• 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.

Debate thread for 2024 ranking of bowlers poll

shortpitched713

International Captain
Sehwag's high SR to me is one reason why he fails in SENA (minus Aus) because he doesn't adjust how he plays there.
I mean, that's context which you're throwing in there (which can neither be proven or disproven, really).

But I'm only looking at the contradictions in positions of people who advocate for "goldilocks" SRs. Do you want your bat to put the opposition to the sword, or not? If you do, Sehwag and Gilly should be extra rewarded, not somehow hamstrung, because they overkilled too hard, or some ****.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Test cricket is about taking wickets quick enough to get your team a result. The idea that SR matters less for bowlers goes against something very fundamental to the game.
For all the bowlers we are discussing in these kind of rankings, who should be among the "best of the best" for their teams, I think SR definitely matters to some extent. Having a natural tendency to take wickets quickly even if expensively, instead of slowly but miserly, will have a subtle but real effect on reducing opponent innings totals.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Far too hard to compare across eras due to better pitches/bats/smaller boundaries/more aggressive running/shot making/and tail enders who can bomb 6s and 4s.
The math's always the same. Strike bowlers gotta strike. And it's worth it to give them a bit of latitude in being more expensive, as long as they are generally successful in that role.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
Test cricket is about taking wickets quick enough to get your team a result. The idea that SR matters less for bowlers goes against something very fundamental to the game.
The thing that is misleading though about SRs is that those with better SRs also attend to bowl less overs per test on average. Steyn for example bowls 6 less overs per test on average than McGrath, so the difference of 10 points in SR is mitigated somewhat by this.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
The thing that is misleading though about SRs is that those with better SRs also attend to bowl less overs per test on average. Steyn for example bowls 6 less overs per test on average than McGrath, so the difference of 10 points in SR is mitigated somewhat by this.
True, but now we're talking about something different from SR vs ER.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
For all the bowlers we are discussing in these kind of rankings, who should be among the "best of the best" for their teams, I think SR definitely matters to some extent. Having a natural tendency to take wickets quickly even if expensively, instead of slowly but miserly, will have a subtle but real effect on reducing opponent innings totals.
Based on what? My sense is that low SR bowlers are highly inconsistent. They are either taking wickets or getting spanked and then taken off the attack.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Based on what? My sense is that low SR bowlers are highly inconsistent. They are either taking wickets or getting spanked and then taken off the attack.
This is just for the strike bowlers, and just a mathematical conclusion. Here is the hypothetical case calculation I presented:

Exactly.

I've mathed out a simplified example here to illustrate.

We are assuming 2 bowler attacks, better bowler is A, averages 20, worse bowler is B, averages 30


Scenario 1: Both strike evenly ( 60 SR for both )

They take 2 wickets every 20 overs, giving up 50 runs in that time.

Total: 250 runs, 100 overs bowled ( 50 each )


Scenario 2: Bowler A is strike ( 30 SR ), Bowler B stock ( 90 SR )

Every 5 overs bowler A will take a wicket, and collectively they'll take 4 wickets every 30 overs, giving up 90 runs in that time.

Total: 225 runs, 75 overs bowled ( 37.5 each )


As you can see, by having complementarity between your "strike" and "stock" bowlers, you saved 25 runs over the course of the innings, not a trivial amount. Plus, you also finished your innings much quicker, reducing bowler fatigue.

This outcome is intuitive, and Test teams already play in a way to maximize complementarity. Think of all the times you will see 2 bowlers bowling from opposite ends with different ( 1 attacking, 1 more defensive ) field sets. Ultimately, all of the bowlers we are talking about when we are discussing ATG comparisons ( or even usually ATVG comparisons ) are of bowler set A, not B. Thus a lower strike rate is always preferred for them.
The conclusion holds even if your strike bowler bowls less overs, just has a smaller effect size. Lower SR for strike bowlers, lower ER for your stock (i.e. worse) bowlers saves your team runs on the opposition's overall total.
 

ataraxia

International Coach
I'm not sure you are contradicting me. I said SR and ER are connected. I didn't mean a goldilocks range but my point is that we can't ignore a high SR as a matter of penetration for players of roughly the same average and ER, like Ambrose and McGrath.
The relative difference of Ambrose and McGrath's ERs in favour of Ambrose is greater than the same for their SRs in favour of McGrath.

Shockingly, this is why Ambrose's average is lower.
 

Top