Pick the ideal batsman for these scenarios

[Fuller Pilch]

How many matches, out of curiousity?

Not sure. Must've been a decent number. I remember reading it in a book.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

We don't know if Bradman can do 15 run an over big hitting.

He once scored a century off 22 balls

 

[sayon basak]

He once scored a century off 22 balls

To his defense, he can say that the bowler wasn't Pollock.

 

[Bolo.]

That's instructional

Ambrose is always somewhat ignored in a lot of these discussions, yet always shows out well in these metrics

I'm not sure how instructional it is. It's very low sample sizes, and is heavily dependent on the quality of other bowlers. Quality of bowlers needs to be worked out on a match by match basis, not over a career.

Ambrose is always spectacular on anything involving averages. But he isn't a standout on this graph in terms of minimising opposition runs when the other bowlers are averaging over 35. For Ambrose 21*4 + 35*16 gives you the same average opposition team score as Warne taking 5.5@25.5. 35 is the minimum included score though, not the average. That's probably more like Herath or McKenzie level of impact. Maybe lower.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Russel Arnold for each scenario. It’d be great fun for all involved!

 

[Coronis]

I'm not sure how instructional it is. It's very low sample sizes, and is heavily dependent on the quality of other bowlers. Quality of bowlers needs to be worked out on a match by match basis, not over a career.

Ambrose is always spectacular on anything involving averages. But he isn't a standout on this graph in terms of minimising opposition runs when the other bowlers are averaging over 35. For Ambrose 21*4 + 35*16 gives you the same average opposition team score as Warne taking 5.5@25.5. 35 is the minimum included score though, not the average. That's probably more like Herath or McKenzie level of impact. Maybe lower.

Oh I definitely wouldn’t call it instructional necessarily.

fwiw though, he did do a ranking of the bowlers involving the mean average of other bowlers in those matches and the bowler’s average, Ambrose did come out on top, ahead of Murali, Rabada, Barnes, Bumrah and Garner, who all averaged less than half of the other bowlers.

fwiw also, some of the sample sizes…

Anderson 74/188
Warne 71/145
Broad 70/167
Murali 67/133
McGrath 61/124
Imran 55/88
Steyn 49/93
Wasim 35/104
Hadlee 30/86
Ambrose 27/98
Marshall 26/81
Cummins 25/60
Donald 23/72
Grimmett 18/37
Rabada 12/62
Barnes 7/27
Bumrah 5/34

 

[Bolo.]

Oh I definitely wouldn’t call it instructional necessarily.

fwiw though, he did do a ranking of the bowlers involving the mean average of other bowlers in those matches and the bowler’s average, Ambrose did come out on top, ahead of Murali, Rabada, Barnes, Bumrah and Garner, who all averaged less than half of the other bowlers.

fwiw also, some of the sample sizes…

Anderson 74/188
Warne 71/145
Broad 70/167
Murali 67/133
McGrath 61/124
Imran 55/88
Steyn 49/93
Wasim 35/104
Hadlee 30/86
Ambrose 27/98
Marshall 26/81
Cummins 25/60
Donald 23/72
Grimmett 18/37
Rabada 12/62
Barnes 7/27
Bumrah 5/34

NZ ex Hadlee coming up with a lower % than McWarne sans either of them is a big surprise. Murali being the same as them too.

Am I misunderstanding this somehow?

 

[sayon basak]

Oh I definitely wouldn’t call it instructional necessarily.

fwiw though, he did do a ranking of the bowlers involving the mean average of other bowlers in those matches and the bowler’s average, Ambrose did come out on top, ahead of Murali, Rabada, Barnes, Bumrah and Garner, who all averaged less than half of the other bowlers.

fwiw also, some of the sample sizes…

Anderson 74/188
Warne 71/145
Broad 70/167
Murali 67/133
McGrath 61/124
Imran 55/88
Steyn 49/93
Wasim 35/104
Hadlee 30/86
Ambrose 27/98
Marshall 26/81
Cummins 25/60
Donald 23/72
Grimmett 18/37
Rabada 12/62
Barnes 7/27
Bumrah 5/34

How many matches for Underwood?

 

[Coronis]

NZ ex Hadlee coming up with a lower % than McWarne sans either of them is a big surprise. Murali being the same as them too.

Am I misunderstanding this somehow?

It also includes opponent’s bowling averages I believe.

 

[sayon basak]

NZ ex Hadlee coming up with a lower % than McWarne sans either of them is a big surprise. Murali being the same as them too.

Am I misunderstanding this somehow?

This just means that Hadlee played in less number of matches where bowlers averaged 35+.

 

[Coronis]

How many matches for Underwood?

30

 

[sayon basak]

30

So he played in 30 matches where bowlers averaged 35 or more, and he himself averaged 35+ and took 2.7 WPM? That sounds bad.

 

[Coronis]

So he played in 30 matches where other bowlers averaged 35 or more, and he himself averaged 35+ and took 2.7 WPM? That sounds bad.

 

[Bolo.]

It also includes opponent’s bowling averages I believe.

That makes more sense.

 

[sayon basak]

.

Doesn't make a change I guess.

 

[shortpitched713]

I also wouldn’t qualify not reversing as not being able to use the old ball but again that’s just me.

Found an interesting random graph someone on reddit produced of bowlers on “flat” wickets. Statistically they’ve defined a flat wicket as one where every other bowler averaged 35+ (obviously nowhere near a proper definition, but that would be statistically impossible)

View attachment 45491

Look at Philander, so inspirational with a ~23 average on flat wickets, proving the hatters wrong. WAG.

 

[ankitj]

I also wouldn’t qualify not reversing as not being able to use the old ball but again that’s just me.

Found an interesting random graph someone on reddit produced of bowlers on “flat” wickets. Statistically they’ve defined a flat wicket as one where every other bowler averaged 35+ (obviously nowhere near a proper definition, but that would be statistically impossible)

View attachment 45491

Bumrah in that chart

 

[OverratedSanity]

I also wouldn’t qualify not reversing as not being able to use the old ball but again that’s just me.

Found an interesting random graph someone on reddit produced of bowlers on “flat” wickets. Statistically they’ve defined a flat wicket as one where every other bowler averaged 35+ (obviously nowhere near a proper definition, but that would be statistically impossible)

View attachment 45491

McGrath 61/124
Steyn 49/93
Hadlee 30/86
Marshall 26/81

McGrath and Steyn really stand out here with amazingly good averages/ WPM and a much higher proportion of these flat decks to contend with than Marshall/Hadlee. It's a crude measure but backs up the eye test about them being really good on roads which they had to bowl on way more often than some other ATGs.

 

[Bolo.]

McGrath and Steyn really stand out here with amazingly good averages/ WPM and a much higher proportion of these flat decks to contend with than Marshall/Hadlee. It's a crude measure but backs up the eye test about them being really good on roads which they had to bowl on way more often than some other ATGs.

While they did often have a rougher ride in terms of decks and opposition bats, a big part of these numbers are coming from their own batting lineups being extremely strong. NZ was just pretty meh, and WIs stronger suit was bowling.

 

[OverratedSanity]

While they did often have a rougher ride in terms of decks and opposition bats, a big part of these numbers are coming from their own batting lineups being extremely strong. NZ was just pretty meh, and WIs stronger suit was bowling.

Hmm, WI was pretty strong imo. Not quite as much as 2000s Australia but comparable to SA.