Yeah it's mostly this.
That not how chucking works
Rightfully so
WPM just means more opportunity tbh, which is neither a benefit nor a detraction. SR is a better indicator of value, but not as important as average. As someone pointed out, I can't recall who, it's counter intuitive to say who got there faster is better, if they are getting there costing more runs. Has to be a balance, which was sometimes used by some as a disadvantage for Steyn, within an ATG context of course.
There can be multiple reasons for this, I never night into the chucking thing, especially after he was cleared. Just thought it was an unusual and interesting action. I, probably unfairly, deducted more for the fact that his home pitches were especially prepared for him and how many minnows he faced.
Think they both have their merits. A quick opening partnership can quickly take the impetus and game away from the opposition. A Richards (either) could turn the tide of a match in a session in a way that a Kallis or Sutcliffe just either couldn't or were reluctant to. Bradman, Richards, Sobers all highly regarded because while they were at the crease the bowlers were not allowed to settle and we're under duress, this also had or could have a snow ball effect for the rest of the team.
Conversely, a higher SR bowler can also leak runs and release pressure. Help a batsman get going. Demoralise fielding team etc.
Inherent bias for those who look like us, would rather use that than racist, and definitely the prior as well, but everyone does that tbh.
Greenidge and Haynes, Hayden and Langer, the longer they stayed at the crease the game just slipped away, it was demoralizing. They weren't just dulling the new ball, they were taking advantage of it. 10 overs if them vs 10 overs of Lawry or Boycott, there was no comparison. One allowed the bowlers to get into rhythm and settle, the others just didn't, and took their confidence in the process. That innings by Laburchagne (yes an extreme) just tanked the momentum and the team.
It doesn't even have to be 10 overs. It can even be 1 ball, I've seen it, I've done it.
Just have to get Pews and Coronis on board.
WPM is a lot more than just opportunity (plus strikerate). It's an additionally an expression of the ability to bowl a lot, pick up wickets when asked to bowl at a time when you are unsuited to getting wickets etc.
He was too reliant on reverse swing and pace. He struggled with the new ball a lot of times plus when his pace decreased to age and injuries he regressed rapidly.
I may be misunderstanding math, but you can't have a lower s/r and lower opportunities and have a higher wpm. You must be bowling more overs.
I meant swing to include conventional and pace. He still took wickets fast with conventional, even if he was not one of the great conventional bowlers.
Lower bowling SR is better SR. If you strike at 10 you get a pile of wickets even if you only have the opportunity to bowl a handful of overs per match.
i think that mr wasn't saying it was, just that the chud murali derogation lines are really funny to say and i agree (even though i would also never unironically impugn the bloke's record or the bloke himself)
