Bowling with a strong bowling unit vs without

[Ikki]

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.

2% more chance is what you're arguing over. So a team like Aus has 2% more chance to get to the tail than a team like SL. That difference is, like, nothing. And if several bowlers are going for that 2%, whereas the lone-wolf is by himself, it's probably more beneficial seeing the tail 2% less, but having no competition for when you do get there. In essence, that point isn't in favour of a lone-wolf. Cheap wickets or not.

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%

It doesn't matter if a strong attack gets to the tail quickly, unless the bowler in the strong attack in question has gotten most of those wickets. For if they are being shared, it has hindered the bowler in the strong attack from getting more wickets. It would be more beneficial to get to the tail slowly, as you say you would in a lone-wolf attack, yet have a bigger share of those wickets.

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.

Australia had 2 all-time greats, a very good bowler and a good bowler. Sri Lanka had an all-time great, a very good bowler and 2 decent bowlers at best. Anyway, I used your own example for reference.

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.

I just pointed out to you; the difference between a lone-wolf bowler and one in a pack is simply a handful of overs more per match. Hadlee bowled 3 more overs than McGrath for example. Warne bowled about 9 less overs than Murali for example. It's not exactly a mountain to overcome. The point is not could Warne bowl as much as Murali - for the sake of argument let's say he couldn't - it's if he bowled more (let's say even 4 overs) per match would that help him take more wickets with less competition?

And anyway, I showed you: even if Hadlee and McGrath (for example) bowled the same amount of overs in a match, Hadlee clearly took many more big hauls and this can only be explained through a lack of support since Hadlee played some 40 tests less yet took all those hauls.

So, it's not just simply having an advantage by bowling more, when in a lone-wolf attack, it is also that your teammates don't pick off other wickets, even if you were bowling the same amount.

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

By all means, do so. I've already addressed this though: these all-time greats are more likely to be on good form and take loads of wickets than suffer their "barren" hauls which would negate their advantage.

In fact, one can argue that they maximise their good form when they have so little competition by taking as many wickets as possible. And yet even when they are on bad form they're still likely to take some wickets. Only in the absolute worst moments of form: when they are bowling a lot, with no help, and taking no wickets, would it really hinder them. I'd argue those moments weren't that many in comparison.

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

Well, that's the point. It may hinder them playing longer (hence taking less aggregate wickets - although that is debatable in that they might be taking more wickets in less matches anyway) but it's not likely to hurt their ratios in the matches.

 

[Migara]

It doesn't matter if a strong attack gets to the tail quickly, unless the bowler in the strong attack in question has gotten most of those wickets. For if they are being shared, it has hindered the bowler in the strong attack from getting more wickets. It would be more beneficial to get to the tail slowly, as you say you would in a lone-wolf attack, yet have a bigger share of those wickets.

And the problem is a lone wolf never gets close to them to take it. In a pack at least you have a chance.

Australia had 2 all-time greats, a very good bowler and a good bowler. Sri Lanka had an all-time great, a very good bowler and 2 decent bowlers at best. Anyway, I used your own example for reference.

We can agree on that. In AUS case we'd never find a lone wold scenario under any condition. Possibly against SAF where Warne was the leader of the pack and other were quite behind him may be a good comparison.

I just pointed out to you; the difference between a lone-wolf bowler and one in a pack is simply a handful of overs more per match. Hadlee bowled 3 more overs than McGrath for example. Warne bowled about 9 less overs than Murali for example. It's not exactly a mountain to overcome.

The point is that doing that EXTRA work day and day out is a big ask. Over a 100 test career it will accumulate.

And anyway, I showed you: even if Hadlee and McGrath (for example) bowled the same amount of overs in a match, Hadlee clearly took many more big hauls and this can only be explained through a lack of support.

But still didn't they have similar ERs and SRs and averages? And didn't McGrath have less barren spells that Hadlee?

So, it's not just simply having an advantage by bowling more, when in a lone-wolf attack, it is that your teammates don't pick off other wickets, even if you were bowling the same amount.

It's like if your first five wicket cost you 50 balls each, the 7th will cost about 70 because you are tired. When you are in a good pack, you'd settle for 3 and 4 wickets in two innings sending 50 balls per each wicket.

Well, that's the point. It may hinder them playing longer (hence taking less aggregate wickets - although that is debatable in that they might be taking more wickets in less matches anyway) but it does not hurt their ratios in the matches.

Their careers might end before their peaks as well. A spinner going off with fitness problem at 32 years (Ex. Saqlain) reflects badly on their figures. The spinner would have not entered the best period of a spinner when he has perfected his art. Non injured Saqlain playing in his mid 30s would have been a formidable bowler, and might have been better than Kumble if he continued. (of course his fitness issues are not due to over bowling, but used as an example)

 

[weldone]

Kazo has got his new multi-quote partner in the absence of Richard. All the best, man.

 

[Ikki]

And the problem is a lone wolf never gets close to them to take it. In a pack at least you have a chance.

How doesn't it? You just said Aus are 2% more likely to get to the tail. So that means SL/lone wolf is almost as likely to get to the tail as Aus are. Just 2% less likely.

We can agree on that. In AUS case we'd never find a lone wold scenario under any condition. Possibly against SAF where Warne was the leader of the pack and other were quite behind him may be a good comparison.

Or Ashes 05 and maybe even SL 04 depending on your criteria.

The point is that doing that EXTRA work day and day out is a big ask. Over a 100 test career it will accumulate.

Yes, but it only accumulates towards the end. If someone played 150 tests in a pack, they'd retire earlier, but they're not going to play on when they're no good. So it's unlikely to affect their match-to-match ratios because they're not bowling the difference in 1 match, but over a career.

But still didn't they have similar ERs and SRs and averages? And didn't McGrath have less barren spells that Hadlee?

They're more or less the same. I'm sure McGrath did have less barren spells or spells that weren't barren to the same extent as Hadlee...but in terms of big hauls he wasn't close. I'll say it again: Hadlee had about as many 4fers as McGrath, and more 5fers and 10fers ...despite playing 40 less tests. I think that tends to suggest that the lone-wolf is more likely to have a big haul than a barren spell. I haven't researched it in detail but I'd be very surprised if any lone wolf had an even split of crap spells and big hauls.

It's like if your first five wicket cost you 50 balls each, the 7th will cost about 70 because you are tired. When you are in a good pack, you'd settle for 3 and 4 wickets in two innings sending 50 balls per each wicket.

But how do you know? It could be that your first 5 wickets cost you 70 balls each and you bowl more taking the next 2 for 20 balls. That brings your SR right back down to the low 50s. In a pack, you could take your first 4 for 60 balls each and then not have the chance to take more wickets to improve your figures.

As I said, it really depends on the bowler TBH. With a spin bowler, long spells are not really that much of a problem. It could be to a fast bowler - but then again you've got guys like Lillee who also shouldered big loads when called upon.

If the suggestion is that only those who did do long hauls were capable then what's the point of discussion? We're assuming that the pack hunters could bowl longer or that the lone wolves could compete in a more competitive atmosphere and having guesses how they'd do. Otherwise, we only know what they did and what they did is the only proof.

Their careers might end before their peaks as well. A spinner going off with fitness problem at 32 years (Ex. Saqlain) reflects badly on their figures. The spinner would have not entered the best period of a spinner when he has perfected his art. Non injured Saqlain playing in his mid 30s would have been a formidable bowler, and might have been better than Kumble if he continued. (of course his fitness issues are not due to over bowling, but used as an example)

I think that's a step too far - especially the Saqlain example. I think their peaks would just occur earlier; I really doubt they'd miss their peaks. For example, instead of Warne retiring after 145 matches he'd retire after 120. Your point rings true IF one were to argue that the bowler in a group would continue bowling more AND bowl for the same amount of tests.

Kazo has got his new multi-quote partner in the absence of Richard. All the best, man.

Migara and I are old multi-quote buddies .

Anyway, if anyone thinks the discussion is spoiling the thread I'd just stop TBF.

 

[weldone]

Migara and I are old multi-quote buddies .

Anyway, if anyone thinks the discussion is spoiling the thread I'd just stop TBF.

No no, carry on. I love scrolling

 

[King Pietersen]

I don't even think it needs to stretch as far as a bowling unit, just having 1 other World Class bowler in your side can massively assist a bowler's record. Check Daniel Vettori's record in matches with or without Shane Bond for example. Shows notable improvement when Bond was in the side.

 

[Migara]

How doesn't it? You just said Aus are 2% more likely to get to the tail. So that means SL/lone wolf is almost as likely to get to the tail as Aus are. Just 2% less likely.

But remember that SL is a two man attack, and sometimes 3 man at home. So taking the absolute value is wrong. I have shown you how the tail enders percentage becomes less and less when support bowlers start to fail. In home matches, SL get to the tail as equal to Aussies, because SL is a multi-man attack at home. But away from home it's a one and half man attack where Vaas was up and down for no reason. And I said when Vaas does bad, SL will get even lesser number of tail enders. So it proves beyond doubt that a pack will get more tail enders than a lone ranger. The quantification is difficult because it is hard to find true lone ranger bowling attacks. Harpin on percentages won't prove anything for your case.

Or Ashes 05 and maybe even SL 04 depending on your criteria.

SL04, Aussies had a very good seam attack. Only MacGill was rank **** in that attack. Others bowled very well. So not a good example. But Ashes 05, yes I agree. But you need to look at 10 - 15 series to see the pattern TBH.

They're more or less the same. I'm sure McGrath did have less barren spells or spells that weren't barren to the same extent as Hadlee...but in terms of big hauls he wasn't close. I'll say it again: Hadlee had about as many 4fers as McGrath, and more 5fers and 10fers ...despite playing 40 less tests. I think that tends to suggest that the lone-wolf is more likely to have a big haul than a barren spell. I haven't researched it in detail but I'd be very surprised if any lone wolf had an even split of crap spells and big hauls.

I cannot refute or accept this. Had to go in to stats for that.

But how do you know? It could be that your first 5 wickets cost you 70 balls each and you bowl more taking the next 2 for 20 balls. That brings your SR right back down to the low 50s. In a pack, you could take your first 4 for 60 balls each and then not have the chance to take more wickets to improve your figures.

Don't try to bring in exceptions. Take the general rule. When you are tired your efficacy is less. If you can prove it otherwise, be my guest.

As I said, it really depends on the bowler TBH. With a spin bowler, long spells are not really that much of a problem. It could be to a fast bowler - but then again you've got guys like Lillee who also shouldered big loads when called upon.

If you've been a spinner, you'd know what is the part of the body that tires most in a long spell. Spinners fingers exert very rapid motion, and they tire as much as a fast bowler does. Your body is ahead of the fingers, but flight, dip and spin will suffer when your fingers are tired. Extra 30 - 40 balls a day is in fact a big ask even for a spinner who bowls 20 overs.

If the suggestion is that only those who did do long hauls were capable then what's the point of discussion? We're assuming that the pack hunters could bowl longer or that the lone wolves could compete in a more competitive atmosphere and having guesses how they'd do. Otherwise, we only know what they did and what they did is the only proof.

The whole discussion is such hypothetical. What I believe is what ever the situation bowlers stats like Avg, SR etc won't change significantly. It's you who had a different view point.

I think that's a step too far - especially the Saqlain example. I think their peaks would just occur earlier; I really doubt they'd miss their peaks. For example, instead of Warne retiring after 145 matches he'd retire after 120. Your point rings true IF one were to argue that the bowler in a group would continue bowling more AND bowl for the same amount of tests.

Spinners generally peak in their early 30s and done by late 30s. That is less likely to happen because of injuries due to overbowling.

 

[Ikki]

But remember that SL is a two man attack, and sometimes 3 man at home. So taking the absolute value is wrong. I have shown you how the tail enders percentage becomes less and less when support bowlers start to fail. In home matches, SL get to the tail as equal to Aussies, because SL is a multi-man attack at home. But away from home it's a one and half man attack where Vaas was up and down for no reason. And I said when Vaas does bad, SL will get even lesser number of tail enders. So it proves beyond doubt that a pack will get more tail enders than a lone ranger. The quantification is difficult because it is hard to find true lone ranger bowling attacks. Harpin on percentages won't prove anything for your case.

I don't think there was any doubt that a pack will get more tail-enders than a lone-wolf. However, that pack has to share, even with the chance that they'll get to the tail more often. Furthermore, whereas one is a lack of opportunity for a bowler to take more wickets - like it is in a pack - if you don't get to the tail as a lone-wolf it is because you didn't take enough wickets. It doesn't mean that you took less, just not enough. If Murali takes 5 and Vaas 2; that can still be to his advantage than McGrath, and Warne getting 3 each and Gillespie and Kasper getting 2 each.

SL04, Aussies had a very good seam attack. Only MacGill was rank **** in that attack. Others bowled very well. So not a good example. But Ashes 05, yes I agree. But you need to look at 10 - 15 series to see the pattern TBH.

In SL04 it was really the spinners that did the damage, despite the good pace support. I agree that you need to see more series to see a pattern but Australia were so star-studded it rarely became a situation like Ashes05 where Warne was carrying the side.

I cannot refute or accept this. Had to go in to stats for that.

You can look into it but I doubt you'll find it split like that. Because had they had a career of being crap or taking a big haul with little in between the public perception of them would be quite different. Guys like Murali and Hadlee were renown for consistently being good and taking wickets. They weren't really known for having violent swings.

Don't try to bring in exceptions. Take the general rule. When you are tired your efficacy is less. If you can prove it otherwise, be my guest.

The point re bowling more is that it is only a handful of overs more per match. Yes, naturally when you tire you're less able to bowl but the difference in question is not so much as to really make that much of a worry. If McGrath bowled 3 more overs more in a match it is not going to deteriorate his performances that much.

If you've been a spinner, you'd know what is the part of the body that tires most in a long spell. Spinners fingers exert very rapid motion, and they tire as much as a fast bowler does. Your body is ahead of the fingers, but flight, dip and spin will suffer when your fingers are tired. Extra 30 - 40 balls a day is in fact a big ask even for a spinner who bowls 20 overs.

I don't really buy that - not even for a pace bowler, really. 4 overs over a test (24 balls) is hardly a big ask for a fast bowler, let alone a spinner.

The whole discussion is such hypothetical. What I believe is what ever the situation bowlers stats like Avg, SR etc won't change significantly. It's you who had a different view point.

FTR I don't think the change would be really significant, but it would be slight. In general I believe wicket-taking is the prime way of having better ratios...rather than just trying to concede less or take wickets faster.

People think; well, x bowler takes this many wickets for this many runs and balls so if he bowled more and took extra wickets it would come in this linear rate. For me, it's more a curve. The more wickets they take generally the better their stats will be. I mean, take any bowler and look at their stats: the figures where they take 4 or more wickets in a match are much better than their overall career figures. It's very unlikely for any bowler to take a high amount of wickets and concede a comparative amount of runs/balls with their career figures.

McGrath
Overall: avg. 21.64 sr 51.9
4wickets+: avg. 11.99 sr 27.9

Hadlee
Overall: avg. 22.29 sr 50.8
4wickets+: avg. 13.97 sr 34.0

Warne
Overall: avg. 25.41 sr 57.4
4wickets+: avg. 15.76 sr 38.1

Murali
Overall: avg. 22.72 sr 55.0
4wickets+: avg. 15.81 sr 41.0

This little comparison between each bowler's overall stats and their stats when they take 4 wickets or more in an inning show that generally the more wickets they're taking the better their stats are becoming. It's not like Warne, for example, takes 8 wickets and does so near his overall career average...he does it much better. The same goes for Murali; his figures are dramatically better when he takes more wickets.

Spinners generally peak in their early 30s and done by late 30s. That is less likely to happen because of injuries due to overbowling.

It really depends. Most people think Warne was at his best ever in his first few years; some think he was better in their last. Anyway, I still wouldn't buy it. A player that has 120 tests, instead of 145 let's say, is bound to have a good peak, regardless.

 

[aussie]

Kazo has got his new multi-quote partner in the absence of Richard. All the best, man.

I'm here technically. But its unlikely me & Ikki would ever get in a multi-quote debate, since i dont normally disagree with what he says.

 

[Migara]

FTR I don't think the change would be really significant, but it would be slight. Ingeneral I believe wicket-taking is the prime way of having better ratios...rather than just trying to concede less or take wickets faster.

People think; well, x bowler takes this many wickets for this many runs and balls so if he bowled more and took extra wickets it would come in this linear rate. For me, it's more a curve. The more wickets they take generally the better their stats will be. I mean, take any bowler and look at their stats: the figures where they take 4 or more wickets in a match are much better than their overall career figures. It's very unlikely for any bowler to take a high amount of wickets and concede a comparative amount of runs/balls with their career figures.

McGrath
Overall: avg. 21.64 sr 51.9
4wickets+: avg. 11.99 sr 27.9

Hadlee
Overall: avg. 22.29 sr 50.8
4wickets+: avg. 13.97 sr 34.0

Warne
Overall: avg. 25.41 sr 57.4
4wickets+: avg. 15.76 sr 38.1

Murali
Overall: avg. 22.72 sr 55.0
4wickets+: avg. 15.81 sr 41.0

This is stats picking! What you have to prove is that each bowler bowled progressively less amount of balls for a the subsequent wicket in the spell that he has taken 4 or more wickets. Your stats are totally flawed here, because the above <4 wicket spells include very very long spells that they have taken a huge pounding and was left with a small number of wickets.

 

[Migara]

I don't think there was any doubt that a pack will get more tail-enders than a lone-wolf. However, that pack has to share, even with the chance that they'll get to the tail more often. Furthermore, whereas one is a lack of opportunity for a bowler to take more wickets - like it is in a pack - if you don't get to the tail as a lone-wolf it is because you didn't take enough wickets. It doesn't mean that you took less, just not enough. If Murali takes 5 and Vaas 2; that can still be to his advantage than McGrath, and Warne getting 3 each and Gillespie and Kasper getting 2 each.

The highest average number wickets taken per innings by a bowler is by Barnes, and that is just below 4. Murali is the second with 3.6. Your numbers hence falls flat on the face. Barnes in a unit with three pie chuckers who gets about 1 wicket per innings between them will technically never get to the tail (actually he'll get there in some instances), where as a unit of bowlers who are taking 1.5 wickets per innings will technically always approach the tail enders. (actually they'll get there in most of the matches). There is no bowler in the cricketing history who could get to the tail enders by himself in almost all occasions. But a good unit, most of the times got there.

 

[Ikki]

This is stats picking! What you have to prove is that each bowler bowled progressively less amount of balls for a the subsequent wicket in the spell that he has taken 4 or more wickets. Your stats are totally flawed here, because the above <4 wicket spells include very very long spells that they have taken a huge pounding and was left with a small number of wickets.

What? I picked innings where they took 4 or more wickets and compared it to their own career figures. It shows that even lone-wolves benefit by taking more wickets, regardless of their spells. People often think that if often a lone wolf is taking 5-6 wickets he's taken on a load that will make his ratios suffer relatively. I just showed you, that is not the case. Even with the extra responsibilities, when they take big hauls, it is comparable to when someone like Warne or McGrath take big loads (ratio wise) - hence their big hauls garner them the same stats as when a bowler in a pack gets a big haul. The big difference is the proportion of innings these efforts affect, which help out lone-wolves' figures.

For example:

McGrath's 4w+ innings = 57/243= 23%
Hadlee's 4w+ innings = 60/150= 41%
Warne's 4w+ innings = 85/273= 31%
Murali's 4w+ innings = 112/230= 47%

---

For Interest's sake I looked at their figures when they've taken 3 and less wickets in an inning and their % of total innings; and it was well, interesting:

           [B]AVG       SR      %[/B]
[B][URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/6565.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings;wicketsmax1=3;wicketsval1=wickets"]McGrath[/URL][/B]   30.73     74.5    77

[B][URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/37224.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings;wicketsmax1=3;wicketsval1=wickets"]Hadlee[/URL][/B]    41.58     89.7    59

[B][URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/8166.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings;wicketsmax1=3;wicketsval1=wickets"]Warne[/URL][/B]     38.17     83.0    69

[B][URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/49636.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings;wicketsmax1=3;wicketsval1=wickets"]Murali[/URL][/B]    39.14     88.2    53

----

McGrath and Hadlee

Whilst you'd expect much poorer figures as you've practically restricted them to their poorer performances; it's striking how much poorer Hadlee was when taking 3 or less wickets in an inning. Some might think it explainable since Hadlee will have innings, being a lone wolf, of toiling away not taking wickets when in a pack he may have been taken off. But there is an interesting stat.

In innings where Hadlee takes 3 or less wickets (as with the above stats) he bowls 22 overs an inning. His career overs/inning stat is 24. So in fact, he has bowled less overs than usual and done poorly. This suggests that you can't really let him off because of bowling alone because he's simply not taken wickets/gotten poor figures.

McGrath on the other hand bowls 19.3 overs when taking 3 or less wickets compared to his career overs/inning stat of 20. So he basically bowls the same regardless. Yet his figures are incredibly good in comparison. One needs to look at more bowlers to see if McGrath was uber consistent or just normal or if Hadlee was normal or just really inconsistent.

What it does show is that bowling in a pack has not helped McGrath. For not only is he bowling pretty much as much as Hadlee per match/inning; he is doing better when taking less wickets and when taking more. But because he is in a pack, the proportion of his <3 wickets is much more than his 4> hauls which will drag down his more superlative efforts when looking at his overall career figures.

---

Warne and Murali

The differences between these two were not as striking as Hadlee and McGrath, although Warne was slightly the better performer both in taking <3 wickets and taking 4> wickets. Again, the point might come where Murali may have, being a lone wolf, had to toil away and it would have obliterated his stats, but like Hadlee, he bowled less in innings where he took <3 wickets. Both Warne and Murali bowled 2.5 overs less compared with their overall career overs/inning stat.

Whilst there is no huge gulf between their figures, as there is with Hadlee and McGrath, Murali has the highest percentage of bigger hauls and the lowest of smaller hauls so I'd argue against being a lone-wolf hindering him based on this argument. As with the above, the proportion of bigger hauls will clearly help the lone wolf.

------

I think the above, combined with the other stats I brought show that generally the more a bowler takes wickets, regardless of his teammates helping out, the better his figures are going to be. By comparing the apt bowlers you see they generally get the same great figures when they take more wickets. It's not simply a case of Murali or Hadlee taking more wickets and suffering enough runs/balls to negate that advantage. They still get comparable figures, which as I said earlier suggests more a curve than a linear relationship.

However, as seen by Murali and Hadlee, when you're a lone-wolf you are much more likely to get these greater figures and they will make up a greater proportion of your overall career figures and thus help.

 

[Ikki]

The highest average number wickets taken per innings by a bowler is by Barnes, and that is just below 4. Murali is the second with 3.6. Your numbers hence falls flat on the face. Barnes in a unit with three pie chuckers who gets about 1 wicket per innings between them will technically never get to the tail (actually he'll get there in some instances), where as a unit of bowlers who are taking 1.5 wickets per innings will technically always approach the tail enders. (actually they'll get there in most of the matches). There is no bowler in the cricketing history who could get to the tail enders by himself in almost all occasions. But a good unit, most of the times got there.

I wasn't making a situation based on their exact per innings take. Otherwise an attack of Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz never bowl out an opposition and take all their wickets in an inning, which is frankly silly. I am talking about how your reliance that an attack get to the tail is not all that important. There are still upper order and middle order bats to take. Whilst Murali might get to the tail less often than the Aussies, he gets a better chunk of the top order to aim for - and if he gets to the tail he also has less competition for those wickets too.

 

[Athlai]

Such an arbitary distinction in Hadlee and McGrath. Hadlee's long spells when he isn't bowling well could still see him get 3 or more wickets just for lack of other options, would be far more interested to see the amount of innings where some ridiculous amount of overs were bowled than anything to do with wickets.

 

[Ikki]

Such an arbitary distinction in Hadlee and McGrath. Hadlee's long spells when he isn't bowling well could still see him get 3 or more wickets just for lack of other options, would be far more interested to see the amount of innings where some ridiculous amount of overs were bowled than anything to do with wickets.

Is it? I don't think it is at all. If Hadlee is bowling a lot of overs and not taking many wickets, it would show up in the <3 wickets filter. What was shown is that when he takes less wickets (<3) he is actually bowling less. So his position as a lone-wolf cannot really explain away his poor figures because he hasn't been bowling that much.

Taking a cursory look at their innings by innings it seems to suggest so. I mean, if Hadlee bowls 20 overs, concedes 25 runs and takes no wickets...it really has little to do with being a lone wolf. He's just not taking wickets.

 

[Shri]

Kirk Lazarus in Tropic Thunder:

"Suck my unit!"

 

[Athlai]

Is it? I don't think it is at all. If Hadlee is bowling a lot of overs and not taking many wickets, it would show up in the <3 wickets filter. What was shown is that when he takes less wickets (<3) he is actually bowling less. So his position as a lone-wolf cannot really explain away his poor figures because he hasn't been bowling that much.

Taking a cursory look at their innings by innings it seems to suggest so. I mean, if Hadlee bowls 20 overs, concedes 25 runs and takes no wickets...it really has little to do with being a lone wolf. He's just not taking wickets.

3 overs on average is a variation though, the significance of it is kind of lost since there is no basis of what is the average over per innings in this scenario.

 

[Ikki]

You're right. You can click on the link and take a look at the innings yourself if it interests you. Personally, I thought comparing the overs/inning in the innings he takes 3 or less wickets with his overall overs/inning gives an accurate enough picture.

 

[Migara]

What? I picked innings where they took 4 or more wickets and compared it to their own career figures. It shows that even lone-wolves benefit by taking more wickets, regardless of their spells. People often think that if often a lone wolf is taking 5-6 wickets he's taken on a load that will make his ratios suffer relatively. I just showed you, that is not the case. Even with the extra responsibilities, when they take big hauls, it is comparable to when someone like Warne or McGrath take big loads (ratio wise) - hence their big hauls garner them the same stats as when a bowler in a pack gets a big haul. The big difference is the proportion of innings these efforts affect, which help out lone-wolves' figures.

For example:

McGrath's 4w+ innings = 57/243= 23%
Hadlee's 4w+ innings = 60/150= 41%
Warne's 4w+ innings = 85/273= 31%
Murali's 4w+ innings = 112/230= 47%

---

For Interest's sake I looked at their figures when they've taken 3 and less wickets in an inning and their % of total innings; and it was well, interesting:

           [B]AVG       SR      %[/B]
[B][URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/6565.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings;wicketsmax1=3;wicketsval1=wickets"]McGrath[/URL][/B]   30.73     74.5    77

[B][URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/37224.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings;wicketsmax1=3;wicketsval1=wickets"]Hadlee[/URL][/B]    41.58     89.7    59

[B][URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/8166.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings;wicketsmax1=3;wicketsval1=wickets"]Warne[/URL][/B]     38.17     83.0    69

[B][URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/49636.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings;wicketsmax1=3;wicketsval1=wickets"]Murali[/URL][/B]    39.14     88.2    53

----

McGrath and Hadlee

Whilst you'd expect much poorer figures as you've practically restricted them to their poorer performances; it's striking how much poorer Hadlee was when taking 3 or less wickets in an inning. Some might think it explainable since Hadlee will have innings, being a lone wolf, of toiling away not taking wickets when in a pack he may have been taken off. But there is an interesting stat.

In innings where Hadlee takes 3 or less wickets (as with the above stats) he bowls 22 overs an inning. His career overs/inning stat is 24. So in fact, he has bowled less overs than usual and done poorly. This suggests that you can't really let him off because of bowling alone because he's simply not taken wickets/gotten poor figures.

McGrath on the other hand bowls 19.3 overs when taking 3 or less wickets compared to his career overs/inning stat of 20. So he basically bowls the same regardless. Yet his figures are incredibly good in comparison. One needs to look at more bowlers to see if McGrath was uber consistent or just normal or if Hadlee was normal or just really inconsistent.

What it does show is that bowling in a pack has not helped McGrath. For not only is he bowling pretty much as much as Hadlee per match/inning; he is doing better when taking less wickets and when taking more. But because he is in a pack, the proportion of his <3 wickets is much more than his 4> hauls which will drag down his more superlative efforts when looking at his overall career figures.

---

Warne and Murali

The differences between these two were not as striking as Hadlee and McGrath, although Warne was slightly the better performer both in taking <3 wickets and taking 4> wickets. Again, the point might come where Murali may have, being a lone wolf, had to toil away and it would have obliterated his stats, but like Hadlee, he bowled less in innings where he took <3 wickets. Both Warne and Murali bowled 2.5 overs less compared with their overall career overs/inning stat.

Whilst there is no huge gulf between their figures, as there is with Hadlee and McGrath, Murali has the highest percentage of bigger hauls and the lowest of smaller hauls so I'd argue against being a lone-wolf hindering him based on this argument. As with the above, the proportion of bigger hauls will clearly help the lone wolf.

------

I think the above, combined with the other stats I brought show that generally the more a bowler takes wickets, regardless of his teammates helping out, the better his figures are going to be. By comparing the apt bowlers you see they generally get the same great figures when they take more wickets. It's not simply a case of Murali or Hadlee taking more wickets and suffering enough runs/balls to negate that advantage. They still get comparable figures, which as I said earlier suggests more a curve than a linear relationship.

However, as seen by Murali and Hadlee, when you're a lone-wolf you are much more likely to get these greater figures and they will make up a greater proportion of your overall career figures and thus help.

Once again there's abig flaw in those stats. You've included the unfinished innings as well. You have to include only the innings where most of the wickets fell, or declared. An innings of a target that was chased and a bowler ending up with 8.3 - 2 - 15 - 2 like stats should not be included there. This will be the main reason for reduced number of overs.

Then once more we have to compare what McGrath's 3 w/i compared to that of Hadlee. because Hadlee takes more w/i the number 3 for Hadlee denotes a poorer performance than w/i=3 for McGrath. Hence we are comparing McGrath's not so poor performance against Hadlee's poorer performance.

When speaking about poor performances, the tail enders become more important. When a lone wolf is getting tap, the team almost never gets to the tail, unless somebody does a freak job or the match is fixed. When a pack is hunting they almost always get to the tail. And there is a chance that even the person with the poorest form may get a chance to go at tail enders. Especially to get their morale up. Because of this poor performances of lone wolves suffer more.

Comparing poor performances of each player and telling that A did not depend on the pack than B is wrong. What you should compare is bowlers average vs rest of the attack average over each innings and try to get a correlation between them. Your statistical method is highly flawed when it comes to judging how support bowling has influenced the performance of a bowler.

 

[Migara]

Using your same flawed methods I could show following about Murali.

When Murali bowled 3.06
<= 150 balls per innings, I - 83, W - 254, Avg - 14.76, W / I = 3.06
<= 300 balls per innings, I - 204, W - 694, Avg - 21.72
unfiltered ( 0 - 450), I - 230, W - 800, Avg - 22.72

So, avg in spells of 151 - 300 = (694 * 21.72 - 254 * 14.76)/ (694 - 254) = 25.73, W/I = (694 - 254)/(204 - 83) = 3.63
Avg in spells of 301 - 450 = ((800 * 22.72) - (694 * 21.72)) / (800 - 694) = 29.26, W/I = (800 - 694) / (230 - 204) = 4.07

This shows a very simple fact. Bowling more gets you more wickets. But the cost per wicket increases as well. By bowling a 25 over spell Murali gets about 3 wickets. But bowling 50 he does not get 6. It's around 3.6 wickets.