Did Marshall and McGrath have it easier?

[Daemon]

It’s obviously more advantageous to bowl as part of a better attack. It’s offset by certain things of course but overall it’s pretty clear imo.

The biggest advantage is you get to hide when you have an off day and end with figures of 1-45 instead of 2-90 which is worse for your overall average. There’s an opposite side to this but on balance it doesn’t outweigh the advantage in most cases I feel.

 

[subshakerz]

It’s obviously more advantageous to bowl as part of a better attack. It’s offset by certain things of course but overall it’s pretty clear imo.

The biggest advantage is you get to hide when you have an off day and end with figures of 1-45 instead of 2-90 which is worse for your overall average. There’s an opposite side to this but on balance it doesn’t outweigh the advantage in most cases I feel.

Not talking about the bowling attack. Talking about the advantage of having an all-star batting lineup regularly set huge first innings totals for you to defend.

 

[Molehill]

Marshall and McGrath's averages were highest in the first innings of a match. For McGrath it was a mediocre 22.92, but for Marshall a pretty putrid 24.41.

Although how much of that was down to the pitch and the toss. When Aus won the toss and put the opposition in, McGrath averaged 20.26 in the first innings, when they lost the toss and the opposition opted to bat then his average was 24.35.

For Marshall it's 19.89 and 24.08.

 

[subshakerz]

Although how much of that was down to the pitch and the toss. When Aus won the toss and put the opposition in, McGrath averaged 20.26 in the first innings, when they lost the toss and the opposition opted to bat then his average was 24.35.

For Marshall it's 19.89 and 24.08.

I think the reason is obvious, Aus choosing to bowl means the conditions are that clearly suitable to bowl.

 

[Molehill]

I think the reason is obvious, Aus choosing to bowl means the conditions are that clearly suitable to bowl.

Yeah, just pointing out that throwing all first innings averages in together doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[Coronis]

Although how much of that was down to the pitch and the toss. When Aus won the toss and put the opposition in, McGrath averaged 20.26 in the first innings, when they lost the toss and the opposition opted to bat then his average was 24.35.

For Marshall it's 19.89 and 24.08.

Good way to determine the best captains - teams first innings batting and bowling averages based on tosses.

 

[subshakerz]

Good way to determine the best captains - teams first innings batting and bowling averages based on tosses.

Calking a toss right should be one of the easier captaincy duties.

 

[kyear2]

Although how much of that was down to the pitch and the toss. When Aus won the toss and put the opposition in, McGrath averaged 20.26 in the first innings, when they lost the toss and the opposition opted to bat then his average was 24.35.

For Marshall it's 19.89 and 24.08.

Good find, and context for the previously posted numbers.

 

[subshakerz]

Good find, and context for the previously posted numbers.

I think this would be the same for any bowler out there.

 

[kyear2]

I think this would be the same for any bowler out there.

So hence, what's your point.

This is your 3rd such thread.

Did slip fielding give them an advantage.

Did being in a strong attack give them an advantage

Now did having a strong batting line up (which we particularly didn't after Lloyd retired) give them an advantage.

How about Bumrah, he's played almost all of his career in the spicy pitche era, had arguably one of the stronger lineups, playing in an era of objectively poor WI, SA, SL batting, and Australia haven't exactly been dominant either, and bowling in a very strong attack.

Does all of that give him an advantage as well, or can we see he's just different?

Probably a bit of both, but definitely a lot of the latter.

 

[subshakerz]

So hence, what's your point.

This is your 3rd such thread.

Did slip fielding give them an advantage.

Did being in a strong attack give them an advantage

Now did having a strong batting line up (which we particularly didn't after Lloyd retired) give them an advantage.

Dude why are you so triggered?

It's a legit question. I want to explore the advantage of scoreboard pressure on the records of ATGs.

The slip catching one was in response to a thread you created on their importance. You should feel flattered.

I'm not even tearing them down since I already conceded they are my no.1 and no.2 bowlers.

How about Bumrah, he's played almost all of his career in the spicy pitche era, had arguably one of the stronger lineups, playing in an era of objectively poor WI, SA, SL batting, and Australia haven't exactly been dominant either, and bowling in a very strong attack.

Does all of that give him an advantage as well, or can we see he's just different?

Lol I definitely see you bringing these points up if we compare him to 'flat pitch era' McGrath

 

[hendrix]

end with figures of 1-45 instead of 2-90 which is worse for your overall average.

OK I agree with your argument but ummm can you explain this maths to me?

 

[Daemon]

OK I agree with your argument but ummm can you explain this maths to me?

It’s like if you eat a chappati (3g of protein) and drink two protein shakes (20g)

vs eating a chappati and drinking one protein shake

First one has the higher average protein per item

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Its easy when you are playing in a better team.

Gavaskar, Hadlee, peak Sachin, Headley, Kapil, Akram... Lack of support affected all of them.

 

[sayon basak]

OK I agree with your argument but ummm can you explain this maths to me?

It's pretty simple.

Let's say, a bowlers initial bowling average is "A", and he has taken "W" wickets in his career.
1st case:- if he gets a figure of 1-45 in the next match, his changed average would be,
A(1)= (A*W+45)/(W+1)

2nd case:- if he gets a figure of 2-90 in the next match, his changed average would be,
A(2)=(A*W+90)/(W+2)

Now,
A<45 ( this would only be true for bowlers averaging below 45)
Then, A*W<45*W
Then, 2A*W-A*W<90*W-45*W
Then, 2A*W+45*W<A*W+90*W
Then, A*W²+2A*W+45*W+90<A*W²+A*W+90*W+90
Then, (W+2)(A*W+45)<(W+1)(A*W+90)
Then, we'd get,
(A*W+45)/(W+1)<(A*W+90)/(W+2)
Which means, A(1)<A(2)

So, 1-45 would be better than 2-90 as far as the bowler's average is concerned.

 

[sayon basak]

The biggest advantage is you get to hide when you have an off day and end with figures of 1-45 instead of 2-90 which is worse for your overall average. There’s an opposite side to this but on balance it doesn’t outweigh the advantage in most cases I feel.

Then he would face a disadvantage in the wicket-share. So, considering WPI would balance things out IMO.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

OK I agree with your argument but ummm can you explain this maths to me?

@Daemon has given you a correct physical explanation while also incorporating sound nutritional advice.

I initially did it like @sayon basak and then I realised that the initial average is not always defined so I tried a slightly different approach (ironically, this occurred to me while I was making a protein shake!):

Let x = old total runs conceded and y = old total number of wickets (i.e. before 1-45 or 2-90).

Note: if y = 0 then the old average is undefined (as you can't divide by zero).

After 1-45: new average = (x + 45)/(y + 1) (i.e. new total runs/new total wickets)

After 2-90: new average = (x + 90)/(y + 2)

1-45 results in a better new average iff

(x + 45)/(y + 1) < (x + 90)/(y + 2)

Cross-multiplying:

(x + 45)(y + 2) < (x + 90)(y + 1)

Expanding:

xy + 2x + 45y + 90 < xy + x + 90y + 90

Cancelling common terms:

x < 45y

Case I: y = 0 (no previous wickets taken)

1-45 and 2-90 will result in the same new average of 45 as long as no previous runs have been conceded (x = 0) because you will then have 45/1 cf. 90/2.

However, if at least 1 previous run has been conceded (x > or = 1) then 2-90 will result in the better new average because it will then be like 46/1 cf. 91/2 (for x = 1).

Case II: y > or = 1 (at least 1 previous wicket taken)

x < 45y

Division by y is now permissible therefore

x/y < 45

x/y is the old average so as long as the old average is less than 45, 1-45 will result in the better new average. If the old average is 45 then both 1-45 and 2-90 will result in the new average being 45. If the old average is greater than 45, 2-90 will result in the better new average.

(I tend to go over things a lot and refine my previous thinking as (full disclosure) I have OCD)

 

[sayon basak]

@Daemon has given you a correct physical explanation while also incorporating sound nutritional advice.

I initially did it like @sayon basak and then I realised that the initial average is not always defined so I tried a slightly different approach (ironically, this occurred to me while I was making a protein shake!):

Let x = old total runs conceded and y = old total number of wickets (i.e. before 1-45 or 2-90).

Note: if y = 0 then the old average is undefined (as you can't divide by zero).

After 1-45: new average = (x + 45)/(y + 1) (i.e. new total runs/new total wickets)

After 2-90: new average = (x + 90)/(y + 2)

1-45 results in a better new average iff

(x + 45)/(y + 1) < (x + 90)/(y + 2)

Cross-multiplying:

(x + 45)(y + 2) < (x + 90)(y + 1)

Expanding:

xy + 2x + 45y + 90 < xy + x + 90y + 90

Cancelling common terms:

x < 45y

Case I: y = 0 (no previous wickets taken)

1-45 and 2-90 will result in the same new average of 45 as long as no previous runs have been conceded (x = 0) because you will then have 45/1 cf. 90/2.

However, if at least 1 previous run has been conceded (x > or = 1) then 2-90 will result in the better new average because it will then be like 46/1 cf. 91/2 (for x = 1).

Case II: y > or = 1 (at least 1 previous wicket taken)

x < 45y

Division by y is now permissible therefore

x/y < 45

x/y is the old average so as long as the old average is less than 45, 1-45 will result in the better new average. If the old average is 45 then both 1-45 and 2-90 will result in the new average being 45. If the old average is greater than 45, 2-90 will result in the better new average.

(I tend to go over things a lot and refine my previous thinking as (full disclosure) I have OCD)

Yeah. I initially did this exact same thing.

 

[Line and Length]

2-90 only has a worse effect on your average than 1-45 when your average is less than 45.

 

[sayon basak]

2-90 only has a worse effect on your average than 1-45 when your average is less than 45.

Yeah (which is generally the case)