Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well I think strike rate is not an important measure in tests, and furthermore has a considerable dependence on the batsmen.
Such Kiwi legends asReally bullied poor NZ/Zim/SL in that period
No way. Differences in WPM for similar bowlers is virtually entirely dependent on factors other than the bowler in questionI don't really buy the strike rate hype with bowlers but WPM is vital.
Player | Span | | SR |
GA Lohmann (ENG) | 1886-1896 | 112 | 34.1 |
K Rabada (SA) | 2015-2023 | 280 | 39.7 |
SF Barnes (ENG) | 1901-1914 | 189 | 41.6 |
DW Steyn (SA) | 2004-2019 | 439 | 42.3 |
Waqar Younis (PAK) | 1989-2003 | 373 | 43.4 |
J Briggs (ENG) | 1884-1899 | 118 | 45.1 |
C Blythe (ENG) | 1901-1910 | 100 | 45.4 |
Shoaib Akhtar (PAK) | 1997-2007 | 178 | 45.7 |
MD Marshall (WI) | 1978-1991 | 376 | 46.7 |
AA Donald (SA) | 1992-2002 | 330 | 47 |
Player | Span | Mat | Wkts | WPM |
SF Barnes (ENG) | 1901-1914 | 27 | 189 | 7 |
GA Lohmann (ENG) | 1886-1896 | 18 | 112 | 6.222222 |
M Muralidaran (ICC/SL) | 1992-2010 | 133 | 800 | 6.015038 |
CTB Turner (AUS) | 1887-1895 | 17 | 101 | 5.941176 |
CV Grimmett (AUS) | 1925-1936 | 37 | 216 | 5.837838 |
WJ O'Reilly (AUS) | 1932-1946 | 27 | 144 | 5.333333 |
C Blythe (ENG) | 1901-1910 | 19 | 100 | 5.263158 |
R Ashwin (IND) | 2011-2023 | 94 | 489 | 5.202128 |
Saeed Ajmal (PAK) | 2009-2014 | 35 | 178 | 5.085714 |
Yasir Shah (PAK) | 2014-2022 | 48 | 244 | 5.083333 |
This is a great post. Should be required reading for joining CWAt the risk of being a raw averages dullard, I just can't get behind the whole focus on strike rates thing. Fundamentally cricket is a score more runs/concede less runs game. As a bowler your job is to take the most wickets while conceding the least runs. If anything, being a good bowler usually goes hand-in-hand with being hard to score off, which lends itself to a comparatively poor strike-rate and good economy rate when compared to average. There is nothing intuitively right-feeling to me about applauding someone more for getting to the same place faster, and certainly not for getting to a worse place faster (i.e. getting wickets faster but conceding MORE runs).
Really? To give one example...I don't really buy the strike rate hype with bowlers but WPM is vital.
It's not stats crunching, it's I think a more intuitive truism than might initially seem. Think about the bowlers who get the new ball ( the best chance to take wickets), and why everything is not "all else equal", as would have to be the case in an average only matters for bowlers world.Is "strike rate is as important or more important than average" one of those things that has become CW-consensus while the plebs still talk about average? Or am I being inherently absurd by talking about "CW consensus"?
At the risk of being a raw averages dullard, I just can't get behind the whole focus on strike rates thing. Fundamentally cricket is a score more runs/concede less runs game. As a bowler your job is to take the most wickets while conceding the least runs. If anything, being a good bowler usually goes hand-in-hand with being hard to score off, which lends itself to a comparatively poor strike-rate and good economy rate when compared to average. There is nothing intuitively right-feeling to me about applauding someone more for getting to the same place faster, and certainly not for getting to a worse place faster (i.e. getting wickets faster but conceding MORE runs).
But yeah, I acknowledge some pretty deep stats crunching goes on here that might have established this as a truism.
Murali/Hadlee cases are quite unique. Top-level ATGs with poor support. Marshall's WPM with good support is amazing.Really? To give one example...
Warne had to share wickets with McGrath, Gillespie, MacGill, McDermott, Fleming, Reiffel, Lee
Murali had to share wickets with Vaas and um...
It'd be insulting if Murali didn't have the superior WPM
Which is also reflected, more accurately, in his average. Taking into WPM into account doesn't provide any benefitMurali/Hadlee cases are quite unique. Top-level ATGs with poor support. Marshall's WPM with good support is amazing.
Yes Hadlee did, a lot of his wickets in that period were against Australia.Didn't minnow-bash at all either, unlike Waqar.
He gets a hard time from quite a lot of people in England (in my experience) because Warne is so adored over here.I'm generalising here, but no other cricketing fans seem to in unison bash Murali and intentionally under-rate him like Australia fans, it's quite perplexing. Seems to be generally well respected & regarded as a champion elsewhere.
I watched highlights of Fleming scoring all those runs against him once and was horrified at how he was blithely using his pad in the days of "well he got a good stride in"Murali (any spinner) with DRS would've been even more gun IMO
Full concept shown below. I can math out an example too, but it should be pretty intuitive:Is "strike rate is as important or more important than average" one of those things that has become CW-consensus while the plebs still talk about average? Or am I being inherently absurd by talking about "CW consensus"?
At the risk of being a raw averages dullard, I just can't get behind the whole focus on strike rates thing. Fundamentally cricket is a score more runs/concede less runs game. As a bowler your job is to take the most wickets while conceding the least runs. If anything, being a good bowler usually goes hand-in-hand with being hard to score off, which lends itself to a comparatively poor strike-rate and good economy rate when compared to average. There is nothing intuitively right-feeling to me about applauding someone more for getting to the same place faster, and certainly not for getting to a worse place faster (i.e. getting wickets faster but conceding MORE runs).
But yeah, I acknowledge some pretty deep stats crunching goes on here that might have established this as a truism.
That's just the math. If two bowlers have the same average, then the one with the lower strikerate will have the higher ER, and vice-versa the one with the lower ER will have the higher strike rate.
Here's what that math ends up meaning for members of a bowling attack though, because whether having a low SR or low ER is better depends on your role:
Case 1) All of the members of the bowling attack have the same / similar averages:
It doesn't matter if you as an individual member of that attack have a low strike rate or a low economy. Your team mates area all equally capable of getting wickets cheaply as you are, so you should play in the way that comes best to you. West Indies pace quartet at it's peak could be an example of this, but it doesn't need to be a great attack, just any "balanced" attack in terms of averages, this will apply.
Case 2) Some of the members of the attack have significantly better averages than others:
If you are the lowest average bowler by far, then you should be the strike bowler. Generally don't waste balls, and try to keep the stumps in play ( McGrath is known for using the "corridor" outside off, but he kept the ball suffocatingly close to them even when not aiming at them, always makes the batsman wary of the one the jags back, and draws false strokes ).
If you are the 4th bowler usually in the attack, and have the highest average, then your job should be the "stock" bowler, keeping it tight. Make sure not to miss your length, and bowl to a more defensive field. Even if you aren't picking up wickets regularly, frustrating the batsman should be your job.
The example of this sort was Pakistan, when Waqar Younis serving as the perfect spearhead. He was best served using the style that he did, attacking the stumps and picking up wickets as quickly as possible, because after Wasim there was a BIG jump in the averages of his third seamer / spinner.
TL;DR : For team spearheads a lower strike rate is better than lower economy, but this effect is lessened if your teammates are closer in quality to you.
Funny because I've never seen any one bash Australian cricketers and anything Australian and intentionally under-rate them like Zinzan, it's quite perplexing.I'm generalising here, but no other cricketing fans seem to in unison bash Murali and intentionally under-rate him like Australia fans, it's quite perplexing. Seems to be generally well respected & regarded as a champion elsewhere.