Best ever ODI bowler

[Blocky]

Shane Bond.

 

[ankitj]

what is surprising????

To Blaze, that was.

Even to me because I can't put my finger on exactly why Wasim's test stats after some drilling down are below other ATG bowlers. He had everything that many other bowlers could only dream of. Yet that is not reflected in stats as it should. May have to do with very little differences between frequency of hitting impeccable line & lengths which may not be detected by a spectator's eye but might make a big difference to the batsmen. This is actually why stats just as often reveal things that naked eye doesn't as naked eye reveals that stats don't.

 

[Prince EWS]

To Blaze, that was.

Even to me because I can't put my finger on exactly why Wasim's test stats after some drilling down are below other ATG bowlers. He had everything that many other bowlers could only dream of. Yet that is not reflected in stats as it should. May have to do with very little differences between frequency of hitting impeccable line & lengths which may not be detected by a spectator's eye but might make a big difference to the batsmen. This is actually why stats just as often reveal things that naked eye doesn't as naked eye reveals that stats don't.

Yeah, I think Uppercut made a great point about this not long ago. If McGrath bowled one more four ball every eight overs throughout his Test career, he'd have averaged 26. That's a pretty massive jump in average when we're comparing him to other greats - he would've ended up with extremely similar stats to Jason Gillespie - but we wouldn't have even noticed the difference watching him. I think it's a great example of why watching a bowler bowl as your primary method of analysis is pretty flawed, particularly when we're splitting hairs with great bowlers. You can tell that, for example, McGrath's a better bowler than Andrew Hall by watching them, but anyone who watches cricket so analytically that they'd make a mental note of a bowler bowling one more four ball per eight overs than another really isn't enjoying the game. And when we're comparing greats, that's the sort of minute difference we're talking about.

To use the example in reverse - if Wasim could've bowled one less four ball every 9 overs, he'd have averaged under 20 and had a rightful claim to be statistically the best bowler since World War 1. That one loose ball every nine overs made the difference. We just don't notice it.

 

[ankitj]

That's interesting PEWS. Wasim though may also have to cover some ground on the proportion of tail end or low value wickets but that's an aside.

I also tend to think that small difference of one boundary ball every 8 over on average, may in reality manifest as a much greater difference in number of above and below par performances.

 

[vcs]

Yeah, I think Uppercut made a great point about this not long ago. If McGrath bowled one more four ball every eight overs throughout his Test career, he'd have averaged 26. That's a pretty massive jump in average when we're comparing him to other greats - he would've ended up with extremely similar stats to Jason Gillespie - but we wouldn't have even noticed the difference watching him. I think it's a great example of why watching a bowler bowl as your primary method of analysis is pretty flawed, particularly when we're splitting hairs with great bowlers. You can tell that, for example, McGrath's a better bowler than Andrew Hall by watching them, but anyone who watches cricket so analytically that they'd make a mental note of a bowler bowling one more four ball per eight overs than another really isn't enjoying the game. And when we're comparing greats, that's the sort of minute difference we're talking about.

To use the example in reverse - if Wasim could've bowled one less four ball every 9 overs, he'd have averaged under 20 and had a rightful claim to be statistically the best bowler since World War 1. That one loose ball every nine overs made the difference. We just don't notice it.

Don't think it's quite as simple as that TBH. Sometimes bowlers might have to be willing to bowl a more attacking length to pick up wickets as well. So a bowler might risk bowling more four-balls, but pick up wickets more frequently as a trade-off (Waqar?). Obviously, McGrath was skilled enough to maintain a terrific strike-rate to go with his accuracy. I don't think the only difference between McGrath and Gillespie was that McGrath was a little more accurate, I think he had more ways of picking up wickets as well, even though Gillespie might have beat the bat more often and looked threatening.

I think McGrath himself would have willingly bowled a couple of over-pitched balls to draw batsmen to drive at him and then suck him into nicking one. Even at Tendulkar, I can recall a couple of occasions where he got him to play a couple of gorgeous cover-drives and then got one to move a bit extra, and got him caught behind. Maybe Gillespie would/could not have executed such a plan so perfectly. In that case, the difference between the two would not be accuracy, but the ability to get the batsman out through patience and perfect planning. Also McGrath would probably bowl the nagging length and let the pitch take care of the rest in conditions like England or the Gabba, but pitch the ball a bit further up and vary his approach more in places like India, Adelaide etc. He was very quick to adapt.

At the end of the day, bowlers' approach to bowling varies from the extremely attacking (Waqar/Warne) to the perfectly planned and patient (McGrath/Asif/Ambrose) and every bowler probably fits somewhere along the spectrum. I think the difference is in how a bowler is able to translate his approach into results, and how he can adapt his method according to the conditions.

 

[Prince EWS]

Don't think it's quite as simple as that TBH. Sometimes bowlers might have to be willing to bowl a more attacking length to pick up wickets as well. So a bowler might risk bowling more four-balls, but pick up wickets more frequently as a trade-off (Waqar?).

Yeah, but in the end the goal is to take as many wickets as possible for a few runs as possible. There's a trade-off there obviously, but the aim of each bowler is to find his optimum level of attack to concede as few runs per wicket as he can. If McGrath just dragged one down once every eight overs rather than bowling a dot ball he'd have averaged 26 rather than under 22 and we would've barely noticed. That's what made him great - he didn't do that. Wasim obviously had a different method, but it's all about how he executed it - if he could've removed that slightly misdirected yorker that ended up a full toss and was sent to the boundary once every nine overs, he'd have stats that matched up people's general thoughts of his ability, and again, we probably wouldn't have noticed.

I think McGrath himself would have willingly bowled a couple of over-pitched balls to draw batsmen to drive at him and then suck him into nicking one. Even at Tendulkar, I can recall a couple of occasions where he got him to play a couple of gorgeous cover-drives and then got one to move a bit extra, and got him caught behind. Maybe Gillespie would/could not have executed such a plan so perfectly. In that case, the difference between the two would not be accuracy, but the ability to get the batsman out through patience and perfect planning. Also McGrath would probably bowl the nagging length and let the pitch take care of the rest in conditions like England or the Gabba, but pitch the ball a bit further up and vary his approach more in places like India, Adelaide etc. He was very quick to adapt.

Yeah but again, that was still to concede as few runs per wicket as possible. I'm not just talking about economy here. When we're talking great bowlers, the difference between averaging 22 or 26 is one one poorly executed ball in eight or nine overs. That's all it is. Or if you like - taking one more wicket every 150 overs or so. I'm not talking about plans or general lengths or anything like that - I'm talking about the execution of one ball per spell. We naturally notice how many weapons a bowler has or how uncomfortable a batsman looks but it terms of execution of effectiveness, we don't really notice small differences in economy rate or strike rate when we watch players. To compare McGrath to Gillespie again - they'd have to bowl 159 overs each before McGrath would actually take one whole wicket more than Gillespie. Those are the sort of hairs we're splitting when we say that McGrath has a better strike rate - we don't really notice these things just by watching them. So if you don't like the four ball example - think about that one. We can guess based on natural attributes of their bowling, but it doesn't really work.

Essentially, my point was about execution. Such slight difference we don't notice when watching bowlers play are reflected in their statistics. It's important to remember that when we're arguing over which bowler averaging under 25 was better, we really are splitting hairs.

 

[marc71178]

It could be argued though that that 1 4-ball would release a bit of the pressure on the batsman built up by McGrath, and thus lessen his wicket-taking frequency.

Obviously that's a rough summary of things - but no more than the thought that 1 more 4-ball would only affect his bowling average by 4.

 

[Prince EWS]

It could be argued though that that 1 4-ball would release a bit of the pressure on the batsman built up by McGrath, and thus lessen his wicket-taking frequency.

Which actually means that bowling one more four ball every eight overs would raise his average even more.

 

[vcs]

It could be argued though that that 1 4-ball would release a bit of the pressure on the batsman built up by McGrath, and thus lessen his wicket-taking frequency.

Obviously that's a rough summary of things - but no more than the thought that 1 more 4-ball would only affect his bowling average by 4.

My thoughts exactly... I see Prince EWS's general point and agree that sub-25 average bowlers are split by very fine margins, but I don't think averaging 22 is quite as simple as just a matter of executing a tiny bit better than a bowler who averages 26.

 

[ankitj]

Effect on bowling average of being more attacking, as I have said earlier, should be none in principle. Being attacking should spoil your economy rate (goes up) but improve your strike rate (goes down). Combined effect of the two should keep your average unchanged because Avg = ER x SR

 

[ankitj]

My thoughts exactly... I see Prince EWS's general point and agree that sub-25 average bowlers are split by very fine margins, but I don't think averaging 22 is quite as simple as just a matter of executing a tiny bit better than a bowler who averages 26.

I think PEWS' point was not so much about bowling one boundary ball every 8 over in particular, but about small differences that go unnoticed by a spectator in general.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think PEWS' point was not so much about bowling one boundary ball every 8 over in particular, but about small differences that go unnoticed by a spectator in general.

Indeed.

We like to think we can look at a bowler who averages 26 and a bowler who averages 22 and say we can visibly tell the difference between them by the way they bowl, but in reality the difference between them isn't something you'd actually naturally notice.

 

[vcs]

I think PEWS' point was not so much about bowling one boundary ball every 8 over in particular, but about small differences that go unnoticed by a spectator in general.

Indeed.

We look to think we can look at a bowler who averages 26 and a bowler who averages 22 and say we can visibly notice the difference between them by the way they bowl, but in reality the difference between them isn't something you'd actually naturally notice.

Yeah, that is true. Certainly you cannot pick up the difference between an ATG and just a very good bowler by watching them a few times.

 

[Migara]

Couldn't believe that McGrath only has 11 votes. Better ODI bowler, in fact the best ODI bowler ever in my book.

 

[Blaze 18]

Surprising but true.

EDIT: Another indicator

The first one is an interesting one. If I understand that correctly, that means Wasim Akram took relatively cheap wickets as compared to some other great fast bowlers ?

My two cents : As I have mentioned quite a few times on here, I am not a huge fan of statistics. Virtually every cricketer can be made to look ordinary using statistics - aside from Sir Donald Bradman, perhaps.

I have seen enough of Wasim Akram owning all-time great batsmen to rate him as I do. Few bowlers made batsmen look so clueless as Wasim Akram did. It is not without reason that Brian Lara, arguably the finest batsman of his generation, rated him as the best fast bowler he had faced in his entire career. Even Sir Viv Richards could not dominate him as he did the other fast bowlers he played against - although to be fair, that may be more down to the fact that he was considerably past his peak when the two squared off against each other. Nevertheless it does gives an inkling as to how great Wasim Akram was.

As for the ICC all-time ratings; again, I am not a fan. The corresponding list for batsmen has Brian Lara in the twenties - absolute joke.

If you feel that these statistics and rankings somehow prove that Wasim Akram was not an all-time great fast bowler, then that is your prerogative. However, ninety-nine per cent of cricket fans would likely have him in the uppermost echleon of fast bowlers.

 

[weldone]

I have seen enough of Wasim Akram owning all-time great batsmen to rate him as I do. Few bowlers made batsmen look so clueless as Wasim Akram did. It is not without reason that Brian Lara, arguably the finest batsman of his generation, rated him as the best fast bowler he had faced in his entire career. Even Sir Viv Richards could not dominate him as he did the other fast bowlers he played against - although to be fair, that may be more down to the fact that he was considerably past his peak when the two squared off against each other. Nevertheless it does gives an inkling as to how great Wasim Akram was.

As for the ICC all-time ratings; again, I am not a fan. The corresponding list for batsmen has Brian Lara in the twenties - absolute joke.

If you feel that these statistics and rankings somehow prove that Wasim Akram was not an all-time great fast bowler, then that is your prerogative. However, ninety-nine per cent of cricket fans would likely have him in the uppermost echleon of fast bowlers.

Completely agreed, mate.

 

[smash84]

Don't think it's quite as simple as that TBH. Sometimes bowlers might have to be willing to bowl a more attacking length to pick up wickets as well. So a bowler might risk bowling more four-balls, but pick up wickets more frequently as a trade-off (Waqar?). Obviously, McGrath was skilled enough to maintain a terrific strike-rate to go with his accuracy. I don't think the only difference between McGrath and Gillespie was that McGrath was a little more accurate, I think he had more ways of picking up wickets as well, even though Gillespie might have beat the bat more often and looked threatening.

I think McGrath himself would have willingly bowled a couple of over-pitched balls to draw batsmen to drive at him and then suck him into nicking one. Even at Tendulkar, I can recall a couple of occasions where he got him to play a couple of gorgeous cover-drives and then got one to move a bit extra, and got him caught behind. Maybe Gillespie would/could not have executed such a plan so perfectly. In that case, the difference between the two would not be accuracy, but the ability to get the batsman out through patience and perfect planning. Also McGrath would probably bowl the nagging length and let the pitch take care of the rest in conditions like England or the Gabba, but pitch the ball a bit further up and vary his approach more in places like India, Adelaide etc. He was very quick to adapt.

At the end of the day, bowlers' approach to bowling varies from the extremely attacking (Waqar/Warne) to the perfectly planned and patient (McGrath/Asif/Ambrose) and every bowler probably fits somewhere along the spectrum. I think the difference is in how a bowler is able to translate his approach into results, and how he can adapt his method according to the conditions.

Yeah, but in the end the goal is to take as many wickets as possible for a few runs as possible. There's a trade-off there obviously, but the aim of each bowler is to find his optimum level of attack to concede as few runs per wicket as he can. If McGrath just dragged one down once every eight overs rather than bowling a dot ball he'd have averaged 26 rather than under 22 and we would've barely noticed. That's what made him great - he didn't do that. Wasim obviously had a different method, but it's all about how he executed it - if he could've removed that slightly misdirected yorker that ended up a full toss and was sent to the boundary once every nine overs, he'd have stats that matched up people's general thoughts of his ability, and again, we probably wouldn't have noticed.



Yeah but again, that was still to concede as few runs per wicket as possible. I'm not just talking about economy here. When we're talking great bowlers, the difference between averaging 22 or 26 is one one poorly executed ball in eight or nine overs. That's all it is. Or if you like - taking one more wicket every 150 overs or so. I'm not talking about plans or general lengths or anything like that - I'm talking about the execution of one ball per spell. We naturally notice how many weapons a bowler has or how uncomfortable a batsman looks but it terms of execution of effectiveness, we don't really notice small differences in economy rate or strike rate when we watch players. To compare McGrath to Gillespie again - they'd have to bowl 159 overs each before McGrath would actually take one whole wicket more than Gillespie. Those are the sort of hairs we're splitting when we say that McGrath has a better strike rate - we don't really notice these things just by watching them. So if you don't like the four ball example - think about that one. We can guess based on natural attributes of their bowling, but it doesn't really work.

Essentially, my point was about execution. Such slight difference we don't notice when watching bowlers play are reflected in their statistics. It's important to remember that when we're arguing over which bowler averaging under 25 was better, we really are splitting hairs.

The first one is an interesting one. If I understand that correctly, that means Wasim Akram took relatively cheap wickets as compared to some other great fast bowlers ?

My two cents : As I have mentioned quite a few times on here, I am not a huge fan of statistics. Virtually every cricketer can be made to look ordinary using statistics - aside from Sir Donald Bradman, perhaps.

I have seen enough of Wasim Akram owning all-time great batsmen to rate him as I do. Few bowlers made batsmen look so clueless as Wasim Akram did. It is not without reason that Brian Lara, arguably the finest batsman of his generation, rated him as the best fast bowler he had faced in his entire career. Even Sir Viv Richards could not dominate him as he did the other fast bowlers he played against - although to be fair, that may be more down to the fact that he was considerably past his peak when the two squared off against each other. Nevertheless it does gives an inkling as to how great Wasim Akram was.

As for the ICC all-time ratings; again, I am not a fan. The corresponding list for batsmen has Brian Lara in the twenties - absolute joke.

If you feel that these statistics and rankings somehow prove that Wasim Akram was not an all-time great fast bowler, then that is your prerogative. However, ninety-nine per cent of cricket fans would likely have him in the uppermost echleon of fast bowlers.

top notch posts all of these. I don't know what to add over here other than agreeing somewhat with Blaze (with whom I have disagreed heartily in the past .....). I too have seen a lot of Wasim Akram and indeed have seen him bamboozle (yes that is what spinners do but Wasim could do it as a fast bowler) top notch batsmen the world over. Many many times he was so good that the batsman just could not get the bat near to the ball to make any contact. In terms of a fast bowler throwing the most unplayable deliveries Wasim might probably edge out all other bowlers in my book. Some of his deliveries there on youtube make for fascinating watching. Wasim along with Waqar probably bowled some of the most unplayable deliveries ever.

Although I don't know what is Wasim's corresponding break up of top order wickets is in ODIs but in tests at least he does have a large number of lower order wickets. But the surprising thing is that (which i picked from another thread) Wasim manages to bag the player of the match award every 6 tests which is probably the best ratio for any fast bowler. Interesting stat I thought.

 

[ankitj]

Although I don't know what is Wasim's corresponding break up of top order wickets is in ODIs but in tests at least he does have a large number of lower order wickets. But the surprising thing is that (which i picked from another thread) Wasim manages to bag the player of the match award every 6 tests which is probably the best ratio for any fast bowler. Interesting stat I thought.

HowSTAT! Wickets by Batting Order Graph

And yes, the MoM rate stands is very difficult to reconcile.

 

[smash84]

HowSTAT! Wickets by Batting Order Graph

And yes, the MoM rate stands is very difficult to reconcile.

very interesting site that one.............his odi wickets also has a lot of tailenders. That might also be because he bowled a lot of overs at the death. That might partially explain it.

 

[smash84]

HowSTAT! Wickets by Batting Order Graph

And yes, the MoM rate stands is very difficult to reconcile.

how did you come across this website???? It has a tremendous data base and has a lot of analyses available.