What are the most important statistical measures for test bowlers?

[Days of Grace]

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

I've been thinking about this and whilst I am leaning towards giving SR a higher weightage for test bowlers, I am not so sure. The average measurement incorporates wickets taken with ER and therefore, your wicket taking ability is taken care of. How fast you get your wickets in test cricket can be seen as a bonus to your good average, the same as batsmen.

Or am I wrong? It's doing my head in!

 

[viriya]

I've been thinking about this and whilst I am leaning towards giving SR a higher weightage for test bowlers, I am not so sure. The average measurement incorporates wickets taken with ER and therefore, your wicket taking ability is taken care of. How fast you get your wickets in test cricket can be seen as a bonus to your good average, the same as batsmen.

Or am I wrong? It's doing my head in!

Bowling SR is more valuable because you need 20 wickets to win a Test match with limited time. 450 maximum overs (90 x 6) with your team getting ~50% of that. 225 overs to get 20 wickets - this is why SR is more valuable than Econ. 225 * 6 / 20 = ~67.5 SR needed to win game.

Consider these 2 hypothetical bowlers:
25 average, 60 SR, 2.5 Econ
25 average, 75 SR 2 Econ

^ Both of them have the same average, but if your bowling attack all had a 75 SR like the 2nd bowler you would on average not have enough time to get 20 wickets assuming you had ~225 overs to get those wickets.

Batting SR is just nice to have but it is not as essential - as long as you hang around you will get runs. Since a Draw is a viable result in a Test, Batting SR is just not as important as it would be in limited overs formats.

 

[Red]

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

They bowl a lot of hittable stuff, but then produce that one ball.

 

[stephen]

Bowling SR is more valuable because you need 20 wickets to win a Test match with limited time. 450 maximum overs (90 x 6) with your team getting ~50% of that. 225 overs to get 20 wickets - this is why SR is more valuable than Econ. 225 * 6 / 20 = ~67.5 SR needed to win game.

Consider these 2 hypothetical bowlers:
25 average, 60 SR, 2.5 Econ
25 average, 75 SR 2 Econ

^ Both of them have the same average, but if your bowling attack all had a 75 SR like the 2nd bowler you would on average not have enough time to get 20 wickets assuming you had ~225 overs to get those wickets.

Batting SR is just nice to have but it is not as essential - as long as you hang around you will get runs. Since a Draw is a viable result in a Test, Batting SR is just not as important as it would be in limited overs formats.

I think Davidson has one of the highest strike rates for an ATG bowler and his Strike Rate is 62, which is below the strike rate needed to win. I don't think it's as big of a concern as you make out.

Other high SR Bowlers with averages under 25 (wickets @ average in brackets):

Ironmonger 63 (74 @ 17.97)
Wardle 64.6 (102 @ 20.39)
Davidson 62.2 (186 @ 20.53)
Toshak 66.8 (47 @ 21.04)
Adcock 61.4 (104 @ 21.10)
Laker 62.3 (193 @ 21.24)
Peate 67.6 (31 @ 22.03)
Hearne 60.07 (49 @ 22.08)
Attewell 101.7 (28 @ 22.35)
Loader 68.2 (39 @ 22.51)
Barlow 72.2 (34 @ 22.55)
O'Reilly 69.6 (144 @ 22.59)
Kline 69.7 (34 @ 22.82)
Miller 61.5 (170 @ 22.97)
Jadeja 61.6 (142 @ 23.12)
Sajjad 70.2 (59 @ 23.89)
Johnston 69 (160 @ 23.91)
Grimmett 67.1 (216 @ 24.21)
Verity 77.5 (144 @ 24.37)
Mahmood 70.7 (139 @ 24.70)
Statham 63.7 (252 @ 24.84)
Bedser 67.4 (236 @ 24.89)

Almost every single bowler on that list who has taken over 100 wickets is recognised as an all time great. Most of them have strike rates that are more heavily impacted by the era in which they played than their skills with the ball. Lindwall just missed out on this list with a strike rate of 59.8. Nobody would suggest that an attack with Lindwall, Miller, Davidson and O'Reilly isn't good enough to win a majority of tests.

 

[Athlai]

Back in my day son we'd bowl 8 ball overs in 45 seconds and bowl 300 overs in a day!

 

[stephen]

Attewell must have been boring af to watch. Went for 1.31 rpo and only struck once every 101.7 balls.

 

[stephen]

He's the only bowler to make the Cricinfo page for both "best bowling averages" and "worst strike rates".

 

[Daemon]

Sobers pretty similar wasn't he

 

[viriya]

I think Davidson has one of the highest strike rates for an ATG bowler and his Strike Rate is 62, which is below the strike rate needed to win. I don't think it's as big of a concern as you make out.

Other high SR Bowlers with averages under 25 (wickets @ average in brackets):

Ironmonger 63 (74 @ 17.97)
Wardle 64.6 (102 @ 20.39)
Davidson 62.2 (186 @ 20.53)
Toshak 66.8 (47 @ 21.04)
Adcock 61.4 (104 @ 21.10)
Laker 62.3 (193 @ 21.24)
Peate 67.6 (31 @ 22.03)
Hearne 60.07 (49 @ 22.08)
Attewell 101.7 (28 @ 22.35)
Loader 68.2 (39 @ 22.51)
Barlow 72.2 (34 @ 22.55)
O'Reilly 69.6 (144 @ 22.59)
Kline 69.7 (34 @ 22.82)
Miller 61.5 (170 @ 22.97)
Jadeja 61.6 (142 @ 23.12)
Sajjad 70.2 (59 @ 23.89)
Johnston 69 (160 @ 23.91)
Grimmett 67.1 (216 @ 24.21)
Verity 77.5 (144 @ 24.37)
Mahmood 70.7 (139 @ 24.70)
Statham 63.7 (252 @ 24.84)
Bedser 67.4 (236 @ 24.89)

Almost every single bowler on that list who has taken over 100 wickets is recognised as an all time great. Most of them have strike rates that are more heavily impacted by the era in which they played than their skills with the ball. Lindwall just missed out on this list with a strike rate of 59.8. Nobody would suggest that an attack with Lindwall, Miller, Davidson and O'Reilly isn't good enough to win a majority of tests.

That SR cut-off doesn't apply to matches played before 90 over a day was a thing. I just came up with it on the fly to show why SR matters.

 

[Days of Grace]

The high SRs of Davo et al are mainly due to batsmen not being as attacking before the 1970s and perhaps having better defensive techniques?

If Davidson played today he'd have a higher average but a better strike rate. Would still be a superb record.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The high SRs of Davo et al are mainly due to batsmen not being as attacking before the 1970s and perhaps having better defensive techniques?

If Davidson played today he'd have a higher average but a better strike rate. Would still be a superb record.

very debatable. I think maybe you meant higher economy rate?

 

[Days of Grace]

very debatable. I think maybe you meant higher economy rate?

A higher economy rate which will correspond to a higher average, despite the lower strike-rate. No one has averaged 20 in test cricket for a career in the 21st century.