Bowling with a strong bowling unit vs without

[Flem274*]

I'm not quite sure what I just read but I think it was a good debate.

Hadlee was everything McGrath was, just faster, ftr. At least that's my impression.

Is that even relevant? WHAT ARE WE ARGUING??

 

[Ikki]

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.

To satisfy your own interest you can remove those innings if you like. It probably won't affect the overs/inning stat much, and unlikely to explain why they've been so poor in <3w innings because as a proportion of total innings these are a small number.

Although, there's not really any logic behind it because such figures, like the above, actually improve Hadlee's SR and AVG. In fact, both Hadlee and Murali do really well during initial 10-14 over spells.

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.

Why does it denote a worse performance? In fact, there is no way of knowing that until you do the analysis that I have done. For all we knew Hadlee could have been great initially and died down during his latter wickets - as you seemed to suggest in your argument that the last wickets taken are more expensive. Conversely, there was no way of knowing how McGrath took his wickets. It all came out now.

What it does show is that Hadlee was very expensive when he didn't take large hauls. And it wasn't because of anything but him. If anything, having less competition could be held against him because he'd have that, as well as not having to bowl a large amount - as he didn't when he took <3w.

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.

What? This really isn't a strong argument at all. Remember your own point: they are only 2% more likely. Even if they get to the tail, the pack has to share all 4 wickets. And as I just showed you: in big hauls the pack hunters do not really suffer. The 4w> matches on all bowlers shows that. If they are not bowling well at all to get to the tail (i.e. <3w) then that is their own doing - you can't excuse the lone ranger simply for not taking wickets.

What's ironic is that Hadlee actually took a bigger proportion of tailenders compared to McGrath anyway; and despite all the competition Warne only took 4.6% more than Murali in tailenders. This argument is a long stretch to say the least.

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.

You can do the above; although that's an even more arguable method as you can't ever pin down just how much "help" helped you. What's unique about cricket is that even as a team game, it is a 1v1 battle almost all the time. Just how are you going to quantify how much breakthroughs your partners made helped you? That is why I look what the bowlers in question themselves did.

What I showed was that it is much better to take more wickets by yourself, even if that means more responsibility, because you will comparatively have a greater number of these kinds of performances than someone in a pack - who is always restricted because he will have lesser wickets to aim for. Think the point has been made clearly by now.

 

[Teja.]

I'm not quite sure what I just read but I think it was a good debate.

Hadlee was everything McGrath was, just faster, ftr. At least that's my impression.

Is that even relevant? WHAT ARE WE ARGUING??

Tbh, I don't think, apart from their unerring accuracy, they are similar bowlers at all.

Hadlee was the more attacking and proactive bowler and, as Geoff Boycott mentioned, a bowler quite similar in his attack to the stumps as Dale Steyn.

McGrath on the other hand was a bowler who relished on exploiting technical weaknesses of Batsmen and the kind of bowler who worked over Batsman, rather than just get them. A bowler in the past who bowled similar to McGrath is John Snow. Snow had the better short ball and used it more often, however McGrath is was clearly the better bowler. This has been referenced to by John Thicknesse in Snow's cricinfo profile as well.

In rhythm, accuracy, pace and possession of a vicious bouncer, Snow had much in common with Glenn McGrath of Australia as a spearhead. But in one respect they widely differed: Snow never needed to resort to sledging to make a batsman feel uncomfortable. His air of of menace said it all

 

[Ikki]

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.

There's a big flaw in your reasoning: you always revert to overs bowled. That's not the point - or rather not the entire point. You could have two bowlers, and both bowl the same amount, but one survives in a pack and the other is a lone wolf. That's going to mean one is going to have more wickets to aim for than the other.

In fact, that is what I was trying to show you in the Hadlee/McGrath comparison (because there is only 3 overs difference between them, which isn't a great deal).

My whole point is: it is better to be able to take more wickets as the more wickets you take, generally the better your stats tend to be - even if you are a marathon bowler.

Showing someone bowling more, whilst not taking many wickets, will increase their average is not a revelation. It's missing the point. One could argue that Murali won't take as many wickets bowling 0-150 balls IF he has support also taking wickets at the other end. Whereas someone like Warne is constantly competing for wickets from ball 1.

That's why I make the distinction: it is better to take more wickets than to bowl less or concede less runs because the more wickets you tend to take the better your ratios are. Now that can occur between 0-150 balls or 250-400...it doesn't matter, but you will always have more wickets to take when you have less support at the other end limiting the amount you can take in a given inning/match. And with less support, you are far more likely to have big hauls - even if those big hauls come from bowling only 20 overs.

 

[Migara]

Although, there's not really any logic behind it because such figures, like the above, actually improve Hadlee's SR and AVG. In fact, both Hadlee and Murali do really well during initial 10-14 over spells.

Bingo! you've just accepted that lone rangers do benefit from short spells! That was what I've been saying for last 10 posts.

Why does it denote a worse performance? In fact, there is no way of knowing that until you do the analysis that I have done. For all we knew Hadlee could have been great initially and died down during his latter wickets - as you seemed to suggest in your argument that the last wickets taken are more expensive. Conversely, there was no way of knowing how McGrath took his wickets. It all came out now.

Now you put the argument that SR / ER / Avg does not suffer by bowling long spell. Take the following example. A takes 4 wickets per innings in average, and B has taken 3. A cut off of 2 w/i is much closer to average performance of B rather than A.Obviously the standard deviation plays a part, but I don't think that plays a big part here. Put it another way, McGrath has taken <=3 W/I in 186 / 243 innings, or the ratio 0.765. For Hadlee, it's 89 / 150 = 0.593
Now that means you are basically involving more above average innings for McGrath (W/I 2.31, 26.5% of them) compared to Hadlee (W/I = 2.87, 9.3%) of them. The correct way to do it will be to use McGrath's worst 122 innings stats to Hadlee's worst 76 innings.

What it does show is that Hadlee was very expensive when he didn't take large hauls. And it wasn't because of anything but him. If anything, having less competition could be held against him because he'd have that, as well as not having to bowl a large amount - as he didn't when he took <3w.

That will show the even when he was getting the tap he had to bowl. he had no choice. McGrath's captain on those occasions took him off to be reused against newer batsmen when somebody else got them. Hadlee had to do it all by himself.

 

[Migara]

What? This really isn't a strong argument at all. Remember your own point: they are only 2% more likely. Even if they get to the tail, the pack has to share all 4 wickets. And as I just showed you: in big hauls the pack hunters do not really suffer. The 4w> matches on all bowlers shows that. If they are not bowling well at all to get to the tail (i.e. <3w) then that is their own doing - you can't excuse the lone ranger simply for not taking wickets.

What's ironic is that Hadlee actually took a bigger proportion of tailenders compared to McGrath anyway; and despite all the competition Warne only took 4.6% more than Murali in tailenders. This argument is a long stretch to say the least.

Firstly 2% was with two good bowlers vs three of them. I said earlier not to concentrate on the number because there is no pure lone ranger situations. I showed with enough evidence that when the pack has weaker support bowlers they take less tail enders. It's a matter to getting to the tail often and sharing it vs getting it there rarely and feasting it on when the chance arrives. In my book the first is likely, because there are no bowlers who take more than 4 w/i in the test history who has played a reasonable time. Once again you are trying to drag Hadlee and Murali to the argument. Murali and Hadlee were head men of a two men attack. And if you see that stats you'll get to see that Vaas has taken a similar % of top order wickets as McGrath, only lesser in number per innings. You may do the same for Chatfield, and surprisingly may find that he also has got a huge % of top order wickets. Support bowlers support by taking some top order wickets and then head men feat on the tail. A lone ranger never ever enjoys that luxury. He has to take ALL the top order wickets.

 

[Ikki]

Bingo! you've just accepted that lone rangers do benefit from short spells! That was what I've been saying for last 10 posts.

It depends just how short. For example, Hadlee is horrible at 10 overs, but becomes magnificent at 14. Anyway, the length of spells wasn't my point.

Now you put the argument that SR / ER / Avg does not suffer by bowling long spell. Take the following example. A takes 4 wickets per innings in average, and B has taken 3. A cut off of 2 w/i is much closer to average performance of B rather than A.Obviously the standard deviation plays a part, but I don't think that plays a big part here. Put it another way, McGrath has taken <=3 W/I in 186 / 243 innings, or the ratio 0.765. For Hadlee, it's 89 / 150 = 0.593
Now that means you are basically involving more above average innings for McGrath (W/I 2.31, 26.5% of them) compared to Hadlee (W/I = 2.87, 9.3%) of them. The correct way to do it will be to use McGrath's worst 122 innings stats to Hadlee's worst 76 innings.

Again, it's no revelation to know: if you bowl longer and don't take many wickets your figures suffer. That too goes for Warne and McGrath as well as Murali and Hadlee. I'm not sure what the hell you're suggesting with the other stats either.

That will show the even when he was getting the tap he had to bowl. he had no choice. McGrath's captain on those occasions took him off to be reused against newer batsmen when somebody else got them. Hadlee had to do it all by himself.

But that scenario is undoubtedly exaggerated: Hadlee only bowls 3 overs more per match. And you're only talking about the long spells. It's only a hindrance if it's a really long spell. Whereas McGrath in every other kind of spell has competition for wickets...Hadlee doesn't. Even if both were to bowl 15 overs...it is better to be Hadlee than McGrath and having someone regularly pick off the wickets your working hard for.

Do you really think it's because of only 3 overs per match that Hadlee has so so many more big hauls (4w, 5w, and 10w) in comparison to McGrath per Test? It's an easy answer: it is because he has much less support. Likewise for Murali and his gargantuan number of big hauls.

Firstly 2% was with two good bowlers vs three of them. I said earlier not to concentrate on the number because there is no pure lone ranger situations. I showed with enough evidence that when the pack has weaker support bowlers they take less tail enders. It's a matter to getting to the tail often and sharing it vs getting it there rarely and feasting it on when the chance arrives. In my book the first is likely, because there are no bowlers who take more than 4 w/i in the test history who has played a reasonable time. Once again you are trying to drag Hadlee and Murali to the argument. Murali and Hadlee were head men of a two men attack. And if you see that stats you'll get to see that Vaas has taken a similar % of top order wickets as McGrath, only lesser in number per innings. You may do the same for Chatfield, and surprisingly may find that he also has got a huge % of top order wickets. Support bowlers support by taking some top order wickets and then head men feat on the tail. A lone ranger never ever enjoys that luxury. He has to take ALL the top order wickets.

When we talk about lone wolf scenarios, we are talking about guys like Hadlee and Murali...don't tell me now they don't count and are two men scenarios.

So, the difference between getting there is minuscule, but is outdone by the fact that even when the pack gets there...they have to share those wickets with more bowlers.

 

[vcs]

You guys really care about this.

 

[Ikki]

You're right, we should end it. I don't think we'll convince each other, either way. He'll take my points as a pot shot against Murali and try to rebut them. I've got too much work, I should just let it go.

 

[Migara]

There's a big flaw in your reasoning: you always revert to overs bowled. That's not the point - or rather not the entire point. You could have two bowlers, and both bowl the same amount, but one survives in a pack and the other is a lone wolf. That's going to mean one is going to have more wickets to aim for than the other.

In fact, that is what I was trying to show you in the Hadlee/McGrath comparison (because there is only 3 overs difference between them, which isn't a great deal).

My whole point is: it is better to be able to take more wickets as the more wickets you take, generally the better your stats tend to be - even if you are a marathon bowler.

Showing someone bowling more, whilst not taking many wickets, will increase their average is not a revelation. It's missing the point. One could argue that Murali won't take as many wickets bowling 0-150 balls IF he has support also taking wickets at the other end. Whereas someone like Warne is constantly competing for wickets from ball 1.

That's why I make the distinction: it is better to take more wickets than to bowl less or concede less runs because the more wickets you tend to take the better your ratios are. Now that can occur between 0-150 balls or 250-400...it doesn't matter, but you will always have more wickets to take when you have less support at the other end limiting the amount you can take in a given inning/match. And with less support, you are far more likely to have big hauls - even if those big hauls come from bowling only 20 overs.

Now you are running away from the point and changing your goal posts.
Your point is that it is better to be able to take more wickets as the more wickets you take, generally the better your stats tend to be - even if you are a marathon bowler.

Your next argument is One could argue that Murali won't take as many wickets bowling 0-150 balls IF he has support also taking wickets at the other end.. Now I'd say it would help Murali more! In a < 25 over spell Murali takes only 3 wickets, and there are 7 left for others. If there was only 4 wickets per innings you'd be having a point. the 7 wickets will be distributed among 3 bowlers at 2.3 w/i, if possible is a mighty achievement for any bowler. If you had a McGrath, in a 25 over spell he takes only 2.2 wickets, Hadlee 2.4, Warne 2.1, total 6.7. (FFS, even Barnes managed 3.2!) So in a group of McGrath, Hadlee, Warne and Murali, others will leave Murali with >6 wickets to take if bowling in tandem with him, and 3.3 wickets to take if all of them shared the bowling equally. , which is more than what he actually takes, 3.06. And, remember that 30% of above are tail enders, which Murali will never get to, in a normal SL bowling lineup with a 25 over spell.

 

[Ikki]

I read the above and I find the suggestion that an attack of Hadlee, Warne and McGrath wouldn't get in each other's way disingenuous. It seems you've also totally forgotten about match situations which may limit the # of wickets that can be taken in an inning and run-outs/stumpings, in general.

I am more interested in your reply to this:

Do you really think it's because of only 3 overs per match that Hadlee has so so many more big hauls (4w, 5w, and 10w) in comparison to McGrath per Test? It's an easy answer: it is because he has much less support. Likewise for Murali and his gargantuan number of big hauls.

I'd like you to explain then, why the two lone wolves in question have so many big hauls, if it does not have to do with less support.

For me it's simple; the lack of support is why they have so many big hauls. I used 4w> to count these hauls. What that showed is that a greater proportion of the matches of lone wolves turn into big hauls. These help their records much more than pack hunters who get comparatively fewer big hauls and more <3w hauls.

 

[Burgey]

Wickets is wickets.

And nothing ****s me more than having a side 6 for bugger all and the tail puts on bulk runs.

Honestly, worst thing in cricket when you're fielding.

 

[Burgey]

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%

Interesting that stat.

Though perhaps we need to factor in that in Warne, McGrath's great support bowler was one who bowled long spells when the ball was older, perhaps explaining the disparity with the other two greats in that stats table.

 

[Uppercut]

McGrath towered over his fast-bowling contemporaries so highly during the 2000s that he mildly embarrassed everyone in the sport.

The difference between him averaging 21 and averaging 25 is just one four-ball every 52 deliveries. No one would even have noticed the difference! It's not always immediately obvious who the most accurate fast bowlers are unless you watch them for a very long period of time. But they're generally also the best ones.

 

[aussie]

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.

Yea, this is true as well.

 

[Hurricane]

I am more interested in your reply to this:

Quote:
Do you really think it's because of only 3 overs per match that Hadlee has so so many more big hauls (4w, 5w, and 10w) in comparison to McGrath per Test? It's an easy answer: it is because he has much less support. Likewise for Murali and his gargantuan number of big hauls.
I'd like you to explain then, why the two lone wolves in question have so many big hauls, if it does not have to do with less support.

For me it's simple; the lack of support is why they have so many big hauls. I used 4w> to count these hauls. What that showed is that a greater proportion of the matches of lone wolves turn into big hauls. These help their records much more than pack hunters who get comparatively fewer big hauls and more <3w hauls.

I am having trouble getting my head around this - I am not sure if I agree. I will play devils advocate.
If McGrath is working hard for some wickets and sets a batsman up gives him a good working over and then Warne picks up the wicket/batsman at the other end - some new batsman is going to come in who will be all nervous and unsure of himself and McGrath can get him out instead. I would think McGrath is just as likely to dismiss a brand new batsman as he is some batsman he has been working over.
IF as you say McGrath and Hadlee are bowling roughly the same number of overs in a game then McGrath is getting as many wicket taking opportunities as Hadlee. You would have to make a case that bowling to a batsman you are working over and playing mind games with is more likely to result in wickets than bowling to a brand new batsman at the crease.

 

[Ikki]

That's a good point, but I am not sure how to begin working out which scenario is better statistically.

But you answer the question. Why do you think it is, that even though Hadlee and McGrath bowled roughly the same amount of overs, Hadlee has a much better bigger haul per test? The lone wolves usually have an inordinate amount of big hauls, even amongst greats. Compare Hadlee to Wasim, Donald, Marshall or Ambrose (bowlers that had at least 1 great bowling partner) and you'll see just how far ahead he is in getting bigger hauls. Do you think that has anything to do with being the prime wicket-taking option in his team?

True, he did bowl a couple overs more on them than what he did with McGrath, but I think it has a great part to do with it.

 

[Uppercut]

There will occasionally be situations where he'd rather be bowling to a batsman he's been working over than a batsman that's just arrived at the crease, but on the whole it's definitely an advantage to be bowling to more new ones.

 

[Hurricane]

Hadlee
% of innings SR Wickets Wickets per inning
<100 balls 23% 38 58 2.64
100-150 balls 27% 41 124 3.0
150-200 balls 29% 55 137 3.1
200-250 balls 15% 64 75 3.4
250+ 5% 60 37 4.6


McGrath
% of innings SR Wickets Wickets/inning
<100 balls 33% 37 153 1.9
100-150 balls 39% 47 237 2.5
150-200 balls 22% 73 124 2.3
200-250 balls 5% 75 38 2.9
250+ 1% 47 11 5.5

Marshall
% of innings SR Wickets Wickets/inning
<100 balls 35% 34 114 2.1
100-150 balls 41% 51 150 2.4
150-200 balls 20% 52 98 3.3
200-250 balls 3% 76 14 2.8


1) McGrath's SR fell away over 150 balls vs Marshall and Hadlee. I speculate that this is because he may have bowled on more flat tracks than Marshall and Hadlee. So if McGrath could not make early inroads into a batting line up it meant the track was flat and he wasn't going to get many wickets that inning regardless of how many overs he bowled.

2) The fact that Marshall's SR matched Hadlee's when they bowled between 150-200 deliveries means that the extra competition that Marshall had did not hamper his wicket taking ability. I suggest that Hadlee's wicket taking advantage over Marshall was probably just the extra overs that Hadlee got to bowl.

3) I note that Hadlee's SR of 41 between 100-150 deliveries beats both McGrath (47) and Marshall (51)
I can't explain this and it suggests that there may be something to the theory that competition hurts your SR - but it is not conclusive because of point 2 above where Marshalls SR = Hadlee's. Perhaps there is another explanation..linked to the NZ pitches Hadlee played on.

Conclusions

a) I think the major advantage the lone wolf has is his ability to bowl more overs so leading to more wickets.

b) When McGrath bowls the same number of overs as Hadlee and doesn't take the same number of wickets I think this is probably down to the pitch or some other factor and not competition. See Uppercutts point above. And the fact that Marshall matched Hadlee's SR in some circumstances despite competition.

 

[Athlai]

Interesting to note that Hadlee bowled over 200 balls in 20% of his innings compared to McGrath's 6% and Marshall's 3%. That is a huuuuuuuuuuge variation.