nz man4man better than australia

[FaaipDeOiad]

McGrath and Gillespie don't need wickets to be economical.
And unless I'm very much mistaken Hogg, Lee and others' economy-rates are very poor. Which suggests that the wickets don't often slow the rate, they just cut the totals.

Early wickets don't necessarily reduce the scoring rate when Hogg bowls, but they certainly reduce the scoring rate up until the point when he comes on to bowl. If Lee and McGrath get 4/80 off their 20 overs and the rest of the team all go for 5 an over that's still only a total of 230, which is more than acceptable. And if one of them is bowling at the other end and getting wickets while Hogg bowls it will reduce his eco rate as well, since there will be more pressure on the batsmen who will tend towards being more cautious, and he will also be bowling to a new batsman who will have to take time to get his eye in.

 

[marc71178]

And unless I'm very much mistaken Hogg, Lee and others' economy-rates are very poor.

You're very much mistaken then.

Hogg - 4.51, Lee - 4.70

 

[Richard]

Lee's is extremely poor.
Hogg's is poor and once you get rid of substandard-side games it gets even worse: 4.67

 

[Blaze]

You are kidding right. I would take 4.75 any day. That only equates to a score of about 235-240 and these days I would say that is a very modest score that can be easily chased down

 

[Richard]

Early wickets don't necessarily reduce the scoring rate when Hogg bowls, but they certainly reduce the scoring rate up until the point when he comes on to bowl. If Lee and McGrath get 4/80 off their 20 overs and the rest of the team all go for 5 an over that's still only a total of 230, which is more than acceptable. And if one of them is bowling at the other end and getting wickets while Hogg bowls it will reduce his eco rate as well, since there will be more pressure on the batsmen who will tend towards being more cautious, and he will also be bowling to a new batsman who will have to take time to get his eye in.

If any 2 bowlers concede 80 off 20 overs a team have got a very good chance of conceding a good total (from the fielding POV). Lee's always likely to concede more, of course.
If Hogg bowls poorly it doesn't matter how many wickets are falling at the other end, he'll still get the treatment - eg the most recent NZ game. Because batsmen don't take very long to get the eye in if they've got scoring chances, nor will they tend towards being cautious.
The only way to keep the scoring-rate down is to bowl accurately. But taking wickets quickly will still result in a lower total.

 

[Richard]

You are kidding right. I would take 4.75 any day. That only equates to a score of about 235-240 and these days I would say that is a very modest score that can be easily chased down

Exactly - because there are lots of poor bowlers who often concede 4.75.
If you concede 240, accept it and the opposition have good bowlers who concede 4-an-over and less, you lose.

 

[Blaze]

Exactly - because there are lots of poor bowlers who often concede 4.75.
If you concede 240, accept it and the opposition have good bowlers who concede 4-an-over and less, you lose.

No, because there are a lot of bowlers who go for more than 4.75.

In normal case of events most teams will chase down 240 because they will pace the innings and keep wickets in hand and then target a bowler who they will try get 60 off his 10 overs

 

[Richard]

And if that bowler's good enough they'll pay for trying.
If 4.75's normalish it's because there are a lot of poor bowlers around ATM.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And if that bowler's good enough they'll pay for trying.
If 4.75's normalish it's because there are a lot of poor bowlers around ATM.

4.75 is normalish because 4.75 is very easy to get over 50 overs on a good batting pitch, regardless of the opposition. Economy rates have progressively risen over the lifetime of ODI cricket not because the bowling has got progressively worse but because the batting has adapted to the different format and tactics have advanced to the point where conceeding under 200 over 50 overs without bowling the opposition out is virtually impossible, whereas it used to be fairly common.

 

[Richard]

So how come some bowlers have maintained economy-rates?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So how come some bowlers have maintained economy-rates?

Well for one, no bowler has been bowling since the birth of ODI cricket. Secondly, economy rates have risen across the board, even among bowlers who are clearly of high quality. The only bowlers I can think of whos economy rates have fallen in recent years are McGrath and Murali, and that is because of their evolution as bowlers and has nothing to do with the changes to ODI cricket.

 

[marc71178]

If you concede 240, accept it and the opposition have good bowlers who concede 4-an-over and less, you lose.

Get into the real world Richard.

Any side facing 240 on a decent wicket will get there if they're not dismissed.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Get into the real world Richard.

Any side facing 240 on a decent wicket will get there if they're not dismissed.

I've seen a few games over the last few years where a side has been tied down enough by the loss of early wickets that they fell short of a 230-240ish target without actually being bowled out, but to suggest you can restrict a side to under 240 without taking a number of wickets is ludicrous. Getting 5 singles an over with wickets in hand is amazingly easy.

 

[Richard]

Not if the field is placed well and the bowling's good, it isn't.

 

[Richard]

Well for one, no bowler has been bowling since the birth of ODI cricket. Secondly, economy rates have risen across the board, even among bowlers who are clearly of high quality. The only bowlers I can think of whos economy rates have fallen in recent years are McGrath and Murali, and that is because of their evolution as bowlers and has nothing to do with the changes to ODI cricket.

Pollock. And Vaas, too, for that matter.
No, none of them are any more accurate now than they were 6 years ago. That'd not really be possible, they've already just about broken all barriers for accuracy.

 

[marc71178]

Not if the field is placed well and the bowling's good, it isn't.

If Cricket were played solely by robots you'd be right, but unfortunately for your theories, it's played by humans.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not if the field is placed well and the bowling's good, it isn't.

Oh yeah? And what field do you set to not allow five runs an over without taking wickets, just out of curiosity? Do you bring the field up and allow them to hit over the top with confidence given the batsmen are set and they have plenty of wickets in hand, or do you set it back and give them an easy single every ball that isn't 100% unplayable?

 

[Richard]

If Cricket were played solely by robots you'd be right, but unfortunately for your theories, it's played by humans.

Which doesn't change the fact that things are got right sometimes - and they used to be got right a bit more often not so very long ago.

 

[Richard]

Oh yeah? And what field do you set to not allow five runs an over without taking wickets, just out of curiosity? Do you bring the field up and allow them to hit over the top with confidence given the batsmen are set and they have plenty of wickets in hand, or do you set it back and give them an easy single every ball that isn't 100% unplayable?

All depends, doesn't it?
That's the whole point of good captaincy - keep the field up for as long as you can, get the bowlers on who make it most difficult to strike the ball over the top - and when the batsmen start going hell-for-leather, get the field back and put the bowlers on who can cramp the batsmen and stop them getting under it.
And, of course, it all depends on having bowlers of the requistite ability.

 

[marc71178]

Except batsmen will improvise.

It has never happened in real life, now I wonder why that might be?