Richard Hadlee vs Curtly Ambrose

[Slifer]

I see Garner right at the Botton, just above Warne, who has done the mopping up jobs. Yeah, we see it . . .

You very well know I was talking in relation to McGrath, Ambrose and Marshall. But ok. Your point about those strike bowlers have more access to tail end wickets is still moot.

 

[Migara]

You very well know I was talking in relation to McGrath, Ambrose and Marshall. But ok. Your point about those strike bowlers have more access to tail end wickets is still moot.

I have very easily shown that by being in a pack some bowlers tend to get more tail end wickets than lone warriors. The numbers are there to see. Garner, Warne and MacGill mopped up tails, and hence had many cheap wickets.

 

[Slifer]

I have very easily shown that by being in a pack some bowlers tend to get more tail end wickets than lone warriors. The numbers are there to see. Garner, Warne and MacGill mopped up tails, and hence had many cheap wickets.

"The likes of Ambrose, Warne, Marshall, McGrath had more chances to bowl to the tail than Murali or Hadlee, hence they had access to cheaper wickets. If Hadlee or murali had another ATG at other end, their WPM will become less, but their SR's and averages will be much better."

Again I was talking specifically about the above bowlers. Funny enough, you knew that as well but for some reason, as usual you're point was proven moot. Now you're off on a tangent that none of us were ever talking about.

 

[ankitj]

Stronger teams as a whole would clean up tail more often as they take all 20 wickets more often. But it appears how the spoils are shared between bowlers is not uniform and dependent on their roles and when they tend to bowl in the innings. In the same team, McGrath vs Warne or Marshall vs Garner have very different share of tail wickets. Hadlee and Murali despite playing for weaker teams take middling share of tail wickets but more than McGrath and Marshall. That may be because they were picking almost any wickets to fall.

 

[Teja.]

The % of top order batsman stat is indicatively useful but biased against bowlers with high wpm. There can easily be situations where bowler A can be taking equal or more gross top order wickets per match on average than bowler B but have a worse top order % because they take even more lower order wickets.

 

[The Sean]

The % of top order batsman stat is indicatively useful but biased against bowlers with high wpm. There can easily be situations where bowler A can be taking equal or more gross top order wickets per match on average than bowler B but have a worse top order % because they take even more lower order wickets.

Yeah for sure, like any stat it is just one measure and needs to be viewed in its wider context. It's like conversion rates are only properly meaningful if you also know how often a bloke is getting to 50/100 in the first place.

 

[Slifer]

Stronger teams as a whole would clean up tail more often as they take all 20 wickets more often. But it appears how the spoils are shared between bowlers is not uniform and dependent on their roles and when they tend to bowl in the innings. In the same team, McGrath vs Warne or Marshall vs Garner have very different share of tail wickets. Hadlee and Murali despite playing for weaker teams take middling share of tail wickets but more than McGrath and Marshall. That may be because they were picking almost any wickets to fall.

In the case of Marshall, it's because it was Garner's job to clean up the tail. Which he did very well btw

 

[ankitj]

Makes sense to look at % of top-order/tail wickets in conjunction with overall bowling average. Then again, top-order of say Bangladesh has not been same as top-order of Australia. One could go the whole hog and assign value to each wicket and compare with how much bowlers pay to buy that. If only someone did that. Hey, look

 

[subshakerz]

% of tail ender wickets

Player	08-11 (%)​	Avg​	S/R​
Underwood, D L	23.57​	25.84​	73.61​
Philander, V D	24.55​	22.32​	50.85​
Statham, J B	24.6​	24.85​	63.71​
McGrath, G D	25.22​	21.64​	51.95​
Willis, R G D	25.23​	25.2​	53.41​
Donald, A A	26.06​	22.25​	47.03​
Marshall, M D	26.33​	20.95​	46.77​
Hazlewood, J R	26.42​	25.65​	56.07​
Lillee, D K	27.32​	23.92​	52.02​
Ambrose, C E L	27.65​	20.99​	54.58​
Holding, M A	27.71​	23.69​	50.92​
Bedser, A V	28.39​	24.9​	67.45​
Imran Khan	28.73​	22.81​	53.75​
Waqar Younis	29.22​	23.56​	43.5​
Lindwall, R R	29.39​	23.03​	59.87​
Pollock, S M	29.45​	23.12​	57.85​
Hadlee, R J	29.93​	22.3​	50.85​
Walsh, C A	31.41​	24.44​	57.84​
Trueman, F S	31.6​	21.58​	49.44​
Steyn, D W	31.66​	22.95​	42.39​
Muralitharan, M	32.5​	22.73​	55.05​
Ashwin, R	32.93​	24.56​	52.47​
Garner, J	33.59​	20.98​	50.85​
Wasim Akram	35.02​	23.62​	54.65​
Warne, S K	37.15​	25.42​	57.49​

Wow Warne sucks

I mean, wickets are wickets, no? If someone is more skilled at skittling the tail should they be penalized for that?

Lillee for example was someone who struggled against tailenders I heard because lack of a good yorker and them repeatedly missing his outswingers. Yet he will gain points in this analysis.

 

[ankitj]

Wow Warne sucks

I mean, wickets are wickets, no? If someone is more skilled at skittling the tail should they be penalized for that?

Lillee for example was someone who struggled against tailenders I heard because lack of a good yorker and them repeatedly missing his outswingers. Yet he will gain points in this analysis.

Things are always more complex in cricket than what numbers can bring out. But massively disagree that wickets are wickets. It's obvious that isn't the case.

 

[subshakerz]

Things are always more complex in cricket than what numbers can bring out. But massively disagree that wickets are wickets. It's obvious that isn't the case.

Yeah I guess I am wondering if parsing wicket stats to this degree is really helpful or misleading somehow.

 

[stephen]

Warne's high portion of tail end wickets obviously is the flip side of McGrath having a higher portion of top order wickets. Similarly Marshall and Garner have a relationship akin to that as well.

Generally spinners, in theory, should take more lower and middle order wickets because it's not their job to dismiss the top order - that's the job of the opening bowlers and the first change bowler.

What I think is extraordinary is when you have a bowler like McGrath who has high wpm, low average and very few tall end wickets. I don't penalise any bowler for taking a higher proportion of lower order wickets unless it was done selfishly (ala Wasim). After all, a change bowler like Garner is often starting against set batsmen and with a softer ball that doesn't do a much.

 

[Migara]

The % of top order batsman stat is indicatively useful but biased against bowlers with high wpm. There can easily be situations where bowler A can be taking equal or more gross top order wickets per match on average than bowler B but have a worse top order % because they take even more lower order wickets.

This is also true. 30% tail end wickets with WPM of 2 is worse than 40% tail end wickets with WPM of 4. In former it is 1.4 WPM of top order while in second it is 2.4WPM of top order for latter

 

[Migara]

Makes sense to look at % of top-order/tail wickets in conjunction with overall bowling average. Then again, top-order of say Bangladesh has not been same as top-order of Australia. One could go the whole hog and assign value to each wicket and compare with how much bowlers pay to buy that. If only someone did that. Hey, look

Top order of even Bangladesh is better than 9,10, jack of any other team.

 

[Migara]

Wow Warne sucks

I mean, wickets are wickets, no? If someone is more skilled at skittling the tail should they be penalized for that?

Lillee for example was someone who struggled against tailenders I heard because lack of a good yorker and them repeatedly missing his outswingers. Yet he will gain points in this analysis.

Yeah, then it cannot be a measure against Imran or Wasim too. The problem is changing goal posts when someones favorite cricketer comes in.

Wasim vs Ambrose -> Lol, Wasim has more tail end wickets
Murali vs Warne -> Wickets are wickets

Cannot argue it both ways

 

[Migara]

"The likes of Ambrose, Warne, Marshall, McGrath had more chances to bowl to the tail than Murali or Hadlee, hence they had access to cheaper wickets. If Hadlee or murali had another ATG at other end, their WPM will become less, but their SR's and averages will be much better."

Again I was talking specifically about the above bowlers. Funny enough, you knew that as well but for some reason, as usual you're point was proven moot. Now you're off on a tangent that none of us were ever talking about.

Nope, I am talking about Murali and Hadlee. If they had Ambrose, Marshall or McGrath with them, they would easily pick up more tail enders to the level of Warne or MacGill, because these two bowled marathon spells unlike any other cricketers. Kapil Dev would have benefited the same way.

And this

In the case of Marshall, it's because it was Garner's job to clean up the tail. Which he did very well btw

BTW that would be perfectly the job of Hadlee, Murali or Akram, who just blew away tails when ever they reached it.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, then it cannot be a measure against Imran or Wasim too. The problem is changing goal posts when someones favorite cricketer comes in.

Wasim vs Ambrose -> Lol, Wasim has more tail end wickets
Murali vs Warne -> Wickets are wickets

Cannot argue it both ways

This entire argument was just about Murali wasn't it.

 

[Slifer]

T

This entire argument was just about Murali wasn't it.

The irony being, he is the one who literally brought up this whole tail end stuff and tried to make it seem that Ambrose, Marshall, and McGrath had more access to cheaper tail end wickets. This is what he wrote:
"The likes of Ambrose, Warne, Marshall, McGrath had more chances to bowl to the tail than Murali or Hadlee, hence they had access to cheaper wickets." Now that it's been shown that players like Hadlee, Akram etc actually have a higher proportion of tail end wickets than the three strike bowlers above he's trying to change his tune.

Here is his follow-up: " Yeah, then it cannot be a measure against Imran or Wasim too. The problem is changing goal posts when someones favorite cricketer comes in." He's the one literally changing goal posts because it doesn't suit his initial argument that Ambrose, Marshall, and McGrath took higher proportion of tail end wickets.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, then it cannot be a measure against Imran or Wasim too. The problem is changing goal posts when someones favorite cricketer comes in.

Wasim vs Ambrose -> Lol, Wasim has more tail end wickets
Murali vs Warne -> Wickets are wickets

Cannot argue it both ways

As an opening bowler, it is your primary job to take more top order wickets. There is no moving goal posts.

And how did we even get here, the argument was Ambrose vs Hadlee, where the general consensus was Hadlee by a sliver, partially due to his wpm.

 

[Slifer]

As an opening bowler, it is your primary job to take more top order wickets. There is no moving goal posts.

And how did we even get here, the argument was Ambrose vs Hadlee, where the general consensus was Hadlee by a sliver, partially due to his wpm.

We went off the rails when we were discussing Hadlee's wpm vs Ambrose's. Then Pap or whatever his name is , as usual invoked the name Akram....