Who is the best fast bowler in the world right now - Tests

[Darth018]

I would just like to argue a point that really was ignored a couple of pages ago.

Strike rate vs economy rate.

Steyn averages 23 and one of the criticisms of him is that his economy rate is too high (which is balanced by the fact that his strike rate is very low).

In a test match, I would much rather have a bowler with a lower strike rate than a bowler with a higher one. The reason is that lower strike rates mean that all your bowlers have to do less bowling and the opposition batsmen are exposed to fresher bowlers with the harder ball. A lower strike rate also helps force victories instead of draws.

So yes, I would much rather a bowler who takes their wickets every 35 balls instead of one who took their wickets every 60 balls, given identical averages.

Nah.

Someone like McGrath would be much more useful bowling 20 overs than Steyn would be bowling 10.

 

[Spark]

That's because McGrath is an overall better bowler, though. And really we should be talking about bowling partnerships - McGrath to choke up one end, Steyn to blast them out at the other.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Nah.

Someone like McGrath would be much more useful bowling 20 overs than Steyn would be bowling 10.

Mcgrath is going a little bit too extreme isn't it?

 

[akilana]

Anderson is a vastly improved bowler but he has a lot to prove away from home.. I know people will point to Australia.. but that's just one series..

 

[AlwaysProteas]

I jizz a little every time Steyn bowls

That's because Dale Steyn is ***.

 

[Jono]

Dale Steyn was sitting in the stands only a few rows behind me at the day 1 Lord's test this year.

WAG

 

[GotSpin]

Dale Steyn was sitting in the stands only a few rows behind me at the day 1 Lord's test this year.

WAG

You get a woody?

I would have

 

[hang on]

ishant sharma will be the best bowler in the world very soon, watch out.

look, engage your brain a bit.

oh, the irony.

 

[fredfertang]

Interpreted the OP to include potential - so went for Tremlett, though I fear he'll never be fit long enough to fulfil it

 

[stephen]

I have to disagree. A lower strike rate is not so useful if your not even going to bowl him much. Someone with a higher strike rate and a lower economy rate is going to be more useful to the team if your always bowling him long spells compared to the higher strike rate player whom you are only giving short spells.

While there is nothing wrong with having a low strike rate there is also no excuse for having a high economy rate. You are costing/hurting the game for your team if you are giving away too much runs.

The problem here is that you are looking at this from an isolationist perspective. You are looking at a single bowler and what they do. But the thing is that batsmen face two bowlers at any one time. Let's look at a hypothetical situation:

Bowler A has an economy of 4 and a strike rate of 30
Bowler B has an economy of 2 and a strike rate of 60

Bowler C has an economy of 3 and a strike rate of 60 and is bowling in tandem with either A or B.

Let's pretend that this is an ideal world and everyone takes their wickets at the last ball of their strike rate.

A and C bowl together.

After 10 overs:
A - 5 overs, 1/20
C - 5 overs, 0/15
Opposition team - 1/35

After 20 overs:
A 10 overs, 2/40
C 10 overs, 1/30
Opposition team - 3/70

B and C bowl together.

After 10 overs:
B - 5 overs, 0/10
C - 5 overs, 0/15
Opposition team - 0/25

After 20 overs:
B - 10 overs, 1/20
C - 10 overs, 1/30

Opposition team - 2/50

The bowler with the faster strike rate but the same average has gotten the opposition team to be 3/70 after 20 overs instead of 2/50. Now in both cases the bowling team could said to be on top and this is a very contrived example, but the point remains that if you have a low average, having a low strike rate is way more beneficial than having a low economy.

So continuing with our situation, let's add bowlers D and E to the situation, both of which are brought on after the opening 20 over spell. They both have an average of 40 and a strike rate of 60. They get 10 overs each.

After 40 overs:
A & C - Opposition are now 5/150
B & C - Opposition are now 4/130

The bowlers continue operating in this way until the entire side has been dismissed.

A & C - Opposition are dismissed for 300 after 80 overs
A - 20 overs, 4/80
C - 20 overs, 2/60
D & E - 20 overs, 2/80

B & C - Opposition are 8/260 after 80 overs and are dismissed for 310 after 100 overs
B - 30 overs, 3/60
C - 30 overs, 3/90
D & E - 20 overs, 2/80

So just by one bowler having a better strike rate than a bowler who has an identical average but worse strike rate, the first side has dismissed their opposition for ten runs less, have spent 20 overs less in the field and their main strike bowlers have bowled 20 overs each instead of 30.

Of course this is a contrived example to show the mathematics of why, given identical averages a high strike rate is better than a low economy rate. This is only true though if your lowest averaging bowler has the best strike rate. For bowlers with high bowling averages the reverse is true. You basically want your attack leaders to be striking fast with little to no regard for their economy. You want your support bowlers to have a lower economy rate as that gives you more opportunity to expose the opposition batsmen to your better bowlers.

Also, this is only applicable to tests, where you must take 20 opposition wickets to win. In ODIs you have a lot of other considerations and economy is far more important.

Your argument about shorter spells is an interesting one, but only if they are bowling less overs in comparison to their strike rate than the slower bowler. In reality most bowlers in modern test match cricket bowl a similar amount of overs, which again, favours the bowler with the better strike rate.

 

[centurymaker]

stephen is a champion! ^^

 

[Cabinet96]

The problem here is that you are looking at this from an isolationist perspective. You are looking at a single bowler and what they do. But the thing is that batsmen face two bowlers at any one time. Let's look at a hypothetical situation:

Bowler A has an economy of 4 and a strike rate of 30
Bowler B has an economy of 2 and a strike rate of 60

Bowler C has an economy of 3 and a strike rate of 60 and is bowling in tandem with either A or B.

Let's pretend that this is an ideal world and everyone takes their wickets at the last ball of their strike rate.

A and C bowl together.

After 10 overs:
A - 5 overs, 1/20
C - 5 overs, 0/15
Opposition team - 1/35

After 20 overs:
A 10 overs, 2/40
C 10 overs, 1/30
Opposition team - 3/70

B and C bowl together.

After 10 overs:
B - 5 overs, 0/10
C - 5 overs, 0/15
Opposition team - 0/25

After 20 overs:
B - 10 overs, 1/20
C - 10 overs, 1/30

Opposition team - 2/50

The bowler with the faster strike rate but the same average has gotten the opposition team to be 3/70 after 20 overs instead of 2/50. Now in both cases the bowling team could said to be on top and this is a very contrived example, but the point remains that if you have a low average, having a low strike rate is way more beneficial than having a low economy.

So continuing with our situation, let's add bowlers D and E to the situation, both of which are brought on after the opening 20 over spell. They both have an average of 40 and a strike rate of 60. They get 10 overs each.

After 40 overs:
A & C - Opposition are now 5/150
B & C - Opposition are now 4/130

The bowlers continue operating in this way until the entire side has been dismissed.

A & C - Opposition are dismissed for 300 after 80 overs
A - 20 overs, 4/80
C - 20 overs, 2/60
D & E - 20 overs, 2/80

B & C - Opposition are 8/260 after 80 overs and are dismissed for 310 after 100 overs
B - 30 overs, 3/60
C - 30 overs, 3/90
D & E - 20 overs, 2/80

So just by one bowler having a better strike rate than a bowler who has an identical average but worse strike rate, the first side has dismissed their opposition for ten runs less, have spent 20 overs less in the field and their main strike bowlers have bowled 20 overs each instead of 30.

Of course this is a contrived example to show the mathematics of why, given identical averages a high strike rate is better than a low economy rate. This is only true though if your lowest averaging bowler has the best strike rate. For bowlers with high bowling averages the reverse is true. You basically want your attack leaders to be striking fast with little to no regard for their economy. You want your support bowlers to have a lower economy rate as that gives you more opportunity to expose the opposition batsmen to your better bowlers.

Also, this is only applicable to tests, where you must take 20 opposition wickets to win. In ODIs you have a lot of other considerations and economy is far more important.

Your argument about shorter spells is an interesting one, but only if they are bowling less overs in comparison to their strike rate than the slower bowler. In reality most bowlers in modern test match cricket bowl a similar amount of overs, which again, favours the bowler with the better strike rate.

Great piece dude. but I sometimes do feel that a high strike rate and high economy can hurt other bowlers.

A good example is Steven Finn. He was the highest wicket taker in the Ashes after 3 tests, but was leaking at 4.30 runs per over. He was dropped after the 3rd test in Perth and Tim Bresnan came in. After that England did better in Melbourne and Sydney. And since England have done better without Finn.

If you have 3 fast bowlers all going at 2 runs per over then the batting team has to start taking risks, as they cannot win a test match going at 2 an over for the whole innings. It would take over 2 days to get 400. This means that the bowlers have a high chance of getting wickets as the batsmen are having to take risks.

However if you have one bowler going at 4.5 runs per over then it can cause an issue.

This is what it will look like.

Bowler A economy 2
Bowler B economy 2
Bowler C economy 4.5

Lets say they all bowl 20 overs with a spinner bowling 30 overs.

Bowler A 20 overs 40 runs
Bowler B 20 overs 40 runs
Bowler C 20 overs 90 runs

All together 60 overs 170 runs.

Lets add a spinner say going at 3 an over for 30 overs

All together 90 over 260.

Now I admit this isn't a great run rate for the batting team but imagine if bowler C was going at 2 an over. It would look like this.

All together 90 overs 210.

My point is that if you have one or two bowlers going at a few to many runs per over. It takes the pressure of the other bowlers. Suddenly bowler A can just go at 2 runs an over because runs are coming at the other end. This means that bowler A, who is most likely the most threatening bowler, is less effective as the batsmen are just playing him out at a low economy. I can't help but notice how other bowlers for South Africa aren't as effective when Steyn is leaking runs.

I reckon with your original post with strike rates and economies you'll find bowler C will have a better strike rate when bowling with bowler A rather than bowler B. Obviously thought it's a hypothetical situation so it's hard to say what would really happen.

To be honest it depends on what the team plan is. If the plan is to blow the team away like South Africa try and do then a better strike rate is more valuable than better economy. And if the team plan is to suffocate the batsmen and wait for a mistake then a better economy is more important than a better strike rate.

 

[stephen]

I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis Cabinet. In truth, a balanced attack is one with both economical bowlers who can tighten the screws and attacking bowlers who can run through sides. Steyn is an attacking bowler, arguably only behind Waqar in terms of his ability to take lots of wickets quickly, even on roads.

The Finn example is not exactly a fair comparison. Finn is pretty awful and only took wickets because the batsmen identified him as the weakest link and were trying to hit him out of the attack. That is an entirely different situation to Steyn's.

I also think that people are biased in their perceptions of Steyn because the two most dominant quicks before he came around were also two of the most economical - Ambrose and then McGrath. Steyn is closer to Waqar in his thinking than either of these two, even though his style is different (Waqar targeted the stumps with inswing while Steyn targets the edge with outswing). It does mean that when he fails, he'll fail spectacularly, but when he succeeds he'll win you games alone.

One of the great beauties of the game of cricket is that so many different styles of play can be successful. I like that the pendulum in the modern era has swung towards attacking cricket and Steyn is the fast bowling embodiment of that. I only wish we saw more of him on free to air tv in Aus.

 

[MW1304]

I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis Cabinet. In truth, a balanced attack is one with both economical bowlers who can tighten the screws and attacking bowlers who can run through sides. Steyn is an attacking bowler, arguably only behind Waqar in terms of his ability to take lots of wickets quickly, even on roads.

The Finn example is not exactly a fair comparison. Finn is pretty awful and only took wickets because the batsmen identified him as the weakest link and were trying to hit him out of the attack. That is an entirely different situation to Steyn's.

I also think that people are biased in their perceptions of Steyn because the two most dominant quicks before he came around were also two of the most economical - Ambrose and then McGrath. Steyn is closer to Waqar in his thinking than either of these two, even though his style is different (Waqar targeted the stumps with inswing while Steyn targets the edge with outswing). It does mean that when he fails, he'll fail spectacularly, but when he succeeds he'll win you games alone.

One of the great beauties of the game of cricket is that so many different styles of play can be successful. I like that the pendulum in the modern era has swung towards attacking cricket and Steyn is the fast bowling embodiment of that. I only wish we saw more of him on free to air tv in Aus.

That's a bit out. Yes he looked awful cause he bowled a four ball every over, but he took wickets with good balls more often than not. You don't take 14 wickets in 3 games just because batsmen go after you, although admittedly his is a very different case to Steyn's.

I think the Finn example is actually a pretty apt one in showing the importance of economy rate. His average of 27 is a pretty good one, suggesting he gets his wickets cheaply, and the strike rate is a superb 41. Yet his economy of 3.9 was detrimental to the side - he would let the pressure off consistently, which harmed the effect of the other bowlers in the team despite taking wickets himself. The difference was pretty stark when Bresnan came into the side - every bowler would keep the run rate on a tight leash and you were consistently bowled out cheaply.

Steyn has a fairly high economy but you don't feel he lets the pressure off consistently - the fact that its pretty much his only real flaw ATM and its minor shows how good a bowler he is.

 

[Spark]

stephen in top form in this thread.

 

[BlazeDragon]

The problem here is that you are looking at this from an isolationist perspective. You are looking at a single bowler and what they do. But the thing is that batsmen face two bowlers at any one time. Let's look at a hypothetical situation:

Bowler A has an economy of 4 and a strike rate of 30
Bowler B has an economy of 2 and a strike rate of 60

Bowler C has an economy of 3 and a strike rate of 60 and is bowling in tandem with either A or B.

Let's pretend that this is an ideal world and everyone takes their wickets at the last ball of their strike rate.

A and C bowl together.

After 10 overs:
A - 5 overs, 1/20
C - 5 overs, 0/15
Opposition team - 1/35

After 20 overs:
A 10 overs, 2/40
C 10 overs, 1/30
Opposition team - 3/70

B and C bowl together.

After 10 overs:
B - 5 overs, 0/10
C - 5 overs, 0/15
Opposition team - 0/25

After 20 overs:
B - 10 overs, 1/20
C - 10 overs, 1/30

Opposition team - 2/50

The bowler with the faster strike rate but the same average has gotten the opposition team to be 3/70 after 20 overs instead of 2/50. Now in both cases the bowling team could said to be on top and this is a very contrived example, but the point remains that if you have a low average, having a low strike rate is way more beneficial than having a low economy.

So continuing with our situation, let's add bowlers D and E to the situation, both of which are brought on after the opening 20 over spell. They both have an average of 40 and a strike rate of 60. They get 10 overs each.

After 40 overs:
A & C - Opposition are now 5/150
B & C - Opposition are now 4/130

The bowlers continue operating in this way until the entire side has been dismissed.

A & C - Opposition are dismissed for 300 after 80 overs
A - 20 overs, 4/80
C - 20 overs, 2/60
D & E - 20 overs, 2/80

B & C - Opposition are 8/260 after 80 overs and are dismissed for 310 after 100 overs
B - 30 overs, 3/60
C - 30 overs, 3/90
D & E - 20 overs, 2/80

So just by one bowler having a better strike rate than a bowler who has an identical average but worse strike rate, the first side has dismissed their opposition for ten runs less, have spent 20 overs less in the field and their main strike bowlers have bowled 20 overs each instead of 30.

Of course this is a contrived example to show the mathematics of why, given identical averages a high strike rate is better than a low economy rate. This is only true though if your lowest averaging bowler has the best strike rate. For bowlers with high bowling averages the reverse is true. You basically want your attack leaders to be striking fast with little to no regard for their economy. You want your support bowlers to have a lower economy rate as that gives you more opportunity to expose the opposition batsmen to your better bowlers.

Also, this is only applicable to tests, where you must take 20 opposition wickets to win. In ODIs you have a lot of other considerations and economy is far more important.

Your argument about shorter spells is an interesting one, but only if they are bowling less overs in comparison to their strike rate than the slower bowler. In reality most bowlers in modern test match cricket bowl a similar amount of overs, which again, favours the bowler with the better strike rate.

While let me say that it was very nice and thought out post this is where it falls apart.

My argument was always which bowler would be more effective for the team not how to strategically use them. Let me use Mcgrath and Steyn as an example since they were brought up.

Lets say that they both bowl 25 overs. Mcgrath is gonna take a few less wickets but give out a lot less runs. Overall though Mcgrath is going to be the much more effective one here. You have to keep in mind that the more runs you give out the more harder you make the game for your batsmen/team. Its not just about getting the wickets early because the game is not about that. You have to think about your batting as well and your not making that any easier by giving away too much runs.

Someone like Steyn can only be as useful as someone like Mcgrath if he bowls less overs. But by bowling those less overs he is putting pressures on his teammates to make up the overs he would have bowled if he wasn't a strike bowler. Hence why somelike like Mcgrath is more useful to the team because you can count on him to bowl longer spells and by doing that be more helpful to the team.

While I can understand where you are coming from by saying that someone with a very strike rate and average economy rate can be very useful to the team but someone with a very low economy rate and average strike rate can be just as useful because he can bowl a lot more overs and catch up to the person with the high strike rate.

That's why I think having both a good economy rate and strike rate are important because you are being much more useful to the team that way. I think Mcgrath is one of the best examples of that. His economy rate is superior to his strike rate but he is much more effective to the team than any other modern era bowler.

 

[Furball]

Tbh you could have saved yourself a lot of effort and just said 'I have no grasp of how SR and ER relate to average.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Furball mentioned earlier in the thread that Steyn deliberately bowls slower (85 mph) in order to generate more movement. I also noticed this during the series against India in RSA. So my question is, why does the ball swing more at a slower speed than at a quicker speed?

 

[stephen]

While let me say that it was very nice and thought out post this is where it falls apart.

My argument was always which bowler would be more effective for the team not how to strategically use them. Let me use Mcgrath and Steyn as an example since they were brought up.

Lets say that they both bowl 25 overs. Mcgrath is gonna take a few less wickets but give out a lot less runs. Overall though Mcgrath is going to be the much more effective one here. You have to keep in mind that the more runs you give out the more harder you make the game for your batsmen/team. Its not just about getting the wickets early because the game is not about that. You have to think about your batting as well and your not making that any easier by giving away too much runs.

Someone like Steyn can only be as useful as someone like Mcgrath if he bowls less overs. But by bowling those less overs he is putting pressures on his teammates to make up the overs he would have bowled if he wasn't a strike bowler. Hence why somelike like Mcgrath is more useful to the team because you can count on him to bowl longer spells and by doing that be more helpful to the team.

While I can understand where you are coming from by saying that someone with a very strike rate and average economy rate can be very useful to the team but someone with a very low economy rate and average strike rate can be just as useful because he can bowl a lot more overs and catch up to the person with the high strike rate.

That's why I think having both a good economy rate and strike rate are important because you are being much more useful to the team that way. I think Mcgrath is one of the best examples of that. His economy rate is superior to his strike rate but he is much more effective to the team than any other modern era bowler.

Honestly, in a test match your job is not to bowl more overs but to take more wickets. I love Pigeon just as much as anyone on here and I rate him as second only to Marshall as a fast bowler, but your argument here is very weak.

Provided your average is lower than your team mates, having a high economy rate and a low strike rate helps your team more than the other way around.

Besides, Steyn bowls on average 19 overs per innings and McGrath bowled 20 overs per innings - hardly a big difference. Steyn takes an average of 5.2 wickets per match, while McGrath only took 4.5 wickets per match.

One could conclude that Steyn is in fact more valuable to South Africa than McGrath was to Australia by looking at these stats. However, Pigeon is rated more highly for a number of other reasons (highest ratio of top order wickets in history, longevity and utter domination of a batter friendly era).

Now the exception to this rule is probably Wasim and Waqar. Despite similar statistics, most people believe that Wasim was the better bowler. Perhaps this is due to his longevity, perhaps it's due to the fact that he's a left hander or maybe it's because of Waqar's lacklustre career finish. Both were fine bowlers but one always got the feeling that Waqar could win you games while Wasim was more consistent. Either way, there is very little between the two bowlers in the end, which to me suggests that the Strike Rate vs Economy Rate "war" is really a non-issue.

 

[stephen]

Furball mentioned earlier in the thread that Steyn deliberately bowls slower (85 mph) in order to generate more movement. I also noticed this during the series against India in RSA. So my question is, why does the ball swing more at a slower speed than at a quicker speed?

Aerodynamics. The sideways force of the lower air pressure does not scale linearly with the speed of the ball. This is also why some bowlers swing "out of the hand" and others swing late. 80-85 mph (around the 140 kph mark) seems to be the sweet spot for getting a large amount of late swing on the 156g 4 piece leather balls that are used in tests.