Dale Steyn vs Wasim Akram vs Curtly Ambrose

[TheJediBrah]

By itself, it's meaningless but it is helpful to an extent because it's a product of SR. It's a support argument. No one's rating Hadlee over Marshall because of WPM.

Not really. If SR was for some reason a hidden statistic that we couldn't measure then maybe, bit if we know what SR is, which we do, then it's not helpful at all.

It's literally just a function of Balls bowled per match divided by Strike rate

 

[Bolo]

A bowlers job is first and foremost to get wickets. In this sense it is the most meaningful metric there is.

Yes, it is impacted by extraneous circumstances to a greater extent than other stats. But this doesn't mean it can be ignored.

A bowler with less competition who ends up taking more wickets as a result has still achieved more wickets. You might speculate that a bowler in a stronger side might also achieve this with less competition, but the fact remains that one achieved it and one did not- you can't ignore the accomplishments of one bowler because another bowler might have achieved under different circumstances. They might also already have been at their max overs/ have gotten tired and junked their average etc.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Going to have to agree to disagree. I don't see how it meaningfully reflects a bowler's quality or effectiveness in any way that's not already determined by Average and SR. I think it should be ignored completely.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Going to have to agree to disagree. I don't see how it meaningfully reflects a bowler's quality or effectiveness in any way that's not already determined by Average and SR. I think it should be ignored completely.

Just replace it with percentage of team's balls bowled, you both have the SR's like you say.

It solves the problem for both you guys.

People who bowl less overs are observed (like Miller) and people who bowl more are also observed.

 

[Bolo]

It's not the crux of my argument, but more overs bowled per match means tired bowler, which means lower SR and higher average.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

It's not the crux of my argument, but more overs bowled per match means tired bowler, which means lower SR and higher average.

Higher SR, but yeah, sounds reasonable to me.

There's also possibly new ball proportionate hogging, and more to it as well.

 

[Bolo]

Oops, yes.

 

[trundler]

Just replace it with percentage of team's balls bowled, you both have the SR's like you say.

It solves the problem for both you guys.

People who bowl less overs are observed (like Miller and Sobers) and people who bowl more are also observed.

Kallis would be a better example than Sobers I think but that's actually a good idea.

There isn't a be all end all stat for bowling especially since there are too many variables, least of all WPM which is affected the most. All stats taken in context are helpful though. Holding's 4 WPM is more impressive playing in the strongest fast bowling unit ever than the man in my sig's WPM

 

[trundler]

Tbh, it'd be simpler to suggest Ambrose and Steyn trump Akram on SR.

 

[cnerd123]

James Anderson

 

[Bolo]

Tbh, it'd be simpler to suggest Ambrose and Steyn trump Akram on SR.

This isn't comprehensive enough for me. Look at Miller. Same average and strike rate as Lindwall. Far fewer wpm. I don't regard them as equal bowlers. Miller's SR definitely benefited from being used as a strike bowler.

 

[trundler]

This isn't comprehensive enough for me. Look at Miller. Same average and strike rate as Lindwall. Far fewer wpm. I don't regard them as equal bowlers. Miller's SR definitely benefited from being used as a strike bowler.

Yeah but we're not comparing Lindwall and Miller. All 3 were frontline pacers who opened the bowling and shared a similar workload.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Yeah but we're not comparing Lindwall and Miller. All 3 were frontline pacers who opened the bowling and shared a similar workload.

Has Steyn though? I know Curtley did some hard yard with Walsh when they were without Bishop (Walsh did even harder yards into the wind) but he started in an easier environment, and Wasim did the hard yards with Waqar for most of his career (running uphill/upwind too), but has Steyn? (Pollock, Ntini, Philander, MMorkel, Kallis - it is reasonable for Bolo to ask.)

 

[Gowza]

Ambrose and akram have almost the exact same strike rate in tests, on numbers it has to be Steyn. Ambrose was more menacing and ran through sides better than wasim, but wasim had that magic.

 

[trundler]

Has Steyn though? I know Curtley did some hard yard with Walsh post Bishop (Walsh did even harder yards into the wind), and Wasim did the hard yards with Waqar for most of his career (running uphill/upwind too), but has Steyn? (Pollock, Ntini, Philander, MMorkel, Kallis - it is reasonable for Bolo to ask.)

Fair point but Steyn still has the highest WPM remarkably. Pollock was in the twilight of his career, Kallis only bowled 20 overs per match. Morkel and Ntini were decent (Morkel has the fewest 5-fers for anyone with 300 wickets, I think).

I think Steyn also benefited from a solid batting line-up the most too.

 

[Bolo]

Yeah but we're not comparing Lindwall and Miller. All 3 were frontline pacers who opened the bowling and shared a similar workload.

It might work out that way for these three, so maybe in this specific example it ends up that way (don't know all the numbers). But it doesn't always work out that way. We don't know it does until you have the star on workload- you are just substituting a more complicated metric for a simpler one that gives the same answer.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Fair point but Steyn still has the highest WPM remarkably. Pollock was in the twilight of his career, Kallis only bowled 20 overs per match. Morkel and Ntini were decent (Morkel has the fewest 5-fers for anyone with 300 wickets, I think).

I think Steyn also benefited from a solid batting line-up the most too.

Yeah, I really wouldn't be focussing on the wpm, it asks more questions than it answers.

The most accurate way to do it is percentage team balls bowled to really get to what Bolo is questioning.

But even looking balls bowled (in innings split) per match will reveal more and better than wpm (you will start to see why the wpm is what it is for any player).

 

[trundler]

Ambrose and akram have almost the exact same strike rate in tests, on numbers it has to be Steyn. Ambrose was more menacing and ran through sides better than wasim, but wasim had that magic.

Yeah but that magic was good to watch but didn't always get you wickets though.

A higher WPM deserves SOME weightage, IMO.

 

[trundler]

Yeah, I really wouldn't be focussing on the wpm, it asks more questions than it answers.

The most accurate way to do it is percentage team balls bowled to really get to what Bolo is questioning.

But even looking balls bowled (in innings split) per match will reveal more and better than wpm (you will start to see why the wpm is what it is for any player).

I'll let some more Statsguru savvy person do that but that sounds interesting.

 

[trundler]

James Anderson

Anderson should be compared with Walsh and Dev.