, say 80% of times, and that'll give each bowler 6% chance to grab one (0.3 * 0.8 = 0.24). For a lone ranger to get 6% he has to get 7 wickets or more once in every 16 innings, which is very difficult. Of course if the attack had three good bowlers the percentage will be 8%, and two, 12%

What you've shown is that Aus was 2% more likely to get to the tail than SL, yet their bowlers still had more competition for those 2%.

Don't try to compare ttwo sides. Aussies had three good bowlers competing for it, SL had two. Murali was not exactly a lone ranger.

So? He bowls more and takes more wickets. That's a given, that is the point of the discussion. It disadvantages him in terms of it being harder to stay fit bowling more career-wise, but it doesn't really hurt his chance at better figures - because we're only talking about a handful of overs more per match or when the situation arises, to get the ball more.

BS, even during a single innings bowling more means tiring more. When you tire more you tend to give more loose balls. inuries will keep him out of the side for lengths of times, and it will take time to recover and during recovery bowling will not be the best and their stats will suffer.

Also, this is probably more of a problem between pace bowlers. Hadlee for example only bowled 3 overs more than McGrath per match, but has many more bigger hauls - in about 40 less tests - through the lack of competition, which shows that it's not entirely just about bowling more; and having less competition for wickets helps a lot.

So what about their average and SR? Can we compare the "barren" hauls too?

Again, depends on the bowler. Do you think it's really going to kill a spin bowler to bowl 5 more overs per match? Highly unlikely. It'll be felt more towards the end of his career than during matches.

Doing it for 15 years match after match is a big deal. Yes, it makes a difference.

 

[Migara]

Excluding minnows

SL - Tail end dismissals = 411 - 106 = 305
SL all dismissals = 1296 - 161 = 1135
SL tai end dismissal % = 26.9

AUS tail end dismissals = 759 - 165 = 594
AUS all dismissals = 2248 - 261 = 1987
AUS tail end dismissals = 29.9

Now the difference is 3%.

If you go back to SL's away performances where Vaas have been in effective you'd see that tahere have been still lesser number of tail enders falling.

Tail ender % = (198 - 54) / (625 - 79) = 26.3%, now the difference still larger! This 3 - % difference will translate in to of a 0.5 - 1 run difference when the weighted averages of batting positions are added to the global average.

Now that has series where Vaas bowled SL to the victory. I am too lazy to filter out the stats for Murali where Vaas has done horribly and Murali has been the real lone ranger, but I am quite sure in that averages Murali would not have done well.