How valuable is that wicket!

[Avada Kedavra]

And in that thread it was repeatedly pointed out to you that whilst Warne will have done as well as he could have, adapting to that condition; he STILL did better away. Whereas with the Pakistani bowlers...they did better at HOME than away; so they were disadvantaged away more than anything.

You were arguing that the Pakistani bowlers were disadvantaged at home...yet they did much better at home and hence weren't. You were wildly off the mark then, and now.

Well,just have a look at the averages of SC bowlers in say,Eng and compare it to their record in Asia.

And you haven't answered my q about Warne in India.

 

[ankitj]

There are some other interesting things to notice...

• What do we make of Walsh? Typically considered a level below the very best but he takes more valuable wickets and sits above Waqar, Wasim and Roberts.
• What of Davidson's freakish number? Though he had a short career but he really stands tall at a time when the balance between bat and ball was not as skewed as in times of Barnes and Lohman.
• Spofforth, "the demon" is put in his right place. He was in context of his times perhaps not as deadly as we may have presumed.
• Jim Laker and O'Reilly leave Murali and Warne far behind interestingly when often people tend to think that Murali and Warne were cut above any spinners ever in the history.

 

[Ikki]

Well,just have a look at the averages of SC bowlers in say,Eng and compare it to their record in Asia.

And you haven't answered my q about Warne in India.

I added it, I didn't see it at first.

India, as well as Sri Lanka, is a hard place to bowl spin because of the batsmen it has playing visiting spinners - not because bowling spin is hard there. There are only 2 places where spin outdoes pace: India and Sri Lanka.

Warne actually does better in SL than Murali does.

 

[Altaican]

That really shouldn't matter in rating the batsman, unless for aesthetic purposes, since runs are runs. Kevin Pietersen is a classic (misleading) example where people tend to give too much weightage to his performance against leading bowlers, IMO.

I totally understand what you are saying. From a team's perspective, runs are runs, immaterial of where they come from. But then why is it that we value a batsman who scores prolifically against a great attack (say Pak of 90s or Windies of 80s) than a batsman who does well against Zim/BD? We invariably see justifications such as "average against Australia in Australia" when it comes to rating batsmen. Isn't it because we inherently rate a batsma who can score against great attacks (or great bowlers) as better?

 

[vcs]

Walsh is perennially underrated. Great bowler.

 

[vcs]

I totally understand what you are saying. From a team's perspective, runs are runs, immaterial of where they come from. But then why is it that we value a batsman who scores prolifically against a great attack (say Pak of 90s or Windies of 80s) than a batsman who does well against Zim/BD? We invariably see justifications such as "average against Australia in Australia" when it comes to rating batsmen. Isn't it because we inherently rate a batsma who can score against great attacks (or great bowlers) as better?

Well, I have no issue with a batsman who can average 50 against Australia by blocking out Warne/McGrath and scoring heavily against Gillespie/Lee. That is a skill in itself. It is in no way inherently worse than averaging 50 against Australia by scoring all your runs against Warne/McGrath but getting out to the lesser lights.

 

[Ikki]

There are some other interesting things to notice...

I'd be interested if you looked at the rivals of Lohmann and Barnes in their time and see how they place.

 

[ankitj]

I'd be interested if you looked at the rivals of Lohmann and Barnes in their time and see how they place.

Will do. Although the spreadsheet has become very heavy and a single copy-paste takes long time to complete. So it will be a test of patience.

 

[Jono]

Walsh is perennially underrated. Great bowler.

Nope, you and Teja just underrate Ambrose.

Walsh gets his due, and often in CW it is mentioned how gun he was near the end of his career.

It is just acknowledged that Ambrose was far better. Obviously if you have a bowler like Ambrose on the other end, who from the start of the 1990s was taking wickets at an average of 19.88 with 21 5-fers... well you're going to be overshadowed.

Just like why Marshall is mentioned ahead of Holding and Garner, and McGrath ahead of Gillespie.

 

[Altaican]

Well, I have no issue with a batsman who can average 50 against Australia by blocking out Warne/McGrath and scoring heavily against Gillespie/Lee. That is a skill in itself. It is in no way inherently worse than averaging 50 against Australia by scoring all your runs against Warne/McGrath but getting out to the lesser lights.

If scoring runs against any bowler are of the same value as far as rating the batsman is concerned, the question still remains why we value a batsman who performs better against a great attack like Australia more than a batsman who performs better against Zim/BD. Isn't it because Australian attack has better bowlers than Zim/BD?

In the "obsession with batsmen against great attacks" thread, you yourself questioned if batsmen from the past had to face great bowlers all the time, or if they could target the lesser bowlers in that side (implying that it was not as hard for them as we think).

Yes I understand surviving an attack like this or this takes skill. Not denying that. Reminds of me of Allan Border's vastly under-rated performance against the Windies in the early 80s.

I guess different strokes for different folks . For me, as far as rating a batsman goes, dominating great bowlers > milking runs against great bowlers > surviving against great bowlers > scoring against lesser bowlers. Ian Chappell and Shastri seem to share a similar opinion here.

This is exactly the reason why we rate a batsman who has better stats against Australia better than a batsman who has better stats against Zim/BD, simply because it proves he has scored more against a better attack (or against better bowlers).

 

[TumTum]

If scoring runs against any bowler are of the same value as far as rating the batsman is concerned, the question still remains why we value a batsman who performs better against a great attack like Australia more than a batsman who performs better against Zim/BD. Isn't it because Australian attack has better bowlers than Zim/BD?

In the "obsession with batsmen against great attacks" thread, you yourself questioned if batsmen from the past had to face great bowlers all the time, or if they could target the lesser bowlers in that side (implying that it was not as hard for them as we think).

Yes I understand surviving an attack like this or this takes skill. Not denying that. Reminds of me of Allan Border's vastly under-rated performance against the Windies in the early 80s.

I guess different strokes for different folks . For me, as far as rating a batsman goes, dominating great bowlers > milking runs against great bowlers > surviving against great bowlers > scoring against lesser bowlers. Ian Chappell and Shastri seem to share a similar opinion here.

This is exactly the reason why we rate a batsman who has better stats against Australia better than a batsman who has better stats against Zim/BD, simply because it proves he has scored more against a better attack (or against better bowlers).

Thanks captain obvious

 

[AaronK]

Long time back I came across a comprehensive analysis of bowlers based on the "value"of the wickets they take. The approach was wonderfully elegant and very logical. The article is not online anymore.

Nevertheless I decided to do the exercise again. I am happy to share the results of my hard work over last 3-4 days with you

Shortlisting the bowlers

For this analysis I chose a total of 41 bowlers. All 24 bowlers in the 300+ club are chosen. And some of the greats from the sub 300 group are chosen too. This includes the 3 great West Indian fast bowlers - Garner, Holding and Roberts. 3 great Australian fast bowlers of 1950's - Lindwall, Miller, Davidson. The great spinners - O'Reilly, Grimmet, Laker and Verity. 3 Great fast bowlers from pre world war I era - Barnes, Spofforth and Lohman. Two recent bowlers out of curiosity - Gillespie and Steyn. And finally out of curiosity - Sobers and Kallis.

The averages of these bowlers are listed below:

[B]Bowler		Bowling Average[/B]
George Lohman	10.75
Sydney Barnes	16.43
Fred Spofforth	18.41
Alan Davidson	20.53
M Marshall	20.94
Joel Garner	20.97
Curtly Ambrose	20.99
Jim Laker	21.24
Fred Trueman	21.57
Glenn McGrath	21.64
Allan Donald	22.25
Richard Hadlee	22.29
Bill O'Reilly	22.59
M Muralitharan	22.72
Imran Khan	22.81
Keith Miller	22.97
Ray Lindwall	23.03
Shaun Pollock	23.11
Dale Steyn	23.13
Waqar Younis	23.56
Wasim Akram	23.62
Michael Holding	23.68
Dennis Lillee	23.92
C Grimmett	24.21
Hedley Verity	24.37 
Courtney Walsh	24.44
Bob Willis	25.20 
Shane Warne	25.41
Andy Roberts	25.61
Jason Gillespie	26.13
Ian Botham	28.40
Mkhaya Ntini	28.82
Lance Gibbs	29.09
Chaminda Vaas	29.58 
Kapil Dev	29.64
Anil Kumble	29.65
Brett Lee	30.81
Jacques Kallis	31.59
Harbhajan Singh	31.66
Daniel Vettori	33.86 
Gary Sobers	34.03

Value of Wickets

What the averages don't tell you however is how valuable were the wickets taken by a bowler. A wicket of Harbhajan Singh is not as valuable as that of Sachin Tendulkar. That fact is howerver hidden in the overall bowling averages. In order to put value to every wicket taken, therefore, we can use the career batting average of the batsman dismissed as a proxy. Therefore value of Tendulkar's wicket is about 57 and that of Harbhajan only 16.

Now we can average the values of all the wickets taken by a bowler. Thus bowler X who takes Tendulkar's wicket thrice and Harbhajan's twice in a series (and takes no other wickets) has an average value of wicket of 40.6.

Taking such averages over the whole careers of the chosen bowlers, we get the following ranking based on the average value of wickets:

[B]Bowler		Bol Ave	 Avg value of wicket [/B]
Bill O'Reilly	22.59	 31.56 
Mkhaya Ntini	28.82	 31.47 
Dennis Lillee	23.92	 31.27 
Jacques Kallis	31.59 	 31.25
Brett Lee	30.81	 31.24 
Hedley Verity	24.37	 31.23 
Keith Miller	22.97	 31.17 
Glenn McGrath	21.64	 31.02 
Gary Sobers	34.03	 30.93 
Chaminda Vaas	29.58	 30.74 
M Marshall	20.94	 30.48 
Harbhajan Singh	31.66	 30.47 
Lance Gibbs	29.09	 30.44 
Anil Kumble	29.65	 30.25 
Curtly Ambrose	20.99	 30.23 
Shaun Pollock	23.11	 30.16 
Michael Holding	23.68	 30.14 
Alan Davidson	20.53	 30.04 
Jason Gillespie	26.13	 29.97 
Bob Willis	25.20	 29.95 
Imran Khan	22.81	 29.91 
Jim Laker	21.24	 29.83 
Kapil Dev	29.64	 29.80 
Courtney Walsh	24.44	 29.74 
Allan Donald	22.25	 29.71 
Ray Lindwall	23.03	 29.59 
Richard Hadlee	22.29	 29.54 
Daniel Vettori	33.86	 29.44 
Shane Warne	25.41	 29.32 
Ian Botham	28.40	 29.30 
Dale Steyn	23.13	 29.29 
Andy Roberts	25.61	 29.01 
C Grimmett	24.21	 28.99 
Fred Trueman	21.57	 28.90 
M Muralitharan	22.72	 28.51 
Waqar Younis	23.56	 27.65 
Joel Garner	20.97	 27.15 
Wasim Akram	23.62	 26.50 
Sydney Barnes	16.43	 25.02 
Fred Spofforth	18.41	 20.01 
George Lohman	10.75	 15.92

Price paid for the value

A bowler however cannot be critiqued for only having a low average value of wicket. Some bowlers may play more games against weeker oppositions. Some may come on to bowl only as first or second change and may get less chance to bowl to top order batsmen.

However if a bolwer does bowl more to weeker batsmen and dismisses them more often, he must also take those wickets more cheaply i.e. must pay lesser price for taking those wickets. This price is the bowling average of the bowler.

Consider the bowler X in the previous example averaged 30 for each wickets (i.e. gave away 150 runs for his 5 wickets). He has effectively paid a price of 30 while getting rid of batsmen that valued 40.6. Another way to look at it is that bolwer X discounted the batting average of the batsmen he bowled to down to 30/40.6 = 73.8%. Lower the "disconut factor" more effective the bowler. A discount rate of 80% would mean that a batsman who averages 50 overall will average 40 against that bowler in duels.

Note that it is immaterial if that "price" paid were runs scored by batsmen the bowler X ultimately dismissed or by others. That's how many runs he gave away in search of those wickets.

With bowling averages and average value of each wicket available with us, we can calculate discount factors for each of the 41 bowlers. Doing this, we get the following ranking on the basis of discount factors:

[B]Rank	Bowler		Bow Ave	 Avg value Discount Factor[/B]
1	Sydney Barnes	16.43	 25.02 	65.7%
2	George Lohman	10.75	 15.92 	67.5%
3	Alan Davidson	20.53	 30.04 	68.3%
4	M Marshall	20.94	 30.48 	68.7%
5	Curtly Ambrose	20.99	 30.23 	69.4%
6	Glenn McGrath	21.64	 31.02 	69.8%
7	Jim Laker	21.24	 29.83 	71.2%
8	W O'Reilly	22.59	 31.56 	71.6%
9	Keith Miller	22.97	 31.17 	73.7%
10	Fred Trueman	21.57	 28.90 	74.6%
11	Allan Donald	22.25	 29.71 	74.9%
12	Richard Hadlee	22.29	 29.54 	75.4%
13	Imran Khan	22.81	 29.91 	76.3%
14	Dennis Lillee	23.92	 31.27 	76.5%
15	Shaun Pollock	23.11	 30.16 	76.6%
16	Joel Garner	20.97	 27.15 	77.2%
17	Ray Lindwall	23.03	 29.59 	77.8%
18	Hedley Verity	24.37	 31.23 	78.0%
19	Michael Holding	23.68	 30.14 	78.6%
20	Dale Steyn	23.13	 29.29 	79.0%
21	M Muralitharan	22.72	 28.51 	79.7%
22	Courtney Walsh	24.44	 29.74 	82.2%
23	C Grimmett	24.21	 28.99 	83.5%
24	Bob Willis	25.20	 29.95 	84.2%
25	Waqar Younis	23.56	 27.65 	85.2%
26	Shane Warne	25.41	 29.32 	86.7%
27	Jason Gillespie	26.13	 29.97 	87.2%
28	Andy Roberts	25.61	 29.01 	88.3%
29	Wasim Akram	23.62	 26.50 	89.1%
30	Mkhaya Ntini	28.82	 31.47 	91.6%
31	Fred Spofforth	18.41	 20.01 	92.0%
32	Lance Gibbs	29.09	 30.44 	95.6%
33	Chaminda Vaas	29.58	 30.74 	96.2%
34	Ian Botham	28.40	 29.30 	96.9%
35	Anil Kumble	29.65	 30.25 	98.0%
36	Brett Lee	30.81	 31.24 	98.6%
37	Kapil Dev	29.64	 29.80 	99.5%
38	Jacques Kallis	31.59	 31.25	101.1%
39	Harbhajan Singh	31.66	 30.47 	103.9%
40	Gary Sobers	34.03	 30.93 	110.0%
41	Daniel Vettori	33.86	 29.44 	115.0%

My key take aways

Around the themes of some of the recent discussions:

1. Ambrose is NOT over-rated
2. Murali vs Warne debate is settled
3. Wasim Akram as a test bowler is a level below some of ATG fast bolwers

Hope you enjoyed reading this

EDIT: Added Kallis.

some interesting stat there..

is there anyway you can get a similar stat on Saqalin Mushtaq and shoaib akhtar please.. some people have argued that most of his wickets were tailenders.. so lets see what you can come up with.

Waqar > Wasim

wow.. those inswinging Yorkers to Brian Lara may have helped him a bit i guess

 

[smash84]

The big surprise for me in that list is Keith Miller. He edges out a lot of people whom I thought would have been higher up in the list.

He seems to be quite under-rated as a bowler considering that in this analysis he edges out people like Fred Trueman, Donald, Hadlee, Imran Khan, and Dennis Lillee.

 

[Athlai]

Vettori > Hadlee
Surprised to see Barnes get a bit of the lustre taken off him actually. Still at the top but by less than I thought.

 

[Burgey]

My head hurts.

 

[GotSpin]

The big surprise for me in that list is Keith Miller. He edges out a lot of people whom I thought would have been higher up in the list.

He seems to be quite under-rated as a bowler considering that in this analysis he edges out people like Fred Trueman, Donald, Hadlee, Imran Khan, and Dennis Lillee.

Yeah like I mentioned in the World XI side, he often gets forgotten

 

[ankitj]

The big surprise for me in that list is Keith Miller. He edges out a lot of people whom I thought would have been higher up in the list.

He seems to be quite under-rated as a bowler considering that in this analysis he edges out people like Fred Trueman, Donald, Hadlee, Imran Khan, and Dennis Lillee.

Well, except that Miller had far shorter career. Nonetheless quite an excellent figure he notched up!

 

[ankitj]

Marshall
McGrath
Ambrose

Those 3 are indeed in a league of their own. They are within 1.1% of each other. And taking a cut-off of at least 200 wickets, the next best is Trueman who is almost 5% below McGrath! Truly

 

[Teja.]

As for, Ambrose and Walsh,

Ambrose is better by a good margin.

However, If I had to have to pick between one of Waqar, Ambrose or Walsh starting his career with India right now. I'd take Ambrose's slightly lower quality 18 years over the other bowler's decade each of awesome bowling. Walsh over Akram, who played for 18 too, because Walsh remained awesome throughout his career while Akram was for only 8-9 years.

All three bowlers are better bowlers overall though.

 

[Teja.]

Ankit,

If it's not too much trouble, I'd appriciate it if you could do this for Waqar from 1 jan 1990 to 31 dec 1994 and 1 jan 1990 to 31 dec 1999.

The latter would provide a more accurate account of Waqar as a bowler because he was a pretty average bowler for three uneccesary years after 2000 and the former is the greatest peak by a pacer ever. Thanks.