Better Test bowler: Anderson vs Willis.

[Bolo.]

Anderson has done enough for me to put him in the same tier as guys like Pollock and Walsh.

Most great fast bowlers have test careers around 10-13 years, so Andersons record before 2010 isn’t too important to me.

Walsh played for nearly as long as Anderson tbf.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Can we just be clear, was the rule no extra run for a no-ball or just that it didn’t go on the bowler’s figures?

The article Pothas linked to suggested it was an extra ball but not an extra run.

the latter (although if a run was scored there was no extra awarded)

 

[GIMH]

It’s fair game to include them as a ‘what if’ average then imo. If there was no extra run full stop then it’s reasonable to assume they’d have changed their behaviours had there been.

 

[Tom Flint]

You should save this line for a lot of things with regards to cricket

I know your a ****

 

[TheJediBrah]

I know your a ****

*you're

 

[FBU]

Why Career Numbers For Bowlers Of Yesteryear Look Better Than They Are

Bowling averages have long been used as one of the ways of comparing the influence bowlers from different eras have had on the game, but might not be as accurate a measure as you'd think

wisden.com

.

939 no balls - 156.5 overs to be bowled again

 

[Line and Length]

Why Career Numbers For Bowlers Of Yesteryear Look Better Than They Are

Bowling averages have long been used as one of the ways of comparing the influence bowlers from different eras have had on the game, but might not be as accurate a measure as you'd think

wisden.com

.

939 no balls - 156.5 overs to be bowled again

Willis did indeed bowl 939 no balls but, when considering the total balls bowled (17257), this equated to a no ball every 3.08 overs. When put that way, it doesn't seem as excessive.

 

[ataraxia]

It does seem pretty excessive.

 

[Line and Length]

It does seem pretty excessive.

Fair enough, but I did say "it doesn't seem as excessive".

 

[ataraxia]

I mean, that is the stat that should be displayed. To me, it feels a lot more excessive than some raw number out of context. but ymmv

 

[Gob]

That looks too excessive

That's what she said

 

[Prince EWS]

It’s fair game to include them as a ‘what if’ average then imo. If there was no extra run full stop then it’s reasonable to assume they’d have changed their behaviours had there been.

Yeah punishing them for rules that didn't exist at the time would be silly, but if they were conceding runs and just not having them recorded in their averages it's a very different story.

 

[GIMH]

And to be honest - if players didn’t bother trying to fix it because it didn’t go on their own figures, that’s appalling given it’s, you know, a team game.

 

[wpdavid]

And to be honest - if players didn’t bother trying to fix it because it didn’t go on their own figures, that’s appalling given it’s, you know, a team game.

tbh I think that's a pretty big 'if' as they were already aware that it could cost them a wicket.

 

[AndrewB]

Surprised this isn't common knowledge on CW. Should always be brought up when people try to compare modern bowlers to ones from the 70s/80s and try to make the bowling average the sole point in one guy's favour.

The exact date it fully came into effect isn't clear though. There are plenty of official scorecards well into the late 80s/early 90s which don't show the number of wides/no-balls for individual bowlers so it's not clear whether they counted against the bowlers in the run tally.

According to the Wisden Book of Test Cricket (2nd edition), India v Pakistan 1983-4 was the first series with this in effect. India v WI, Aus v Pakistan, WI v Aus in 1983-4 also applied this rule, but (looking at the figures), SL v NZ, Pakistan v Eng, NZ v Eng did not, and nor did Eng v WI/SL in 1984.

Edit: Checking in the Daily Telegraph Year Book 86, the Eng v Aus 1985 series is noted to be "the first in England in which no-balls and wides were debited to the bowlers' analyses."
Checking the figures, there are some Tests in 1985 & 1986 which still seem to be using the old rule.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

According to the Wisden Book of Test Cricket (2nd edition), India v Pakistan 1983-4 was the first series with this in effect. India v WI, Aus v Pakistan, WI v Aus in 1983-4 also applied this rule, but (looking at the figures), SL v NZ, Pakistan v Eng, NZ v Eng did not, and nor did Eng v WI/SL in 1984.

I wonder if it is really a rule or whether it was at the scorers' discretion?

 

[FBU]

I think I counted 330 wides in ODI cricket from Anderson years ago.

 

[davado]

anderson vs willis ?
or
anderson vs broad
anderson still has the magic , broad should take his pleated cricket skirt and retire

 

[AndrewB]

I wonder if it is really a rule or whether it was at the scorers' discretion?

It’s certainly a rule in the current laws - seems to have been brought in in the 2000 laws (not sure which edition).

 

[FBU]

anderson vs willis ?
or
anderson vs broad
anderson still has the magic , broad should take his pleated cricket skirt and retire

Broad is a bowler of spells
8/15 Australia
7/44 New Zealand
7/72 West Indies
6/17 South Africa
6/25 India
6/31 West Indies
6/46 India
6/50 Australia
6/51 New Zealand
6/54 New Zealand
6/81 Australia
6/91 Australia