Bowling Strikerates in test matches - how important are they?

[Manee]

Indeed, a quite marvellous effort.

 

[Uppercut]

then what about ray lindwall and alan davidson? They averaged less than waqar but their SR was more than 60. Should we change our cut-off limits to add them too?

I don't believe so, no. The idea of using one average strike rate to measure every bowler in every era isn't really a clever one.

this is not about waqar per se. he was superb, no doubt. but when you define a SR and a bowling average as your cut off limit you are automatically defining the ER too. If you say an ER of 4 RPO is ok for a great bowler for the sake of including waqar, then remember that your opposition could be 360 for 9 at the end of the 90 over day. the higher your ER goes, the lower your SR would have to be to make sure the bowling average remains low enough to be called great. Since all great fast bowlers average under 25 and have a SR under 54 their ER should also be under 3. if you want to add waqar among the greats then go head and add him as an exception but dont lower the bar just to accommodate him.

Actually, i'm in favour of having no limit on economy rate whatsoever, not "lowering the bar". Strike rate changes inversely to economy rate when average is a constant, and taking wickets quickly is, for the sake of statistical analysis, always better than taking them slowly. So given two bowlers, both averaging 23, I'll take the one with an E/R of 20 over the one with an economy rate of 2. Every single time. He's getting me a wicket almost every over!

 

[bagapath]

I don't believe so, no. The idea of using one average strike rate to measure every bowler in every era isn't really a clever one.

Actually, i'm in favour of having no limit on economy rate whatsoever, not "lowering the bar". Strike rate changes inversely to economy rate when average is a constant, and taking wickets quickly is, for the sake of statistical analysis, always better than taking them slowly. So given two bowlers, both averaging 23, I'll take the one with an E/R of 20 over the one with an economy rate of 2. Every single time. He's getting me a wicket almost every over!

well, I disagree because test cricket doesn't work that way. it is a game spread over five days, long spells, defensive plays etc so that accuracy is important to main bowlers. Anyway, we can choose to believe what we like. All things considered when lists of truly great fast bowlers are made the 3+ ER bowlers are filtered out anyway. So I am cool with it.

 

[Uppercut]

well, I disagree because test cricket doesn't work that way. it is a game spread over five days, long spells, defensive plays etc so that accuracy is important to main bowlers. Anyway, we can choose to believe what we like. All things considered when lists of truly great fast bowlers are made the 3+ ER bowlers are filtered out anyway. So I am cool with it.

While it's true that defensive bowling is often necessary in test cricket, i don't think that economy rate demonstrates a bowler's ability to do it. It moreso demonstrates how often they were asked to do it.

I'll take Steyn as an example, because he bowls an extremely attacking line. His role in the side is to take wickets, and when the ball is swinging he both pitches the ball up and attacks the stumps. I don't doubt that if he wanted to he could spend most of his time outside off stump a little shorter, and be much less threatening like Ryan Sidebottom. But because Jacques Kallis and Paul Harris do that job for his team, it's much better for him to be an attacking bowler.

Waqar Younis, too, could have spent all his time outside off stump had he wanted to. Even Daren Powell can bowl negatively in cricket, it's a much easier skill. But if you were captain of Pakistan in the nineties and you wanted someone to keep the runs down, would you throw the ball to him?

And when you only ever bowl aggressively, you end up with an excellent strike rate. And, conversely, a poor economy rate.

 

[Richard]

At the end of the day, a good (low) strike-rate causes results; whether the economy-rate is low or high defines whether these results are victories or defeats.

If the strike-rate is too high, all games will be drawn. If the economy-rate is too high, all games will be lost.

It's pretty much as simple as that. Same way bowlers change draws to results, and batsmen determine whether that result is a win or a loss.

Average is clearly the most important tool in assessing a bowler \ bowling attack, but if the strike-rate is too high despite a good average you still won't win games. And if the economy-rate is too high despite a good average, you'll still lose games.

All-in-all, I'd say strike-rate is fractionally more important than economy-rate when the limitless-over game is concerned. You cannot say strike-rate\economy-rate is more or less important than average, because average is a combination of strike-rate and economy-rate.

In the one-day game, economy-rate is far more important than strike-rate. When the overs are limited, you can win games without taking wickets (though, naturally, it never happens like this, as wickets will result from a low scoring-rate).

 

[Uppercut]

Would you rather have a bowler averaging 23 with a low strike rate or a bowler averaging 23 with a high strike rate?

 

[Richard]

Depends entirely on the circumstances. Given that a long-term record will not produce the exact same performance match after match, it is more of an indication of what sort of performance you can expect. Someone with a high strike-rate and low economy-rate is exceptionally unlikely to ever get 25-112-1 but also exceptionally unlikely to ever get 20-50-7. And obviously vice-versa. Generally a high strike-rate and low economy-rate is indicative of a more consistent bowler, whereas a low strike-rate and high economy-rate is indicative of a bowler more given to extremes. Not absolutely always, of course, but generally.

Also, of course, strike-rate and economy-rate are a result, not a cause. It's how you bowl that you've got to ask what you want, not what result you want, because the result you want is obvious.

How you bowl + conditions = ER\SR. The former is controllable; the latter completely uncontrollable (for the player), so thus the result is partially controllable. You can't say "I want an ER\SR of ___", you can only say "I want someone who bowls in ___ fashion".

And sometimes (in some conditions) a Stuart Clark type bowler will produce more useful results; sometimes a Dale Steyn one will; sometimes an Andrew Flintoff one will. I've mentioned this before.

 

[Uppercut]

I think that's just acknowledging the limits of statistical analysis. It's no different from saying that sometimes a spinner will do a better job and sometimes a fast bowler will do a better job.

Once you've decided that a bowler who takes wickets quickly is better than one who takes them slowly, it's ludicrous to put a limit on how quickly they should take their wickets. Assuming average as a constant, it's essentially saying "take wickets no faster than this, but no slower than this". Surely, the faster you take wickets, the better?

I know what you're saying about economical bowlers, but the stats can't show us that. They can only show us how many runs each bowler conceded per wicket, and how many balls it took them, on average, to take one. A good E/R is an irrelevant function of those two variables. It doesn't demonstrate a bowler that was good for tough days in the field, it just demonstrates a bowler who took his wickets more slowly but for the same amount of runs as another player.

 

[Richard]

I think that's just acknowledging the limits of statistical analysis. It's no different from saying that sometimes a spinner will do a better job and sometimes a fast bowler will do a better job.

Once you've decided that a bowler who takes wickets quickly is better than one who takes them slowly, it's ludicrous to put a limit on how quickly they should take their wickets. Assuming average as a constant, it's essentially saying "take wickets no faster than this, but no slower than this". Surely, the faster you take wickets, the better?

Well, a) that isn't particularly relevant to my above post and b) no, not at all. Provided a strike-rate is good (let's say, below 60) then I couldn't give a damn if it's 40 or 50, if the resultant average is the same.

A bowler averaging 24 is the same whether he's doing it by taking wickets crazily quickly or only relatively quickly. In fact I'd say that I'd much rather a bowler who can average 24 by keeping a good economy-rate than one who can average it by smashing stumps regularly and being repeatedly whacked through extra-cover and clipped to mid-wicket. A good economy-rate is much more of a boost to the rest of the attack than a poor one is, and as long as you're not striking stupidly slowly (which it's almost impossible to do with such a good average) then you're going to be forcing results.

 

[Uppercut]

Well, a) that isn't particularly relevant to my above post and b) no, not at all. Provided a strike-rate is good (let's say, below 60) then I couldn't give a damn if it's 40 or 50, if the resultant average is the same.

A bowler averaging 24 is the same whether he's doing it by taking wickets crazily quickly or only relatively quickly. In fact I'd say that I'd much rather a bowler who can average 24 by keeping a good economy-rate than one who can average it by smashing stumps regularly and being repeatedly whacked through extra-cover and clipped to mid-wicket. A good economy-rate is much more of a boost to the rest of the attack than a poor one is, and as long as you're not striking stupidly slowly (which it's almost impossible to do with such a good average) then you're going to be forcing results.

I don't agree. Wickets give the rest of the team much more of a boost than economical bowling IMO. You get a brand new batsman to bowl at instead of one who's still there but has been kept quiet. That sounds a bit simplistic, but essentially it's the difference between coming on first change with the score 46/2 rather than 23/1. I'll most certainly much prefer the former.

Besides, in test cricket, there are far more situations where you need wickets quickly to ensure a result than when you need wickets slowly to prevent one.

 

[Richard]

I don't agree. Wickets give the rest of the team much more of a boost than economical bowling IMO. You get a brand new batsman to bowl at instead of one who's still there but has been kept quiet. That sounds a bit simplistic, but essentially it's the difference between coming on first change with the score 46/2 rather than 23/1. I'll most certainly much prefer the former.

Or alternatively you might get a batsman who's on 23* instead of 4*. There's no hard-and-fast rule, really, as both more wickets and less runs have their advantage to the rest of the attack. However, I myself am always someone who looks at restricting runs as the base component of bowling, and taking wickets as the "next step up". Perhaps at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference. But I'd say you can never remotely hope to come close to taking a wicket with every ball, whereas if you run in thinking "I don't care in the slightest if this delivery goes for runs", you've got the wrong attitude IMO.

Some believe attack is the be-all-and-end-all; some enjoy a balance between attack and defence. I am emphatically the latter.

Besides, in test cricket, there are far more situations where you need wickets quickly to ensure a result than when you need wickets slowly to prevent one.

In Test cricket you've got five days to get a result. You never need wickets slowly to prevent a result. If you're in the field, the times when you are aiming to not take wickets are miniscule and in most players' careers zero.

 

[bagapath]

brett lee has a superior strike rate compared to imran khan's. (53.3 vs 53.7). ambrose (54.5) and akram (54.6) are further behind. gough's is better than all of them (51.6) including mcgrath's (51.9) and lillee's (52).

will anyone rate lee and gough in same league as imran, ambrose, akram, mcgrath and lillee leave alone call them greater bowlers?

BTW, both lee and gough conceded 3+ RPO; the others well under 3.

 

[Uppercut]

Or alternatively you might get a batsman who's on 23* instead of 4*. There's no hard-and-fast rule, really, as both more wickets and less runs have their advantage to the rest of the attack. However, I myself am always someone who looks at restricting runs as the base component of bowling, and taking wickets as the "next step up". Perhaps at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference. But I'd say you can never remotely hope to come close to taking a wicket with every ball, whereas if you run in thinking "I don't care in the slightest if this delivery goes for runs", you've got the wrong attitude IMO.

Some believe attack is the be-all-and-end-all; some enjoy a balance between attack and defence. I am emphatically the latter.

It's not that i don't like a balance. Really, if you're averaging 23, you're a bloody good bowler in any case.

I just think it's ridiculous that bowlers should be penalised for taking wickets too quickly. They're not conceding more runs than economic bowlers- although maybe it feels like they are- they're just conceding them more quickly. It's fine to prefer a Pollock-style player over one in the mould of Steyn, but to place a cut-off for how quickly a bowler can take his wickets is just plain bizarre.

 

[Uppercut]

brett lee has a superior strike rate compared to imran khan's. (53.3 vs 53.7). ambrose (54.5) and akram (54.6) are further behind. gough's is better than all of them (51.6) including mcgrath's (51.9) and lillee's (52).

will anyone rate lee and gough in same league as imran, ambrose, akram, mcgrath and lillee leave alone call them greater bowlers?

Emphatically not, because they average much more. Strike rate is strictly secondary to how many runs you go for per wicket you take.

A higher strike rate is only more desirable than a good economy rate when average is kept constant.

 

[bagapath]

Emphatically not, because they average much more. Strike rate is strictly secondary to how many runs you go for per wicket you take.

A higher strike rate is only more desirable than a good economy rate when average is kept constant.

all that you are saying is about the ER also, uppercut. i am just saying if you keep the SR constant then the one with better ER will have better average. and in certain cases, gough vs ambrose for example, the one with better ER has a significantly lower average despite an inferior SR and hence is a superior bowler. you cant take take ER out of the equation even if you choose to address it indirectly only in terms of average.

 

[Uppercut]

all that you are saying is about the ER also, uppercut. i am just saying if you keep the SR constant then the one with better ER will have better average. and in certain cases, gough vs ambrose for example, the one with better ER has a significantly lower average despite an inferior SR and hence is a superior bowler. you cant take take ER out of the equation even if you choose to address it indirectly only in terms of average.

Yeah, i'm aware:

Haha, i'd say I'm ignoring it (E/R), but still taking it into account.

Really there's no need to look at all three, although sometimes it's easier if you do. But if a bowler's average is low and his strike rate is low, then he's a good bowler, so there's no need to propose a cut-off on economy rate.

 

[stephen]

I actually think that all of this is dependent on the team situation.

A bowler with a low strike rate/low economy rate is actually better in a team where they are the best bowler. Such a bowler is more aggressive but goes for more. If the other bowlers in the team are not of the same class, then the low strike rate bowler is more likely to win you matches. And if they don't fire? Well you're going to lose anyway.

In a team with better bowlers I'd take the higher strike rate/lower economy bowler any day of the week. Why? Pressure. A high strike rate bowler can still apply pressure and take wickets at the other end. This can greatly assist other bowlers and help the team win. In this situation a low strike rate bowler could actually lose you a game that you'd have otherwise won or drawn.

Also, I personally think that any quick averaging under 25 can automatically be filed in the "all time great" category, and most spinners averaging under 30 can also be put there too.

It's ridiculous having a list of all time great quick bowlers and excluding Alan Davidson and/or Waqar Younis.

Here is a question, who would you rather have in your current team - Alan Davidson (economy under 2, strike rate just over 62, average 20) or Waqar Younis (economy 3.25, strike rate of 43, average 23)?

On the one hand Waqar may be more likely to run through sides than Davidson, but Davidson is more likely to take wickets at the other end (and has a marginally better average).

EDIT: Interestingly enough, Davidson took a higher ratio of 5 wicket hauls than Waqar, though Waqar took a higher ratio of 4 wicket hauls. 10 wicket haul ratios were very similar.

 

[Uppercut]

I actually think that all of this is dependent on the team situation.

A bowler with a low strike rate/low economy rate is actually better in a team where they are the best bowler. Such a bowler is more aggressive but goes for more. If the other bowlers in the team are not of the same class, then the low strike rate bowler is more likely to win you matches. And if they don't fire? Well you're going to lose anyway.

In a team with better bowlers I'd take the higher strike rate/lower economy bowler any day of the week. Why? Pressure. A high strike rate bowler can still apply pressure and take wickets at the other end. This can greatly assist other bowlers and help the team win. In this situation a low strike rate bowler could actually lose you a game that you'd have otherwise won or drawn.

Also, I personally think that any quick averaging under 25 can automatically be filed in the "all time great" category, and most spinners averaging under 30 can also be put there too.

It's ridiculous having a list of all time great quick bowlers and excluding Alan Davidson and/or Waqar Younis.

Here is a question, who would you rather have in your current team - Alan Davidson (economy under 2, strike rate just over 62, average 20) or Waqar Younis (economy 3.25, strike rate of 43, average 23)?

On the one hand Waqar may be more likely to run through sides than Davidson, but Davidson is more likely to take wickets at the other end (and has a marginally better average).

Good post this- just a few things to add on why i prefer the high-strike-rate bowlers.

It's much easier for a bowler like Waqar to bowl with the intention of keeping it tight and keep the runs down than it is for someone like Pollock to get aggressive and bring his strike rate down. That's why i'd tend to favour bowlers who strike regularly.

As for Waqar vs. Davidson- probably Davidson, but it depends on who else is already in my team .

 

[Richard]

It's not that i don't like a balance. Really, if you're averaging 23, you're a bloody good bowler in any case.

I just think it's ridiculous that bowlers should be penalised for taking wickets too quickly. They're not conceding more runs than economic bowlers- although maybe it feels like they are- they're just conceding them more quickly. It's fine to prefer a Pollock-style player over one in the mould of Steyn, but to place a cut-off for how quickly a bowler can take his wickets is just plain bizarre.

I don't think anyone is doing such a thing - I'm certainly not. Simply saying that SR merely needs a minimum - and once you're over that minimum, it's average that counts more than SR. Tests last five days, and as long as you take wickets quickly enough to get 20 within those five days, you're fine, and it's all about how few runs you concede in doing it.

There are two options, blast through teams despite going for lots of runs per over, or keep things very tight and make a good strike-rate result in an exceptional average (or similar - a decent strike-rate result in a good average).

As I say, I as a bowler feel that I prefer to see the rest of my attack not going around the park, and that's the most comforting feeling. I've only ever played limited-overs cricket though, of course.

 

[Richard]

I actually think that all of this is dependent on the team situation.

A bowler with a low strike rate/low economy rate is actually better in a team where they are the best bowler. Such a bowler is more aggressive but goes for more. If the other bowlers in the team are not of the same class, then the low strike rate bowler is more likely to win you matches. And if they don't fire? Well you're going to lose anyway.

In a team with better bowlers I'd take the higher strike rate/lower economy bowler any day of the week. Why? Pressure. A high strike rate bowler can still apply pressure and take wickets at the other end. This can greatly assist other bowlers and help the team win. In this situation a low strike rate bowler could actually lose you a game that you'd have otherwise won or drawn.

I'd actually say it's the other way around. You always want your leading bowler to be an economical (if not super-economical a la McGrath\Ambrose\Pollock) one, whatever the strength of the rest of your attack is. Yeah, it's more important in a weaker attack than a stronger one, but the biggest strength of the three most potent seam attacks of recent times was the economy of the attack leader - Roberts, then Marshall, for West Indies; Pollock for South Africa (and also most of the others, such as Donald, de Villiers, Matthews, McMillan and Kallis); and Alderman (briefly), then McDermott, then (most notably) McGrath, for Australia.

However, as I've always said, the "wickets at the other end" theory is a nice one, but it's little more than that. If one bowler's bowling well and the rest are bowling dross, the dross is still in 93.598146% (or so...) of times gonna get the treatment. You can only lead your fellow bowlers to the well, you can't drink the water for them.