What are the most important statistical measures for test bowlers?

[Athlai]

Put it this way, I reckon the overall e/r of the great bowlers of all time would be lower than the average e/r for all bowlers. But I could be wrong.

Exceptions to this rule are Steyn, Waqar and Akhtar, who all went for a relatively high E/R compared to other great bowlers but have significantly awesomer S/R

 

[SJS]

The problem with this stat is that it punishes bowlers with good support like McGrath or Marshall. And Hadlee ends up as the best bowler.

As I said, I have decided long back not to get into arguments on CW (which is what keeps me away from here ) but I will just answer to clarify a bit.

No criteria is perfect - nor is this.

No single criteria can be good enough to make a perfect selection. There will be anomalies in all. I just found this one neglected as a criteria and also that with bowlers with completed careers it appeared to make fewer bloomers.

By the way Hadlee does not top that list although he IS one of the greatest bowlers of all time. He just squeaks into the top ten. Anyone who has seen him and the others in the modern age of great fast bowlers that set in around 1970 will not regret him that spot. Many will think he deserved to be higher.

You are right about fielding support but their are other powerful arguments against other criteria - the changing nature of surfaces for one and the changing LBW laws for another . . . There are more but these are very important ones which are not related to quality of supporting team members and/or the quality of the opposition (which is a much stronger argument than fielding support)

But then, as I said, this is just a stat that I think is often missed and is an important one.

Below is a table that you may find interesting

Wkts per Test	Total wkts 	Avg	        Str Rate	Economy

Barnes, S F	Muralitharan, M	Lohmann, G A	Lohmann, G A	Goddard, T L
Lohmann, G A	Warne, S K	Barnes, S F	Barnes, S F	Verity, H
Muralitharan, M	Kumble, A	Turner, C T B	Waqar Younis	Lohmann, G A
Turner, C T B	McGrath, G D	Peel, R	        Briggs, J	Wardle, J H
Grimmett, C V	Walsh, C A	Briggs, J	Blythe, C	Turner, C T B
O'Reilly, W J	Kapil Dev	Blythe, C	Shoaib Akhtar	Tate, M W
Blythe, C	Hadlee, R J	Wardle, J H	Marshall, M D	Illingworth, R
Lillee, D K	Pollock, S M	Davidson, A K	Donald, A A	O'Reilly, W J
Peel, R	        Wasim Akram	Marshall, M D	Mohammad Asif	Tayfield, H J
Hadlee, R J	Ambrose, C E L	Garner, J	Croft, C E H	Valentine, A L
Warne, S K	Ntini, M	Ambrose, C E L	Trueman, F S	Peel, R
MacGill, S C G	Botham, I T	Adcock, N A T	Harris, R J	Ramadhin, S
Ojha, P P	Marshall, M D	Laker, J C	Hadlee, R J	Davidson, A K
Kumble, A	Waqar Younis	Trueman, F S	Garner, J	Titmus, F J
Marshall, M D	Imran Khan	McGrath, G D	Holding, M A	Gibbs, L R
Croft, C E H	Vettori, D L	Trumble, H	Johnson, M G	Allen, D A
Bedser, A V	Lillee, D K	Donald, A A	Turner, C T B	Lock, G A R
Tayfield, H J	Vaas, W P U J C	Philander, V D*	Gough, D	Laker, J C
Donald, A A	Donald, A A	Hadlee, R J	Peel, R	        Adcock, N A T
Trueman, F S	Willis, R G D	Steyn, D W*	McGrath, G D	Johnston, W A
McGrath, G D	Johnson, M G	O'Reilly, W J	Lillee, D K	Fazal Mahmood
Garner, J	Khan, Z	        Muralitharan, M	Bishop, I R	Underwood, D L
Trumble, H	Lee, B	        Imran Khan	Thomson, J R	Benaud, R
Roberts, A M E	Gibbs, L R	Miller, K R	Lee, B	        Edmonds, P H
Johnson, M G	Trueman, F S	Lindwall, R R	Willis, R G D	Bedi, B S

 

[thierry henry]

Exceptions to this rule are Steyn, Waqar and Akhtar, who all went for a relatively high E/R compared to other great bowlers but have significantly awesomer S/R

So you're saying it's a rule then?

I reckon if you looked over the numerous dud bowlers who played a handful of tests and had poor averages, they would generally have worse than normal e/r as well.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't think that example really refutes my point. Malinga averaged 33 and Vaas 29 which is not a huge difference but not inconsequential either. To my mind it supports the point that Vaas was a generally better bowler and hence was both harder to score off and conceded less runs per wicket.

But then again, I see the circularity in my own logic- I already tend to think of Vaas as being better, which is partly due to his better average, therefore I pat myself on the back and tell myself s/r is not a mark of a good bowler.

However, I do think that you are wrong and that there is a correlation between good average and good economy (good economy is partly causative of a good average, of course) and bowlers who are perceived as good in general. But I cbf crunching the numbers.

I never said there wasn't a correlation between good average and good economy, I was just refuting your point that bowlers who have better SRs usually have better ERs as well.

 

[watson]

There is only one way to win a Test a match - score more runs than the opposition and take 20 wickets. That's it in a nutshell.

Therefore, there is only one bowling statistic that really matters - the Average (runs scored per wicket).

The SR and ER are useful because because they tell us something about the style of a bowler. That is, whether they an attacker or defender, inaccurate or accurate. But a bowler is still ineffective if he takes wickets regularly but gives a way a ton of runs in the process, or concedes only 2 runs and over but rarely take wickets.

On the other hand, a bowler who takes a wicket every 20 runs or so is worth his weight in gold.

 

[thierry henry]

I never said there wasn't a correlation between good average and good economy, I was just refuting your point that bowlers who have better SRs usually have better ERs as well.

I never said that, I said bowlers who have good averages (and are generally regarded as good bowlers) usually have good ERs.

 

[Burgey]

I never said that, I said bowlers who have good averages (and are generally regarded as good bowlers) usually have good ERs.

I swear I came on here expecting you to have written "height".

 

[viriya]

There is only one way to win a Test a match - score more runs than the opposition and take 20 wickets. That's it in a nutshell.

Therefore, there is only one bowling statistic that really matters - the Average (runs scored per wicket).

The SR and ER are useful because because they tell us something about the style of a bowler. That is, whether they an attacker or defender, inaccurate or accurate. But a bowler is still ineffective if he takes wickets regularly but gives a way a ton of runs in the process, or concedes only 2 runs and over but rarely take wickets.

On the other hand, a bowler who takes a wicket every 20 runs or so is worth his weight in gold.

If scoring runs and getting 20 wickets is all that matters, the most important statistic is wickets/match - not average. Average would be 2nd on the priority list. One bowler takes 4 wickets a match at a 26 average while the other takes 2 wickets a match at 20 average - who's more important for the win (assuming equal quality wickets)?

This is why I always thought a combination of average and wickets/match is the best equivalent to batting average. Something like WPM/Average ratio.

 

[viriya]

WPM/Ave with 30 test cut-off:

Muttiah Muralitharan
Clarrie Grimmett
Richard Hadlee
Ravichandran Ashwin
Malcolm Marshall
Dale Steyn
Joel Garner
Fred Trueman
Dennis Lillee
Glenn McGrath
Allan Donald
Alan Davidson
Hugh Trumble
Jim Laker
Curtly Ambrose
Imran Khan
Shane Warne
Alec Bedser
Waqar Younis
Saeed Ajmal

 

[thierry henry]

I swear I came on here expecting you to have written "height".

I only have myself to blame for this. I chose the meme life.

 

[stephen]

WPM/Ave with 30 test cut-off:

Muttiah Muralitharan
Clarrie Grimmett
Richard Hadlee
Ravichandran Ashwin
Malcolm Marshall
Dale Steyn
Joel Garner
Fred Trueman
Dennis Lillee
Glenn McGrath
Allan Donald
Alan Davidson
Hugh Trumble
Jim Laker
Curtly Ambrose
Imran Khan
Shane Warne
Alec Bedser
Waqar Younis
Saeed Ajmal

And right here we have an example of why WPM means nothing.

The top 4 bowlers on your list were largely lone guns. The WPM statistic seriously favours bowlers who had no support. Missing from that list are a number of the WI greats including Holding and Roberts (not to mention Walsh and Bishop).

There is no way I'd take Ajmal over Holding. And there's no way in the world that Ashwin deserves to be rated as the 4th best bowler on any list that's not "Indian bowlers in India".

WPM as a start can't tell you much by itself. It's the most context-sensitive stat out there.

Also this list seriously favours Murali because his average was deflated by playing so many tests vs minnows.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And right here we have an example of why WPM means nothing.

The top 4 bowlers on your list were largely lone guns. The WPM statistic seriously favours bowlers who had no support. Missing from that list are a number of the WI greats including Holding and Roberts (not to mention Walsh and Bishop).

There is no way I'd take Ajmal over Holding. And there's no way in the world that Ashwin deserves to be rated as the 4th best bowler on any list that's not "Indian bowlers in India".

WPM as a start can't tell you much by itself. It's the most context-sensitive stat out there.

Also this list seriously favours Murali because his average was deflated by playing so many tests vs minnows.

This stat was designed for Murali. Wickets per match guaranteed to be high because he bowled so many overs and everyone else in his team was ****, average guaranteed to be low because he played majority of his tests on spinning wickets and more against minnows than most bowlers from other countries.

 

[viriya]

And right here we have an example of why WPM means nothing.

The top 4 bowlers on your list were largely lone guns. The WPM statistic seriously favours bowlers who had no support. Missing from that list are a number of the WI greats including Holding and Roberts (not to mention Walsh and Bishop).

There is no way I'd take Ajmal over Holding. And there's no way in the world that Ashwin deserves to be rated as the 4th best bowler on any list that's not "Indian bowlers in India".

WPM as a start can't tell you much by itself. It's the most context-sensitive stat out there.

Also this list seriously favours Murali because his average was deflated by playing so many tests vs minnows.

This stat was designed for Murali. Wickets per match guaranteed to be high because he bowled so many overs and everyone else in his team was ****, average guaranteed to be low because he played majority of his tests on spinning wickets and more against minnows than most bowlers from other countries.

Even if you remove Zim + Ban matches he only moves to #2 on that list behind Grimmett who played just 36 Tests.

You guys are pointing the issues of simple statistical measures - that is unavoidable pretty much if you don't have a complex system. Those same arguments can be used to dismiss the batting average as a good measure of batsmen - it's still nice to look at.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Even if you remove Zim + Ban matches he only moves to #2 on that list behind Grimmett who played just 36 Tests.

You guys are pointing the issues of simple statistical measures - that is unavoidable pretty much if you don't have a complex system. Those same arguments can be used to dismiss the batting average as a good measure of batsmen - it's still nice to look at.

dw m8 I'm not saying Murali wasn't an effective "bowler". Realistically his stats are great whichever way you look at it.

 

[stephen]

Even if you remove Zim + Ban matches he only moves to #2 on that list behind Grimmett who played just 36 Tests.

You guys are pointing the issues of simple statistical measures - that is unavoidable pretty much if you don't have a complex system. Those same arguments can be used to dismiss the batting average as a good measure of batsmen - it's still nice to look at.

This statistical measure is the worst though. WPM literally means nothing out of context.

Average is pretty much the best measure we have for bowlers because it tells us how many runs they go for between wickets. It doesn't tell us everything (like the pitches they played on) but as a blanket stat it's the best.

 

[viriya]

This statistical measure is the worst though. WPM literally means nothing out of context.

Average is pretty much the best measure we have for bowlers because it tells us how many runs they go for between wickets. It doesn't tell us everything (like the pitches they played on) but as a blanket stat it's the best.

Average has similar issues like you stated like how it is not adjusted for quality of opposition or favorable conditions. No simple stat is a very good way to analyze players it's just an interesting point to start an argument and not much more.

 

[Days of Grace]

You can adjust averages for strength of opposition. I have done it.

I would probably look at percentage of team overs bowled and the WPI stats for other bowlers in the team for adjusting WPM/WPI.

Anyway, for tests I might go with Average/SR for batsmen with a 4:1 ratio and Average/SR for bowlers, also with a 4:1 ratio. Therefore, average is by the far the most important factor, with speed at which you achieve your runs or wickets perceived as a bonus.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You can adjust averages for strength of opposition. I have done it.

I would probably look at percentage of team overs bowled and the WPI stats for other bowlers in the team for adjusting WPM/WPI.

Anyway, for tests I might go with Average/SR for batsmen with a 4:1 ratio and Average/SR for bowlers, also with a 4:1 ratio. Therefore, average is by the far the most important factor, with speed at which you achieve your runs or wickets perceived as a bonus.

Bowling SR should definitely have a higher weightage than batting sr imo.

 

[Days of Grace]

Bowling SR should definitely have a higher weightage than batting sr imo.

Because strike-rate for batsmen is conditioned by match situation, whereas you always want bowlers with a low strike-rate?

 

[mr_mister]

I find it interesting that so many of the top strike rates belong to slingy quicks who bowled with good aesthetic and express pace but aren't considered ATGs (akthar, Thomson, malinga and Gough)

Must be something to this

Really surprised Goughs strike rate was so damn good