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

[BlazeDragon]

Wow. I tried to be respectful there since you put all that effort into your post but really this is now just getting dumb.

Honestly, in a test match your job is not to bowl more overs but to take more wickets.

What are you suggesting that if you take wickets faster that its okay if you give out as many runs as you want to? Your not helping your team for crap if by taking wickets faster if you are giving away piles of runs in the process.

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.

And your point is? Mcgrath conceded an average of 49.8 runs in his 20 overs and Steyn conceded an average of 66.12 in his 19.

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).

I am not sure if you are aware of the fact if you are missing an "in my opinion" your statement somewhere,

Honestly, just look at the their average (which sums up the overall bowling of someone statistically) to see why people would rate Mcgrath better.

Now the exception to this rule is probably Wasim and Waqar.

Irrelevant point and I don't see how you think this proves anything. They are that close that people might just rate Wasim higher because of aesthetics only. Also another good reason would be that Wasim overall provided a lot more for the team career wise so people feel that he has the advantage here. Pretty similar to people like Bond, Akthar not making ATG lists because of longevity issues because they didn't really do that much for their team.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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.

I think I have a pretty good understanding.

Why don't you tell what part I have "no grasp on" to clarify since you seem like the cricket genius here that understands everything.

 

[weeman27bob]

If we're taking McGrath as the ideal economical bowler here, then surely the argument effectively comes down to:

Is the extra 32.64 runs Steyn concedes (to McGrath each match) better/worse than the extra 0.7 of a wicket and two extra batting overs the Steyn has over McGrath?

In my view, it's probably McGrath who comes out on top, but that's to be expected, Steyn isn't quite the bowler McGrath is. I don't think anyone can deny that improving his economy rate would make Steyn a better bowler, because that's obvious.

I think it is probably fair to say though that Steyn is more valuable to South Africa then McGrath was to Australia, purely because Australia's other bowlers were superior to those of South Africa. In a side like South Africa's where you have one top-class bowler, in my opinion, you'd pick Steyn every time, whilst in a side like Australia's you'd pick McGrath every time.

Just as a side note, Marshall's stats per match compare as:

Marshall: 39 overs, 104.52 runs conceded, 4.64 wickets taken
McGrath: 40 overs, 99.96 runs conceded, 4.5 wickets taken
Steyn: 38 overs, 132.24 runs conceded 5.2 wickets taken.

 

[BlazeDragon]

I think it is probably fair to say though that Steyn is more valuable to South Africa then McGrath was to Australia, purely because Australia's other bowlers were superior to those of South Africa. In a side like South Africa's where you have one top-class bowler, in my opinion, you'd pick Steyn every time, whilst in a side like Australia's you'd pick McGrath every time.

Now that is a logical argument and I can agree with. But saying Steyn is more valuable than Mcgrath on statistics is just pure crap.

 

[Furball]

I think I have a pretty good understanding.

Why don't you tell what part I have "no grasp on" to clarify since you seem like the cricket genius here that understands everything.

Steyn's high economy rate doesn't change the fact that he still takes his wickets cheaply.

 

[weeman27bob]

If Steyn was your only bowler every innings, on average, would be 231.43 in 66.5 overs.
If McGrath was your only bowlers, every innings, on average, would be 215.39 in 86.5 overs.

Assuming the more valuable bowler is the one who gives your team the bets opportunity to win, I think you'd probably have to say it's Steyn?

I presume that's what everyone else would say too?

 

[zaremba]

If Steyn was your only bowler every innings, on average, would be 231.43 in 66.5 overs.
If McGrath was your only bowlers, every innings, on average, would be 215.39 in 86.5 overs.

Assuming the more valuable bowler is the one who gives your team the bets opportunity to win, I think you'd probably have to say it's Steyn?

I presume that's what everyone else would say too?

No way. McGrath bowls out the opposition twice in under two days, leaving your team over 3 days to score the runs needed to win. His strike rate is just fine. I'd take the extra 15 runs per innings every single time.

 

[Howe_zat]

If Steyn was your only bowler every innings, on average, would be 231.43 in 66.5 overs.
If McGrath was your only bowlers, every innings, on average, would be 215.39 in 86.5 overs.

Assuming the more valuable bowler is the one who gives your team the bets opportunity to win, I think you'd probably have to say it's Steyn?

I presume that's what everyone else would say too?

Well, no. When you're bowling the opposition out on the first day regardless, those 16 runs should make more of a difference than the extra hour or so you've saved.

 

[Howe_zat]

I sometimes think I'm the Uppercut to Zaremba's Prince EWS.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Steyn's high economy rate doesn't change the fact that he still takes his wickets cheaply.

Him having a high strike rate also doesn't change the fact that he is giving away a lot of runs cheaply.

Which goes back to something I have already said:

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

Economy rate and strike rate are both equally important. A bowler with an equivalent economy rate to Steyn's strike rate and and equivalent strike rate to Steyn's economy rate would be just as useful to the team as Steyn.

 

[zaremba]

I sometimes think I'm the Uppercut to Zaremba's Prince EWS.

Pah! Those ****ing amateurs can only watch us and dream.

 

[weeman27bob]

No way. McGrath bowls out the opposition twice in under two days, leaving your team over 3 days to score the runs needed to win. His strike rate is just fine. I'd take the extra 15 runs per innings every single time.

Well, no. When you're bowling the opposition out on the first day regardless, those 16 runs should make more of a difference than the extra hour or so you've saved.

The more I think about it, the more I think that you're probably right.

 

[Furball]

Economy rate and strike rate are both equally important. A bowler with an equivalent economy rate to Steyn's strike rate and and equivalent strike rate to Steyn's economy rate would be just as useful to the team as Steyn.

No, a bowler with a worse strike rate is taking longer to bowl the opposition out.

 

[zaremba]

In a Test match:
McGrath's XI scores 463 in 133.4 overs.
Steyn's XI scores 430 in 173.4 overs.

McGrath's XI wins by 33 runs half-way through Day 4 with 132.4 overs to spare.


Some fairly ridiculous assumptions are being made by me here, but it does illustrate the point. McGrath wins, comfortably, every time.

 

[weeman27bob]

I think it's fair to say that McGrath is the better bowler overall. However, is the general consensus that he'd be better/more useful/more important in the current South African team than Steyn?

 

[Howe_zat]

To be honest, it's kind of besides the argument that McGrath was statistically a better bowler than Steyn, because regardless of the balance of economy to strike rate, McGrath simply took his wickets a couple of runs cheaper. So a more interesting debate would be a bowler like Steyn against a bowler like Shaun Pollock.

Figures:

Steyn: Average 23.21, Strike rate 39.9, Economy 3.48.

Pollock: Average 23.11, Strike rate 57.8, Economy 2.39.

Now, in theory, these two are the ones that should come out as equals. But I think a good case can be made that Steyn is more statistically valuable because he takes more time, even if not runs, out of the opposition innings than Pollock.

Taking time out of it helps you for several reasons - it gives your batsmen more time to be cautious with their innings, it helps keep the bowlers on your team fresh, and it means the rest of the side has less fielding to do, which is knackering and it leads to injuries.

However, all those points are fairly minimal and probably wouldn't make up for a deficit of a reasonable number of runs.

Edit:

The only case I can think of is where you'd prefer the economy bowler is when they're both much worse and playing for a team that has terrible batsmen that can't bat time. In that role the containing bowler will help you go for a draw if you can't aim to win, but that's pretty rare and never really a situation you want to see.

Edit edit:

Also, bowlers with a better strike rate are more fun.

 

[zaremba]

Strike rate also helps your team-mates, because the quicker you are taking wickets, the more your fellow bowlers are bowling at fresh batsmen as opposed to set batsmen with their eye in.

For me, though, strike rate is pretty overrated. It's all about the average for me.

 

[BlazeDragon]

No, a bowler with a worse strike rate is taking longer to bowl the opposition out.

While saving lots of runs the bowler with the worse economy rate isn't.

 

[Redbacks]

While saving lots of runs the bowler with the worse economy rate isn't.

I have a feeling you know what you are talking about but this it isn't coming across in your posts.

sr = balls/wickets (*)
econ = runs/(balls/6) (**)
ave = runs/wickets (***)

What are you suggesting that if you take wickets faster that its okay if you give out as many runs as you want to? Your not helping your team for crap if by taking wickets faster if you are giving away piles of runs in the process.

We need to talk about the case when bowlers have equal averages.

If we multiply (*) by (**) we get (sr*econ) -> balls/wickets * runs/balls/6 which cancels out to give:
6*(runs/wickets) or simply 6*Ave. (The 6 is there because we do econ in overs)

Hence average is a function of sr and the econ rate. If average stays equal and the variables change an:

Increase in econ -> sr decreases, or an
Increase in sr -> econ decreases

If you were taking wickets faster and giving away piles of runs, the measure of 'crapness' is the average not econ rate.

 

[BlazeDragon]

I have a feeling you know what you are talking about but this it isn't coming across in your posts.

sr = balls/wickets (*)
econ = runs/(balls/6) (**)
ave = runs/wickets (***)

And your point is? Mcgrath conceded an average of 49.8 runs in his 20 overs and Steyn conceded an average of 66.12 in his 19.

Honestly, just look at the their average (which sums up the overall bowling of someone statistically) to see why people would rate Mcgrath better.

We need to talk about the case when bowlers have equal averages.

If we multiply (*) by (**) we get (sr*econ) -> balls/wickets * runs/balls/6 which cancels out to give:
6*(runs/wickets) or simply 6*Ave. (The 6 is there because we do econ in overs)

Hence average is a function of sr and the econ rate. If average stays equal and the variables change an:

Increase in econ -> sr decreases, or an
Increase in sr -> econ decreases

If you were taking wickets faster and giving away piles of runs, the measure of 'crapness' is the average not econ rate.

Okay, let me make this clear. Average is the ultimate way to measure things.

My whole argument about economy rate was against stephen and GingerFurball was trying to say that strike rate > economy rate which I was pointing out is wrong.