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

[TheJediBrah]

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)

You can call him a chucker without impugning either

He can still be a nice bloke, and have a great record.

 

[Coronis]

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.

Or you can have a higher SR and still take a pile of wickets because you have the ability to bowl effective longer spells.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Or you can have a higher SR and still take a pile of wickets because you have the ability to bowl effective longer spells.

But that's so ****ing boring.

 

[Coronis]

But that's so ****ing boring.

Meh. Its boring watching Verstappen dominate. It was boring watch Hamilton dominate. It was boring watching Schumacher dominate. Doesn’t change the greatness we witness.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Meh. Its boring watching Verstappen dominate. It was boring watch Hamilton dominate. It was boring watching Schumacher dominate. Doesn’t change the greatness we witness.

Thank God I don't watch F1.

 

[Coronis]

Thank God I don't watch F1.

You’re missing out, its really exciting this season.

 

[kyear2]

You’re missing out, its really exciting this season.

Is it though?

 

[Coronis]

Is it though?

#thatsthejoke


Though Max aside there have been many intriguing stories imo.

 

[kyear2]

Meh. Its boring watching Verstappen dominate. It was boring watch Hamilton dominate. It was boring watching Schumacher dominate. Doesn’t change the greatness we witness.

I agree with the F1 comp, but for cricket, taking longer to get wickets at a lower s/r can take time away from the game, in some cases possibly running out of time. Just from a hypothetical scenario of course.

 

[kyear2]

#thatsthejoke


Though Max aside there have been many intriguing stories imo.

Yes, if you ignore Max, the rest of the field has been intriguing.

But rule changes are required at this stage. This is getting just as bad as watching Djoker win every major. No one wants to know who's going to win before the tournament starts. Unless it's Roger of course.

 

[honestbharani]

Well yes but that's just a truism, in explanation of a snarky comment, when neither post rebutted anything I said?

Anyway sorry I said anything I'm not going down this rabbit hole

Interesting that you find that post snarky when that was not what I meant at all.

I am just tired of how we often think one stat is better than the other when both have the same holes.

 

[shortpitched713]

Or are you saying that because elite bowlers are invariably better than their teammates, it is therefore invariably preferable for elite bowlers to be good SR/bad ER? I guess that makes sense.

Exactly.

I've mathed out a simplified example here to illustrate.

We are assuming 2 bowler attacks, better bowler is A, averages 20, worse bowler is B, averages 30


Scenario 1: Both strike evenly ( 60 SR for both )

They take 2 wickets every 20 overs, giving up 50 runs in that time.

Total: 250 runs, 100 overs bowled ( 50 each )


Scenario 2: Bowler A is strike ( 30 SR ), Bowler B stock ( 90 SR )

Every 5 overs bowler A will take a wicket, and collectively they'll take 4 wickets every 30 overs, giving up 90 runs in that time.

Total: 225 runs, 75 overs bowled ( 37.5 each )


As you can see, by having complementarity between your "strike" and "stock" bowlers, you saved 25 runs over the course of the innings, not a trivial amount. Plus, you also finished your innings much quicker, reducing bowler fatigue.

This outcome is intuitive, and Test teams already play in a way to maximize complementarity. Think of all the times you will see 2 bowlers bowling from opposite ends with different ( 1 attacking, 1 more defensive ) field sets. Ultimately, all of the bowlers we are talking about when we are discussing ATG comparisons ( or even usually ATVG comparisons ) are of bowler set A, not B. Thus a lower strike rate is always preferred for them.

 

[honestbharani]

Can you not HB this thread any more than you already have

Then dont TJB it any more than you already have

 

[shortpitched713]

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

Except that it's ****ing wrong, at the extremes (no offense thierry henry), which includes ATG analysis because they are not your typical bowlers.

 

[shortpitched713]

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

ATGs are not your average bowlers, hence all things are not equal here, and you have to take SR into consideration as well ( not saying average isn't more important though, just the degree of importance can differ).

 

[shortpitched713]

Or you can have a higher SR and still take a pile of wickets because you have the ability to bowl effective longer spells.

How the **** does that even work?

Slowing down ( or increasing ) the rate at which you're taking wickets, does not magically give you the ability to bowl for a longer period. Unless you're implying that bowlers (particularly fast bowlers) are holding in back in effort, which I can assure you is not the case. They're bowling at their optimums, more or less regardless of match situation or if they need to strike / restrict.

 

[Coronis]

Exactly.

I've mathed out a simplified example here to illustrate.

We are assuming 2 bowler attacks, better bowler is A, averages 20, worse bowler is B, averages 30


Scenario 1: Both strike evenly ( 60 SR for both )

They take 2 wickets every 20 overs, giving up 50 runs in that time.

Total: 250 runs, 100 overs bowled ( 50 each )


Scenario 2: Bowler A is strike ( 30 SR ), Bowler B stock ( 90 SR )

Every 5 overs bowler A will take a wicket, and collectively they'll take 4 wickets every 30 overs, giving up 90 runs in that time.

Total: 225 runs, 75 overs bowled ( 37.5 each )


As you can see, by having complementarity between your "strike" and "stock" bowlers, you saved 25 runs over the course of the innings, not a trivial amount. Plus, you also finished your innings much quicker, reducing bowler fatigue.

This outcome is intuitive, and Test teams already play in a way to maximize complementarity. Think of all the times you will see 2 bowlers bowling from opposite ends with different ( 1 attacking, 1 more defensive ) field sets. Ultimately, all of the bowlers we are talking about when we are discussing ATG comparisons ( or even usually ATVG comparisons ) are of bowler set A, not B. Thus a lower strike rate is always preferred for them.

What an absurd post

 

[shortpitched713]

What an absurd post

What an absurd face.

 

[TheJediBrah]

ATGs are not your average bowlers, hence all things are not equal here, and you have to take SR into consideration as well ( not saying average isn't more important though, just the degree of importance can differ).

You just said exactly what I said reworded??

 

[Coronis]

What an absurd face.

You’re not @Adorable Asshole, you’ll never be @Adorable Asshole.