Debate thread for 2024 ranking of bowlers poll

[subshakerz]

A similar nonsensical argument is also used against Sehwag or Gilchrist as bats, because somehow high SR good, really high SR bad??!

Sehwag's high SR to me is one reason why he fails in SENA (minus Aus) because he doesn't adjust how he plays there.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'm not sure you are contradicting me. I said SR and ER are connected. I didn't mean a goldilocks range but my point is that we can't ignore a high SR as a matter of penetration for players of roughly the same average and ER, like Ambrose and McGrath.

If they have the same average and ER, they cannot have a different SR.

 

[shortpitched713]

Sehwag's high SR to me is one reason why he fails in SENA (minus Aus) because he doesn't adjust how he plays there.

I mean, that's context which you're throwing in there (which can neither be proven or disproven, really).

But I'm only looking at the contradictions in positions of people who advocate for "goldilocks" SRs. Do you want your bat to put the opposition to the sword, or not? If you do, Sehwag and Gilly should be extra rewarded, not somehow hamstrung, because they overkilled too hard, or some ****.

 

[kyear2]

Let's let Ashwin go for now; I am really worn out with these Ashwin/Jadeja debates that goes nowhere.

This, a thousand times this.

 

[subshakerz]

If they have the same average and ER, they cannot have a different SR.

Ah yes I see what you mean, they all balance out. I guess the more relevant comparison then is with bowlers with different ERs and SRs but similar averages.

 

[subshakerz]

This, a thousand times this.

I won't bring up or respond to Ashwin/Jadeja stuff from now on.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Test cricket is about taking wickets quick enough to get your team a result. The idea that SR matters less for bowlers goes against something very fundamental to the game.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I won't bring up or respond to Ashwin/Jadeja stuff from now on.

Weak. You shouldn't hold back from talking about what you want just because others rightly find it annoying imo.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

What do CWers rate higher in test bowling, a better strike rate or a better economy rate?

Far too hard to compare across eras due to better pitches/bats/smaller boundaries/more aggressive running/shot making/and tail enders who can bomb 6s and 4s.

 

[subshakerz]

Weak. You shouldn't hold back from talking about what you want just because others rightly find it annoying imo.

Yeah but I don't feel there is anything new to say until Ashwin and Jadeja tour Australia.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Are we seriously already considering Bumrah in the top 30 bowlers ever?

Not even close.
He is a shorter version of Kyle Jamieson with a strange action and fewer injuries.

 

[shortpitched713]

Test cricket is about taking wickets quick enough to get your team a result. The idea that SR matters less for bowlers goes against something very fundamental to the game.

For all the bowlers we are discussing in these kind of rankings, who should be among the "best of the best" for their teams, I think SR definitely matters to some extent. Having a natural tendency to take wickets quickly even if expensively, instead of slowly but miserly, will have a subtle but real effect on reducing opponent innings totals.

 

[shortpitched713]

Far too hard to compare across eras due to better pitches/bats/smaller boundaries/more aggressive running/shot making/and tail enders who can bomb 6s and 4s.

The math's always the same. Strike bowlers gotta strike. And it's worth it to give them a bit of latitude in being more expensive, as long as they are generally successful in that role.

 

[subshakerz]

Test cricket is about taking wickets quick enough to get your team a result. The idea that SR matters less for bowlers goes against something very fundamental to the game.

The thing that is misleading though about SRs is that those with better SRs also attend to bowl less overs per test on average. Steyn for example bowls 6 less overs per test on average than McGrath, so the difference of 10 points in SR is mitigated somewhat by this.

 

[shortpitched713]

The thing that is misleading though about SRs is that those with better SRs also attend to bowl less overs per test on average. Steyn for example bowls 6 less overs per test on average than McGrath, so the difference of 10 points in SR is mitigated somewhat by this.

True, but now we're talking about something different from SR vs ER.

 

[subshakerz]

For all the bowlers we are discussing in these kind of rankings, who should be among the "best of the best" for their teams, I think SR definitely matters to some extent. Having a natural tendency to take wickets quickly even if expensively, instead of slowly but miserly, will have a subtle but real effect on reducing opponent innings totals.

Based on what? My sense is that low SR bowlers are highly inconsistent. They are either taking wickets or getting spanked and then taken off the attack.

 

[subshakerz]

True, but now we're talking about something different from SR vs ER.

Yeah but that is match reality. Low SRs comes with its own constraints.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

@Line and Length - could you add a column to the table you post at the end of each day showing positions gained or lost since the last time you ran the thing?

 

[shortpitched713]

Based on what? My sense is that low SR bowlers are highly inconsistent. They are either taking wickets or getting spanked and then taken off the attack.

This is just for the strike bowlers, and just a mathematical conclusion. Here is the hypothetical case calculation I presented:

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.

The conclusion holds even if your strike bowler bowls less overs, just has a smaller effect size. Lower SR for strike bowlers, lower ER for your stock (i.e. worse) bowlers saves your team runs on the opposition's overall total.

 

[ataraxia]

I'm not sure you are contradicting me. I said SR and ER are connected. I didn't mean a goldilocks range but my point is that we can't ignore a high SR as a matter of penetration for players of roughly the same average and ER, like Ambrose and McGrath.

The relative difference of Ambrose and McGrath's ERs in favour of Ambrose is greater than the same for their SRs in favour of McGrath.

Shockingly, this is why Ambrose's average is lower.