Bowling Strikerates in test matches - how important are they?

[bagapath]

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.

here are four bowlers with hardly any difference in their bowling averages. two of them have sub 45 SR but 3+ ER (waqar and steyn) . The other two concede less than three runs per over but need 50, 52 balls to take a wicket (lillee and holding).

in my book, lillee and holding are the two best bowlers out of the four. will you say waqar and steyn were/are better than those two?

Waqar Younis (Pak) 		87 	154 	16224 	8788 	373 	7/76 	13/135 	23.56 	3.25 	43.4 	22 	5
MA Holding (WI) 		60 	113 	12680 	5898 	249 	8/92 	14/149 	23.68 	2.79 	50.9 	13 	2 
DW Steyn (SA) 			33 	62 	6676 	4029 	170 	6/49 	10/91 	23.70 	3.62 	39.2 	11 	3 	
DK Lillee (Aus) 		70 	132 	18467 	8493 	355 	7/83 	11/123 	23.92 	2.75 	52.0 	23 	7

 

[Richard]

I won't, myself, but the reasons have precious little to do with banal overall career averages.

 

[Uppercut]

here are four bowlers with hardly any difference in their bowling averages. two of them have sub 45 SR but 3+ ER (waqar and steyn) . The other two concede less than three runs per over but need 50, 52 balls to take a wicket (lillee and holding).

in my book, lillee and holding are the two best bowlers out of the four. will you say waqar and steyn were/are better than those two?

Waqar Younis (Pak) 		87 	154 	16224 	8788 	373 	7/76 	13/135 	23.56 	3.25 	43.4 	22 	5
MA Holding (WI) 		60 	113 	12680 	5898 	249 	8/92 	14/149 	23.68 	2.79 	50.9 	13 	2 
DW Steyn (SA) 			33 	62 	6676 	4029 	170 	6/49 	10/91 	23.70 	3.62 	39.2 	11 	3 	
DK Lillee (Aus) 		70 	132 	18467 	8493 	355 	7/83 	11/123 	23.92 	2.75 	52.0 	23 	7

No. Because there's more to cricket than statistics.

But their raw career stats are indeed better, if you overlook the fact that Steyn hasn't really had enough games (or had minnows removed from his stats).

Also, that's quite a selective example. I could just as easily ask you to compare Malcolm Marshall (low SR, average of 20) to Joel Garner (higher SR, average of 20). Is Garner better than Marshall???

 

[bagapath]

No. Because there's more to cricket than statistics.

But their raw career stats are indeed better, if you overlook the fact that Steyn hasn't really had enough games (or had minnows removed from his stats).

Also, that's quite a selective example. I could just as easily ask you to compare Malcolm Marshall (low SR, average of 20) to Joel Garner (higher SR, average of 20). Is Garner better than Marshall???

sure you can. and i will say marshall hands down for me. i have explained my take on this on other threads also. it is mainly to do with garner's inability to run through batting line-ups as frequently as marshall (7 five wicket hauls vs 22). also he wasnt as successful as marshall against all opponents. garner's avg against india was 43. marshall averaged under 30 against everyone. garner and marshall both conceded under 3 runs an over 2.47 and 2.68. so marshall is not significantly more expensive than garner either.

you had argued earlier that if the bowling averages are the same between two bowlers then the one with the better strike rate is the superior bowler. waqar has a very marginally better avg than lillee and his SR is significantly superior (more than 8 deliveries). then why is lillee perceived as a superior bowler by everyone (maybe, including you)? my argument is waqar can bowl more easy scoring deliveries as reflected in his higher ER whereas lillee will choke the scoring opportunities apart from getting the wickets.

i did not arrive at this conclusion looking at these numbers. i know cricket is more than stats. i have seen lillee induce more fear in the minds of the opponents than waqar. i have seen him dominate sessions without making it easy for batsmen to score runs, whereas a misfired, over-pitched swinging yorker from waqar would be hit for boundary and make the batsman more confident. both were beyond very good. just that lillee's accuracy made him greater. and waqar's propensity to bowl loose deliveries made him less threatening - in comparison with a superior bowler like lillee who had an ER under 3.

 

[bagapath]

No. Because there's more to cricket than statistics.

But their raw career stats are indeed better, if you overlook the fact that Steyn hasn't really had enough games (or had minnows removed from his stats).

Also, that's quite a selective example. I could just as easily ask you to compare Malcolm Marshall (low SR, average of 20) to Joel Garner (higher SR, average of 20). Is Garner better than Marshall???

i have not removed minnows from the stats.

 

[Richard]

The point is that, with Steyn, you need to (though the difference isn't especially enormous).

 

[Uppercut]

sure you can. and i will say marshall hands down for me. i have explained my take on this on other threads also. it is mainly to do with garner's inability to run through batting line-ups as frequently as marshall (7 five wicket hauls vs 22). also he wasnt as successful as marshall against all opponents. garner's avg against india was 43. marshall averaged under 30 against everyone. garner and marshall both conceded under 3 runs an over 2.47 and 2.68.

you had argued earlier that if the bowling averages are the same between two bowlers then the one with the better strike rate is the superior bowler. waqar has a better avg than lillee and his SR is significantly superior (more than 8 deliveries). then why is lillee perceived as a superior bowler by everyone (maybe, including you)? my argument is waqar can bowl more easy scoring deliveries as reflected in his higher ER whereas lillee will choke the scoring opportunities apart from getting the wickets.

i did not arrive at this conclusion looking at these numbers. i know cricket is more than stats. i have seen lillee induce more fear in the minds of the opponents than waqar. i have seen him dominate sessions without making it easy for batsmen to score runs, whereas a misfired, over-pitched swinging yorker from waqar would be hit for boundary and make the batsman more confident. both were beyond very good. just that lillee's accuracy made him greater. and waqar's propensity to bowl loose deliveries, made him less threatening - only in comparison with a superior bowler like lillee.

I didn't say that if two bowlers have the same average but one has a lower strike rate, the one with the lower strike rate is automatically better. But his statistics are IMO more desirable. If i were asked to judge a bowler specifically on stats, which can't really be done, I'd take the one with the better strike rate.

In truth Waqar's higher SR than Lillee probably has more to do with the respective eras in which they played, but i'll run with the theory anyway. Waqar, in theory, bowled more wicket-taking deliveries than Lillee, but also more run-scoring opportunities. In terms of effectiveness, i.e. how many runs they concede per wicket taken, they were largely equal. It's a minor fallacy to say "Waqar goes for more runs"- they both go for the same amount of runs, Waqar just does it more quickly.

All that Lillee has over Waqar statistically is that he bowls a lot of "nothing balls". Balls the batsman can't score off but that aren't going to take a wicket. Who do these balls favour? It depends on the match situation. You don't want them with the new ball but they're useful if the batsman's getting away. On the whole, I'd generally prefer bowlers who don't bowl many of them- if, of course, average is kept constant. Hence, i go with the bowlers with a low strike rate.

That's an oversimplification, but it's still relevant.

i have not removed minnows from the stats.

Yeah, and i think you should have.

 

[Richard]

sure you can. and i will say marshall hands down for me. i have explained my take on this on other threads also. it is mainly to do with garner's inability to run through batting line-ups as frequently as marshall (7 five wicket hauls vs 22). also he wasnt as successful as marshall against all opponents. garner's avg against india was 43. marshall averaged under 30 against everyone. garner and marshall both conceded under 3 runs an over 2.47 and 2.68.

The second comment is entirely fair; the first is not. Garner's entire career, essentially, came alongside other outstanding seam-bowlers - always two, not irregularly three. Marshall's first 3 years as a first-choice, '83 to '86, came alongside Holding and Garner (who were only marginally his lessers) but between '86/87 and '89 he was backed by a brigade which was far weaker (though with Walsh, Gray, Winston Benjamin and, later, Bishop and Ambrose, certainly far from threadbare). Naturally, he was going to take more five-fors than Garner.

I'm never a fan of the use of regularity of five-fors in judging a bowler, because it owes as much to the rest of the attack as the bowler himself.

More than anything though I'm inclined to rate Marshall as superior to not just Garner but everyone because he simply had everything a seam-bowler could wish for. And this was reflected in his performances between '83 and '89, when he was clearly far superior to anyone going around. What's more, in addition to being the complete bowler from an attack POV, he overcame something that is usually a disadvantage to a seam-bowler's defensive ability (ie, short height) and avoided the usual pitfalls that await short-of-stature seam-bowlers. His length was so precise that the small margin-for-error that all low-trajectory bowlers have was not a disadvantage to him the way it has been to almost all bowlers of his stature.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

Yeah, i think that's the key. I imagine in a test, it would be different- if i'm standing out in the field like a bell-end for as long as it takes us to get ten wickets, I'll want someone who can make stuff happen.

 

[bagapath]

I

All that Lillee has over Waqar statistically is that he bowls a lot of "nothing balls". Balls the batsman can't score off but that aren't going to take a wicket. Who do these balls favour? It depends on the match situation. You don't want them with the new ball but they're useful if the batsman's getting away. On the whole, I'd generally prefer bowlers who don't bowl many of them- if, of course, average is kept constant. Hence, i go with the bowlers with a low strike rate.

That's an oversimplification, but it's still relevant.

are you saying you prefer waqar to lillee? if yes, is it only based on SR? if not, why?

 

[bagapath]

look at your personal list of top 10 fast bowlers. everyone would've come under 3 runs/ over throughout their careers. if waqar is in the list, he is an exception. the rest will have adhered to this rule. waqar is not in my list of top 10 bowlers not because i have eliminated him on the basis of 3+ ER. I knew even without looking at numbers he was more prone to bowling loose deliveries. there are many more who would make life more difficult for batsmen without being expensive. i prefer kumble to mcgill for the same reasons though their raw stats are very close. even in pakistan's all-time XI imran and akram would easily be the first two choices for taking the new ball despite waqar having a superior SR and matching them in overall aggregate (350+), five-fers (20+) and wkt/match (4+) numbers. it is only because they were more accurate than him that they are universally acknowledged as superior bowlers. they came under 3/over and he did not.

 

[Richard]

I'd give Waqar the new-ball with Imran any time. Wasim never used it that much, he preferred to bowl short and only pitched it up once it got old and was reverse-swinging.

Imran and Waqar were both brilliant utilisers of the new-ball.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I've always wondered why the average isn't calculate simply as SR*ER.

 

[GIMH]

What would that be an average of?

Don't you need to divide to get an average?

 

[Richard]

Runs conceded divided-by wickets taken = average.

Not sure what the calculation required to get avg from SR and ER is, but there is one. One of the relatively senior statistics people on here can give it to us.

 

[PhoenixFire]

What would that be an average of?

Don't you need to divide to get an average?

I was meaning in place of an average that we have, not a literal meaning of an average.

 

[Prince EWS]

Runs conceded divided-by wickets taken = average.

Not sure what the calculation required to get avg from SR and ER is, but there is one. One of the relatively senior statistics people on here can give it to us.

It's not hard to figure out logically by any stretch of the imagination. If you take a wicket every X balls, the figure you need to calculate the average is runs conceded per ball balled (or ER / 6).

Average = SR * (ER / 6)

 

[Prince EWS]

I've always wondered why the average isn't calculate simply as SR*ER.

Multiply current averages by 6 and that's what you'll get.

 

[funnygirl]

I'd give Waqar the new-ball with Imran any time. Wasim never used it that much, he preferred to bowl short and only pitched it up once it got old and was reverse-swinging.

Imran and Waqar were both brilliant utilisers of the new-ball.

Hmm...i disagree.I have just finished watching 1995 Aus series .Wasim looked pure class ith the new ball aginst Mark Taylor and Slator moving new ball both ways,accurate and beating both of them multiple times. Waqar on the other hand looked very ordinary .

 

[Richard]

That was when Waqar had only just recovered from serious injury though. For much better examples, look at England in 1992. Waqar was deadly with new ball and old; Wasim was mostly just deadly with old and tidy with old and new.