Find a better bowler peak (min 33 Tests) than this (protip, you can't)

[Starfighter]

Well I think strike rate is not an important measure in tests, and furthermore has a considerable dependence on the batsmen.

 

[Athlai]

Really bullied poor NZ/Zim/SL in that period

Such Kiwi legends as

Blair Pocock
Trevor Franklin x2
Bryan Young
Phil Horne
Mark Greatbatch x4
Blair Hartland
Ken Rutherford x3
Chris Harris x2
Dipak Patel x3
Shane Thomson x3
Tony Blain x2
Grant Bradburn x2
Ian Smith x2
Rod Latham
Simon Doull x3
Murphy Su'a x2
Chris Pringle x3
Willie Watson x3
Danny Morrison x2
Michael Owens

also NZ Batsman that averaged over 35

Martin Crowe x2
Andrew Jones

 

[BazBall21]

I don't really buy the strike rate hype with bowlers but WPM is very important.

 

[thierry henry]

I've also noticed strike rate has recently become talked about a lot in ODIs and even T20s, where it literally tends to be a marker of a worse bowler.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't really buy the strike rate hype with bowlers but WPM is vital.

No way. Differences in WPM for similar bowlers is virtually entirely dependent on factors other than the bowler in question

SR is important IMO, but all things being equal average is still the best measure by a distance

 

[Athlai]

Top 10s

(min 100 wickets)

Strike Rate

Player	Span	​ Wkts	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

WPM

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​

 

[TheJediBrah]

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).

This is a great post. Should be required reading for joining CW

 

[mr_mister]

I don't really buy the strike rate hype with bowlers but WPM is vital.

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

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

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.

I wrote a little summary explaining my thoughts on this a while back, let me dig it up.

 

[BazBall21]

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

Murali/Hadlee cases are quite unique. Top-level ATGs with poor support. Marshall's WPM with good support is amazing.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

What’s a protip? And can I use it to clean the wax outta my ears?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Murali/Hadlee cases are quite unique. Top-level ATGs with poor support. Marshall's WPM with good support is amazing.

Which is also reflected, more accurately, in his average. Taking into WPM into account doesn't provide any benefit

 

[Zinzan]

Didn't minnow-bash at all either, unlike Waqar.

Yes Hadlee did, a lot of his wickets in that period were against Australia.

 

[Zinzan]

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.

 

[Athlai]

Murali (any spinner) with DRS would've been even more gun IMO

 

[BazBall21]

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.

He gets a hard time from quite a lot of people in England (in my experience) because Warne is so adored over here.

 

[thierry henry]

Murali (any spinner) with DRS would've been even more gun IMO

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"

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

Full concept shown below. I can math out an example too, but it should be pretty intuitive:

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.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

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.

Probably about 75% of your posts

 

[TheJediBrah]

Fr though, if you think pointing out that Murali feasted on minnows more than most bowlers, which is an objective fact, is "bashing" him, you're either ignorant of the facts or just trying to be needlessly inflammatory