1 wicket at the start plus a concession of 54 runs which includes bowling at the death is surely more valuable than no wickets and 30 runs conceded before the slog.
I don't think so, not a chance.
Nah, they don't. Batsmen will throw the bat at the end of the innings regardless of wickets falling.
Haha, no it's not, I would take his record under Vaughan over his record under Pietersen.Strangest thing is that his record is best under Pietersen.
Possibly because of not bowling at the end, of course.
And the one under Hussain, for that matter.
Economy-rate pretty poor and average unexceptional (and very flattering, I might add).
Your argument is baseless. Averaging 118 is an absolute joke and no one deserves to be in the side for that. I can understand that you rate ER higher than the average but to place no emphasis on the average itself is just a basic lack of understanding of how the game works. If you let a half decent ODI player tick along at 4.45 runs an over in the early overs without dismissing him, odds are hes going to seriously create some mayhem on the rest of the bowlers during the slog overs. Heck you only have to look at the kind of carnage Yuvraj created in the last game if you dont believe it.
Yeah, but as an example, what if your 3 wickets at the death causes Dhoni, Yuvraj and Yusuf Pathan to get out and then you (or the guy bowling the other half of the death overs) gets to bowl at guys like Zaheer, Harbhajan and RP Singh for the last few overs. It is always going to be a what if situation, I suppose, but maybe Dhoni and co. would've taken more than 30 off those overs irrespective of who bowled them? When I said wickets have the potential to slow the run-rate, I meant it more in the sense that you get the good batsmen out, and not in the sense that the later batsmen will become more careful due to the fall of wickets because with 5 overs to go, they most certainly won't. Although I guess 20-20 has shown us that even number 10s and 11s can hit sixes if they really set their mind to it...
Economy-rates don't work like that, things don't happen the same every game. I wouldn't actually say that 4.45-an-over, without bowling at the death, is that good an economy-rate, it's just not-disastrous. However, aside from the fact that more than one bowler bowls at the same time (ie someone else bowls from the other end as you bowl your spell), an ER of 4.45-an-over can mean some good spells (eg, 10-34-0) and some bad ones, rather than lots of bad ones.
Yeah and I've seen bad bowling get slapped around by even relative tailenders - ie, anyone who's that much better than Chris Martin. If you keep swinging often enough (ie, every ball pretty much), and you've got 2 or 3 batsmen cut from that cloth (ie, the reasonable-quality-tail-ender like Zaheer Khan and Harbhajan Singh) you've a fair chance of seeing bad death-bowling get whacked still. The only difference is a tailender is only likely to get, say, 14 off 8 balls rather than the 40 off 19 that a better player might get. But if there's 3 of these players and they only need to bat for 4 overs, the damage to the score is equal. The last 10 overs going for 80 is equally damaging whether 6 wickets fall in that time with a few tailenders getting a couple of 10-odd scores or 2 wickets fall in that time and Yusuf Pathan and Dhoni end on 40-odd* each.Yeah, but as an example, what if your 3 wickets at the death causes Dhoni, Yuvraj and Yusuf Pathan to get out and then you (or the guy bowling the other half of the death overs) gets to bowl at guys like Zaheer, Harbhajan and RP Singh for the last few overs. It is always going to be a what if situation, I suppose, but maybe Dhoni and co. would've taken more than 30 off those overs irrespective of who bowled them? When I said wickets have the potential to slow the run-rate, I meant it more in the sense that you get the good batsmen out, and not in the sense that the later batsmen will become more careful due to the fall of wickets because with 5 overs to go, they most certainly won't. Although I guess 20-20 has shown us that even number 10s and 11s can hit sixes if they really set their mind to it...
Yes but there is no reason to suggest that an average of 118 @ 4.45 is better than mid 20s @ 4.58. A 0.13 increase in ER is not anywhere near as bad as a near 10 fold increase in the average especially if you take into account the fact that he hasnt been bowling much at the death.
Uhh yes that's true in terms of what you'd prefer your bowler to take, but on the other hand a good economy rate often implies that the actual quality of the bowling was better than the amount of wickets implies, especially from such a low sample. With Anderson's accuracy problems too, the E/R certainly suggests those spells were nothing to give much thought to.
Strangest thing is that his record is best under Pietersen.
Possibly because of not bowling at the end, of course.
What Nufan said
I would rather have a bowler consistently getting figures of 10-1-49-2/3ish than a one who gets figures of around 10-3-30-0 being as the latter would very likely bowl his overs out early in the game and still leave a pair of fairly high standard batsmen at the crease which is more counter productive than say a bowler who goes for 4.5 an over but consistently takes two or three batsmen with him if he is bowling at the start leaving the or at the death where he is more likely to stop a rampaging batsman in his tracks. In that sense I would rather have a somewhat costlier bowling attack that consistently has the opposition 5-7 wickets down by the 40th even if it costs180 odd runs than an attack which though keeping the opposition batsmen down to 130-150 odd off 40 overs whilst only managing 2 or three wickets in the duration.
IT doesn't really matter that England have not won thus far or that India have outplayed them. Simple fact is that with any team, the team selections are important in attaining the best possible results.
If he takes 3 wickets at the start of the innings, then he can potentially help stop the batsmen getting on a rampage. If he takes 4 or 5 wickets in the middle, then he's got a chance of stopping rampaging batsmen.
