Curtly Ambrose vs Dale Steyn

[TheJediBrah]

Wouldn't it have to do more with the batting drop off? West Indies didn't have a great batting lineup during the late 90s.

Less rest for the bowlers. If your batsmen don't score enough runs then you probably don't get a second innings to bowl pre 2001.

I can't imagine South Africa's batting lineup not scoring enough runs to not ensure 2 bowling innings for Steyn. Or not giving him sufficient rest.

Great point. If you're losing by an innings or the opposition is declaring in their 2nd dig you're not going to have a high wpm

 

[sledger]

Ambrose easily

 

[Coronis]

Great point. If you're losing by an innings or the opposition is declaring in their 2nd dig you're not going to have a high wpm

That does make sense but interestingly, they averaged almost the exact same (1.82 and 1.83) innings bowled per match, with Ambrose averaging 20.6 overs per innings to Steyn’s 18.1. Of course there are likely other factors involved i just found it interesting. Most of the top fast bowlers ended up between 1.85 and 1.90 so they were both on the lower end of the spectrum relatively speaking.

For comparison at the other ends of the spectrum McGrath (1.96 innings, 20.1 overs) and Hadlee (1.74 innings, 24.4 overs). Imran was even lower than Hadlee but iirc he was batting only for part of his career so eh.

 

[Bahnz]

Wouldn't it have to do more with the batting drop off? West Indies didn't have a great batting lineup during the late 90s.

Less rest for the bowlers. If your batsmen don't score enough runs then you probably don't get a second innings to bowl pre 2001.

I can't imagine South Africa's batting lineup not scoring enough runs to not ensure 2 bowling innings for Steyn. Or not giving him sufficient rest.

Yeah, a little from column A, a little from column b I suspect.

 

[Migara]

Great point. If you're losing by an innings or the opposition is declaring in their 2nd dig you're not going to have a high wpm

A point that will be pertinent discussing Murali's and Hadlee's WPM.

This is why WPI is a better metric than WPM for what ever use it has.

 

[subshakerz]

That does make sense but interestingly, they averaged almost the exact same (1.82 and 1.83) innings bowled per match, with Ambrose averaging 20.6 overs per innings to Steyn’s 18.1. Of course there are likely other factors involved i just found it interesting. Most of the top fast bowlers ended up between 1.85 and 1.90 so they were both on the lower end of the spectrum relatively speaking.

For comparison at the other ends of the spectrum McGrath (1.96 innings, 20.1 overs) and Hadlee (1.74 innings, 24.4 overs). Imran was even lower than Hadlee but iirc he was batting only for part of his career so eh.

These are more useful than WPM actually. So all the hoopla about Ambrose not being the same kind of wicket taker are exaggerated.

 

[OverratedSanity]

These are more useful than WPM actually. So all the hoopla about Ambrose not being the same kind of wicket taker are exaggerated.

What am I missing? He bowled more overs and still averaged fewer wickets per innings.

 

[Coronis]

Just bringing this one up because the topic is WPM, we all know Wasim is always denigrated because of it, but he actually has an almost identical innings bowled per match number there to Hadlee and in fact Waqar’s number is well below average too, something going on there with Pakistan? Wasim actually ends up with a better WPI stat than Curtly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Just bringing this one up because the topic is WPM, we all know Wasim is always denigrated because of it, but he actually has an almost identical number there to Hadlee and in fact Waqar’s number is well below average too. Wasim actually has a better WPI stat than Curtly.

No he doesn't. They are massively different

 

[TheJediBrah]

What am I missing? He bowled more overs and still averaged fewer wickets per innings.

One possible explanation that's been floated already, maybe because his other bowlers got worse he was more likely to be seen off hence reducing his strike-rate. Or of course maybe he just got older, slower and less dangerous.

 

[Coronis]

No he doesn't. They are massively different

I realised how that sounded and yes, edited the post. I was referring to the other stat we’d been discussing, the innings per match stat, and pointing out that all 3 Pakistani quicks from that time were significantly below average among ATG’s in that stat.

 

[Nikhil99.99]

Hadlee and Lillee WPI would be around the same mark.Other fast bowlers are well below that.

 

[Coronis]

Hadlee and Lillee WPI would be around the same mark.Other fast bowlers are well below that.

So apparently I’m bored enough to go through most of the ATG pacers and do this.

WPI and Overs per innings
Hadlee 2.87 (24.3)
Lillee 2.69 (23.3)
Steyn 2.57 (18.1)
Donald 2.56 (20.1)
Rabada 2.56 (17.4)
Bedser 2.56 (28.8)
Imran 2.55 (22.8)
Cummins 2.49 (19.3)
Marshall 2.49 (19.4)
Waqar 2.42 (17.6)
Trueman 2.42 (19.9)
Garner 2.33 (19.8)
McGrath 2.32 (20.1)
Wasim 2.29 (20.8)
Davidson 2.27 (23.6)
Ambrose 2.26 (20.6)
Roberts 2.24 (20.6)
Holding 2.20 (18.7)
Walsh 2.14 (20.7)
Pollock 2.08 (20.1)
Lindwall 2.02 (20.1)

 

[Nikhil99.99]

Hadlee’s WPI is higher than I thought.This is totally new statistic.Have never seen a WPI stat before.

 

[subshakerz]

So apparently I’m bored enough to go through most of the ATG pacers and do this.

WPI and Overs per innings
Hadlee 2.87 (24.3)
Lillee 2.69 (23.3)
Steyn 2.57 (18.1)
Donald 2.56 (20.1)
Rabada 2.56 (17.4)
Bedser 2.56 (28.8)
Imran 2.55 (22.8)
Cummins 2.49 (19.3)
Marshall 2.49 (19.4)
Waqar 2.42 (17.6)
Trueman 2.42 (19.9)
Garner 2.33 (19.8)
McGrath 2.32 (20.1)
Wasim 2.29 (20.8)
Davidson 2.27 (23.6)
Ambrose 2.26 (20.6)
Roberts 2.24 (20.6)
Holding 2.20 (18.7)
Walsh 2.14 (20.7)
Pollock 2.08 (20.1)
Lindwall 2.02 (20.1)

Interesting how the three bowlers with the least over per innings also have the best strikerates and worst ER, namely Waqar, Rabada and Steyn. Something similar in their MOs. They take wickets quickly but also as they tend to leak runs they dont go for long bowling spells perhaps

 

[Gob]

Conditions in South Africa have constantly being very bowler friendly tbh. Relatively speaking

Ftr I voted for Steyn

 

[Coronis]

Conditions in South Africa have constantly being very bowler friendly tbh. Relatively speaking

Ftr I voted for Steyn

Is interesting that whilst reading about this subject I found this in a current SA quick’s profile. “A quick from Bloemfontein who learnt his trade on the same surfaces that once produced Allan Donald, Duanne Olivier is proof that flat pitches make better bowlers.”

 

[TheJediBrah]

Is interesting that whilst reading about this subject I found this in a current SA quick’s profile. “A quick from Bloemfontein who learnt his trade on the same surfaces that once produced Allan Donald, Duanne Olivier is proof that flat pitches make better bowlers.”

I looked up a few other articles apparently Bloemfontein is widely accepted as one of the flattest wickets in the country

 

[subshakerz]

Conditions in South Africa have constantly being very bowler friendly tbh. Relatively speaking

Ftr I voted for Steyn

I agree. I dont know why some posters are arguing the opposite.

 

[a massive zebra]

Okay, I'll make this my last post since I'm actually meant to be trying IRL right now hence procrastinating on CW all arvo.

By "the entire world, outside of a few players, spontaneously forgot how to bowl despite all the advances and depth increases in world bowling for 30-40 years prior" I mean literally the population of professional bowlers.

It's actually really, really unlikely an entire global profession in a sporting context just goes bad overnight, especially when that sport is played outside. Are you really meaning to tell me that outside of Glenn McGrath and Shaun Pollock, every test nation just got bad at fast bowling, an art nations pour so much into building their depth in? That kids just got less talented overnight, that coaches woke up on January 1st 2000 and forgot how to coach?

No, it didn't happen. That's ridiculous. The number of potential ATG bowlers in the global pool stayed constant. It might even have increased as cricket world population rose and less advantaged countries improved their overall health. We didn't suddenly fire all the coaches either. Everything around the professional bowlers got harder very quickly, mainly the pitch homogensation towards CEO roads but you can definitely argue absolute batting skill advanced and I have time for that argument.

This is most easily seen in the statistics of the median test bowler. The Hoggard, the Kasprowicz, the Simon Doull and the Kemar Roach. These guys are the most vulnerable to changes around them because they're not as good.

The 2000s already had McGrath, Pollock, Shoiab, Bond, Gillespie, Ntini and Vaas in the "Great to very good in their era" bracket. If you start stamping averages of 27-28 on Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff, Kasprowicz, Bichel, Nel, Tuffey, Zaheer and others instead of low 30s then the 2000s relative to history start looking alright, and if they had the same conditions as the 90s and today I think they would have those statistics and I think the sharp end of the very good bowlers like Gillespie and Vaas would also benefit, bringing their averages down to sneaky ATG levels.

The "Fast bowling got empirically worse in the 2000s" conventional wisdom is the biggest load of rubbish the sport has ever sold. If it was true it should have been the biggest general play emergency the game has ever seen, but it wasn't.

This is why Glenn McGrath is the GOAT - he beat what should have happened to him.

Anyway, Dale Steyn is a bit lucky he began his career as the environment he played in was getting kinder to fast bowlers. He is more a contemporary of Anderson, Broad, Harris, Johnson and the younger versions of the current Indian, Australian and NZ attacks than the guys above but he did make his name during the tail end of the CEO pitch era and missed out on the party currently going on in the return to 80s statistics era so he is very impressive.

I should really do some work so good chat. Hope your day was a bit more productive than mine.

If the pool of potential ATG bowlers remained constant and the increase in averages in the 2000s was due to a combination of improved batting and improved pitches, rather than a decline in the general standard of bowling, you would expect the averages of the great 90s bowlers to increase in the 2000s as they passed their peak and came up against less favourable conditions. However, this is the opposite of what actually happened. Despite the very significant rise in overall averages, many of the great bowlers who played a large number of matches in both the 90s and 00s (McGrath, Murali, Warne, Ambrose, Walsh included) have better averages in the latter decade, which strongly contradicts the higher standard of batting + improvement in pitches argument in favour of the general consensus that the standard of new bowlers declined significantly in comparison to the 1990s.