Sunil1z
International Regular
Then bowlers would be under pressure in 3rd innings .
For eg
Aus 280
Ind 140
Don’t you think this puts huge pressure on bowlers in 3rd innings?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
‘The Warne’ factor
- Thread starter Sunil1z
- Start date
For eg
Aus 280
Ind 140
Don’t you think this puts huge pressure on bowlers in 3rd innings?
Socerer 01
International Captain
Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
Not sure it would differ much from what Stokes is already doing. I reckon he'd have enjoyed being a Night Hawk too.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
NZ had a 200 run lead in Perth 2001 (550 ish to 350 ish). Thanks to dubious umpiring Australia escaped with a test and series draw.
Spark
Global Moderator
Again important to note that this is both fast bowling and spin bowling, which have gone in opposite directions in terms of the impact of DRS.
Socerer 01
International Captain
got that from r/cricket hence why I didn’t really post any text besides it, serves me right from trusting those vermin to be truthful
the big bambino
International Captain
It does show the cumulative changes since the 70s have had a profound impact and possibly more than drs, which is over stated. Independent umpires and a bowler friendly interpretation of what is and isn't a shot being important as well.
Batting in spin friendly conditions has always been difficult and lbws only measure a part of that difficulty. The problems the Australians have in India aren't down to drs but their technical deficiencies which have been chronic for some time now.
Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
It's still worth noting that it's not a huge amount. Warne had 140 lbw victims, a 4% increase only gives him another 6. If it's worked the other way for fast bowlers, well how many would Anderson have had in the 90's???
Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
That pretty much sums up all nations not brought up in those conditions. I'm really intrigued as to what the Bazball approach will be next year. Root is the only player we have technically gifted enough to match the Indians. But for the rest, I suspect the strategy will be try and bat for 50 overs and see if we can score 300.
Spark
Global Moderator
? That's not quite how the maths works.
An increase in 4 points of a proportion would be like going from 20% to 24%, i.e. from 140 LBW victims to more like 180.
How does a difference in a number measured in 2008 vs 2020 have anything to do with changes since the 1970s? This is just ignoring the evidence.
the big bambino
International Captain
The impact of drs is negative or minimal when you account for your differentiation pace v spin. The trend has been more dramatically set by changes since the 70s rather than your start point, and if the graph is right you should be grateful for the opportunity to modify your perception.
Spark
Global Moderator
Why would you do that though? If DRS has had a dramatic impact on spin, but a dramatic but equally opposed impact on pace, then the correct conclusion isn't that it's had no impact. That doesn't make sense, especially when speaking about its impact on playing spin in isolation.
the big bambino
International Captain
But I'm not saying that. Dramatic is the difference from 1970, not from the drs. Even allowing for the divergence in pace v spin.
Spark
Global Moderator
But there is a dramatic difference on spin bowling that started when DRS started. Like, I linked the article, it's not really disputable.
Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
But you haven't factored in how many he loses from other means of taking wickets because he's now got them lbw.
Have there been more wickets falling to spin as a result of DRS, or is it just more spin wickets falling to lbw?
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
The answer: overall, switching Warne with Lyon would still mean Australia were a dominant side. The series they lost they still would have lost, just more badly, and the series they won, they wouldn't have won as convincingly but still won. Lyon and MacGill would have mostly filled the gap of Warne, just not as effectively.
The only exceptions would be SL 2004 and the WC 99 in which Warne's role was decisive for Australia.
The only exceptions would be SL 2004 and the WC 99 in which Warne's role was decisive for Australia.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Current Australia would benefitted much more with Warne the past decade.
In Australia, Warne would only be slightly more effective than Lyon since pitches were quite flat. Away is different.
They would have never been whitewashed in India, SL and UAE. They would have possibly drawn/won in India in 2017. They would have at least won in England in 2015 or 2019 too.
In Australia, Warne would only be slightly more effective than Lyon since pitches were quite flat. Away is different.
They would have never been whitewashed in India, SL and UAE. They would have possibly drawn/won in India in 2017. They would have at least won in England in 2015 or 2019 too.
Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
But 2005 wouldn't have been remotely as memorable without him. Probably 3-1 England with Edgbaston seeing a home win by about 200 runs.