How would you rank the bowling attacks in world cricket as of today ?

[Jono]

I came up with this way back in 2009 as the reason for India's ascent to #1, but was shut down by the 'bowlers win matches' brigade

Worst people.

 

[Walter]

that would have been awesome. Would have liked to see Steyn and Waqar bowl together in an All Time Xi though. It would have been as exciting as any spectacle on the cricket field.

Waqar's in-swingers and Steyn's out-swingers - I'd fake an injury in the dressing room rather than go out and waft at thin air.

 

[Furball]

A very fitting analogy. PEWS I will have to move you up in the ranks of the best debaters in this forum. I think you do belong in the Ikki, Migara league.

Harsh.

 

[Prince EWS]

Harsh.

Haha, regardless of what you think of their opinions, they certainly know how to present their case well. I definitely took it as a compliment.

 

[shankar]

Yeah I think all of the stuff you said there is probably true, but I don't really get how you can use that argument to justify that "if the Indian bowling was just ordinary overall, then you would expect more examples of the latter". While I don't think the Indian attack is actually that bad, especially with Zaheer there, there are plenty of genuinely mediocre/poor attacks that can still extract good results in favourable bowling conditions.

The examples I'm talking about are like this: Favourable bowling conditions - Opposition bowlers do really well, but Indian bowlers only do moderately well. Hence India lose. This rarely happens. When conditions are in their favour they not just do better, they are as good as the best attacks in exploiting those conditions. But when the conditions are not in their favour they stink the place up and bowl really badly.

For example in the Ind-SA series, when the first match was on a pitch they were not skilled enough to exploit, they bowled atrociously badly. But in the second and third matches, they were as good as the S.African attack. If you simply looked at the overall average for the series, you'd miss this subtlety and think that they were performing at a gear lower than the SAfrican attack throughout the series.

To use a batting analogy, consider the difference between 2 batsmen with an average of 40, one of whom is a flat-track bully. While the other batsman is consistently below par everywhere, the FTB is very good in certain conditions and very bad in certain conditions. India has the bowling equivalent of FTBs.

 

[smash84]

The examples I'm talking about are like this: Favourable bowling conditions - Opposition bowlers do really well, but Indian bowlers only do moderately well. Hence India lose. This rarely happens. When conditions are in their favour they not just do better, they are as good as the best attacks in exploiting those conditions. But when the conditions are not in their favour they stink the place up and bowl really badly.

For example in the Ind-SA series, when the first match was on a pitch they were not skilled enough to exploit, they bowled atrociously badly. But in the second and third matches, they were as good as the S.African attack. If you simply looked at the overall average for the series, you'd miss this subtlety and think that they were performing at a gear lower than the SAfrican attack throughout the series.

To use a batting analogy, consider the difference between 2 batsmen with an average of 40, one of whom is a flat-track bully. While the other batsman is consistently below par everywhere, the FTB is very good in certain conditions and very bad in certain conditions. India has the bowling equivalent of FTBs.

Although i would disagree with your hypothesis but a good analogy this one the bowling equivalent of FTBs

 

[Howe_zat]

I propose hereafter for FTB to represent Flat Track Bully when discussing batsmen, Fast Track Bully when discussing bowlers and neither to be considered a criticism.

 

[smash84]

I propose hereafter for FTB to represent Flat Track Bully when discussing batsmen, Fast Track Bully when discussing bowlers and neither to be considered a criticism.

why do you propose that it should not be a criticism?????

 

[Howe_zat]

Because flat tracks and fast tracks exist, and making the best of them is as much a skill as anything.

Same reason why I don't patronisingly ignore performances against Bangladesh.

What's better - getting out on a tricky seaming wicket and making a big score on a road, or playing a good innings in tough conditions and then failing when you'd be expected make a hundred?

Both need doing. That's how the game is. we can talk about which we'd rather watch, which is a different matter, but there's no criticism there in measuring a player's success.

 

[Spark]

The point is though you generally don't make a good innings in tough conditions and then not cash in on the roads. The reverse though is what defines FTBs.

Think the whole FTB thing is overrated myself for reasons that PEWS, Uppercut etc have posted, but this may be changing now with livelier pitches and livelier attacks.

 

[smash84]

Because flat tracks and fast tracks exist, and making the best of them is as much a skill as anything.

Same reason why I don't patronisingly ignore performances against Bangladesh.

What's better - getting out on a tricky seaming wicket and making a big score on a road, or playing a good innings in tough conditions and then failing when you'd be expected make a hundred?

Both need doing. That's how the game is. we can talk about which we'd rather watch, which is a different matter, but there's no criticism there in measuring a player's success.

interesting observation

 

[Uppercut]

Because flat tracks and fast tracks exist, and making the best of them is as much a skill as anything.

Same reason why I don't patronisingly ignore performances against Bangladesh.

I don't think they're the same thing. IMO, the real value of runs and wickets lies in the likelihood of them making a difference to the end result. Because cricket's about winning or not losing matches. So there's no real reason that runs against good attacks should count more than runs against poor ones. But 100 runs in a low-scoring match are definitely worth more than 100 runs in a high-scoring match- they're much more likely to change the result in your favour. And runs against a side with whom you're very closely-matched are more useful than those scored against a side you're either much better than or much worse than (which is why I consider Kallis's failure at home to Sri Lanka and phenomenal success at home to India far preferable to the opposite, regardless of the relative quality of the Sri Lankan and Indian attacks).

Runs against Bangladesh are extremely unlikely to change the result of the match- so unlikely, in fact, that not once in fifty-odd tests has a player in a test-standard team's failure to score runs cost his side a match. Bangladesh have always found a way to lose regardless of how many players fail. As such, runs against them are worth so little that you get a much, much better approximation of a player's contribution by leaving them out altogether. Although you will end up leaving out a couple of very important performances (i.e. Vettori, Gilchrist), on the whole an average which excludes Bangladesh is definitely a more useful figure.

 

[Uppercut]

What's better - getting out on a tricky seaming wicket and making a big score on a road, or playing a good innings in tough conditions and then failing when you'd be expected make a hundred?

Both need doing. That's how the game is. we can talk about which we'd rather watch, which is a different matter, but there's no criticism there in measuring a player's success.

Well, yes & no. The rest of the batsmen are much more likely to make up for it if you get out on a road, and given the test on the seaming wicket is likely to be low-scoring, the same amount of runs are much more likely to win your side a match than they are on a road.

 

[Howe_zat]

I don't think they're the same thing. IMO, the real value of runs and wickets lies in the likelihood of them making a difference to the end result. Because cricket's about winning or not losing matches. So there's no real reason that runs against good attacks should count more than runs against poor ones. But 100 runs in a low-scoring match are definitely worth more than 100 runs in a high-scoring match- they're much more likely to change the result in your favour. And runs against a side with whom you're very closely-matched are more useful than those scored against a side you're either much better than or much worse than (which is why I consider Kallis's failure at home to Sri Lanka and phenomenal success at home to India far preferable to the opposite, regardless of the relative quality of the Sri Lankan and Indian attacks).

Runs against Bangladesh are extremely unlikely to change the result of the match- so unlikely, in fact, that not once in fifty-odd tests has a player in a test-standard team's failure to score runs cost his side a match. Bangladesh have always found a way to lose regardless of how many players fail. As such, runs against them are worth so little that you get a much, much better approximation of a player's contribution by leaving them out altogether. Although you will end up leaving out a couple of very important performances (i.e. Vettori, Gilchrist), on the whole an average which excludes Bangladesh is definitely a more useful figure.

Well that's a very interesting concept, and most of the overall weakness in cricketing statistics that they often don't reflect the match situation.

However, getting a better reflection on how "important" your match performance can work in the opposite direction and removing weaker sides from the equation isn't the answer.

Firstly, there is the issue of being able to capitalize in the right situations as oppose to scoring when it is easy, which we count and which we don't.

Which innings was easier, for example - Jonathan Trott's hundred against Bangladesh, scoring against a poor attack but early in the game on an early-season English wicket while under personal pressure to deliver - or Matt Prior's hundred at Sydney, coming in with the aim to stamp a half-beaten and demoralised attack on a flat deck.

It's not as simple as it sounds, so why do we pick so easily?

Then there's the matter of what those playing for a weaker team might achieve. Take Shakib Al Hasan for example. In your post you used the slightly unfair qualifier "test-standard" to distiguish against his performances in ODIs against Zimbabwe or Tests against a depleted West Indies unit in 2009.

People who remove Bangladesh from averages might have removed that side too. But for Shakib, he was going on tour with the first reasonable chance he has ever had of winning. The runs and wickets he got there will mean a tremendous amount to him and indeed he had a huge effect on that series. So by your own standards those are the runs that count the most.

Conversely, suggesting that performances that don't affect the match situation don't count could suggest you'd remove Shakib's excellent bowling effort in South Africa. He never helped his side win, they never even came close. But you would have to admit it's unfair to take that series away from him personally.

It's not just Bangladesh of course - would you remove the stats of, say, Vaughan in Australia, just because his runs didn't effect the outcome of the series?

These are obviously delicate and trying to adjust the stats to reflect the competitiveness is clearly a lot more complicated than just removing Bangladesh from the equation. So we have no choice but to keep them in.

Well, yes & no. The rest of the batsmen are much more likely to make up for it if you get out on a road, and given the test on the seaming wicket is likely to be low-scoring, the same amount of runs are much more likely to win your side a match than they are on a road.

Fair point, I suppose. But if everyone relied on their team-mates they'd be a pretty crap team!

 

[Ruckus]

Can't all of this just be summarised as 'runs only matter/are important when they are required for team success'

 

[fredfertang]

Runs against Bangladesh are extremely unlikely to change the result of the match- so unlikely, in fact, that not once in fifty-odd tests has a player in a test-standard team's failure to score runs cost his side a match. Bangladesh have always found a way to lose regardless of how many players fail. As such, runs against them are worth so little that you get a much, much better approximation of a player's contribution by leaving them out altogether. Although you will end up leaving out a couple of very important performances (i.e. Vettori, Gilchrist), on the whole an average which excludes Bangladesh is definitely a more useful figure.

Jason Gillespie says **** off

 

[Howe_zat]

Can't all of this just be summarised as 'runs only matter/are important when they are required for team success'

Yes. And my point is that removing averages against Bangladesh/on flat pitches doesn't help.

 

[Uppercut]

Well that's a very interesting concept, and most of the overall weakness in cricketing statistics that they often don't reflect the match situation.

However, getting a better reflection on how "important" your match performance can work in the opposite direction and removing weaker sides from the equation isn't the answer.

Firstly, there is the issue of being able to capitalize in the right situations as oppose to scoring when it is easy, which we count and which we don't.

Which innings was easier, for example - Jonathan Trott's hundred against Bangladesh, scoring against a poor attack but early in the game on an early-season English wicket while under personal pressure to deliver - or Matt Prior's hundred at Sydney, coming in with the aim to stamp a half-beaten and demoralised attack on a flat deck.

It's not as simple as it sounds, so why do we pick so easily?

Then there's the matter of what those playing for a weaker team might achieve. Take Shakib Al Hasan for example. In your post you used the slightly unfair qualifier "test-standard" to distiguish against his performances in ODIs against Zimbabwe or Tests against a depleted West Indies unit in 2009.

People who remove Bangladesh from averages might have removed that side too. But for Shakib, he was going on tour with the first reasonable chance he has ever had of winning. The runs and wickets he got there will mean a tremendous amount to him and indeed he had a huge effect on that series. So by your own standards those are the runs that count the most.

Conversely, suggesting that performances that don't affect the match situation don't count could suggest you'd remove Shakib's excellent bowling effort in South Africa. He never helped his side win, they never even came close. But you would have to admit it's unfair to take that series away from him personally.

It's not just Bangladesh of course - would you remove the stats of, say, Vaughan in Australia, just because his runs didn't effect the outcome of the series?

These are obviously delicate and trying to adjust the stats to reflect the competitiveness is clearly a lot more complicated than just removing Bangladesh from the equation. So we have no choice but to keep them in.

There's no reason to remove Bangladesh's statistics from ODIs tbf. Nor, obviously, is there any need to do anything with Shakib's statistics.

I wouldn't bother making any of the other changes you mention, to be honest. I'm just theorising with the intention of showing logically why figures without Bangladesh are a better measure of someone's contribution than the figures with. Trying to make an end figure based on such theorising would be impossible, pointless even on a mathematical level and extremely boring.

 

[Hit Wicket]

South Africa
England
India
Australia
Sri Lanka (After Murali)
Pakistan (Minus Asif and Amir)
West Indies
New Zealand
Bangladesh

 

[Migara]

I propose hereafter for FTB to represent Flat Track Bully when discussing batsmen, Fast Track Bully when discussing bowlers and neither to be considered a criticism.

GTB a better term. green track bully.