ODI Bowlers - E/R V Wickets

[NUFAN]

No one player can bring anything to the current Zimbabwe side. Being a good player in such a side is next to pointless.

Yeah because playing for your country and doing the best you can is pointless.

 

[Richard]

It's not going to enable them to win games.

As I say, no Zimbabwe game Utseya has ever played in should be classified as a ODI.

 

[tooextracool]

Wickets also pretty well invariably fall in the second-innings, because of the economy-rate.

A team that loses by failing to chase yet bats 50 overs is rare. Wickets are thrown away because the economy-rate of the bowlers has been better than the run-rate required by the batting side.

Wickets come because of economical bowling. The importance of wicket-taking deliveries at certain times (ie, the start and sometimes in the middle of the innings) is not in dispute, but I'd hazard a guess that far, far more wickets than not in ODIs come because batsmen a) feel they're not scoring quickly enough in a first-innings (this can often be interpreted as not hitting every ball for four in the last 5-6 overs) or b) know they're not scoring quickly enough in a second-innings. And only a minor percentage from batsmen being genuinely defeated by the sort of bowling that would be expected to take wickets in Test cricket.

I am inclined to agree with Richard on this one. In the current era of flat batting tracks, ODI cricket is about stifling the RR because invariably this results in wickets. Few tracks offer enough to bowlers for them to actually take wickets by bowling wicket taking deliveries and as such anyone who is purely a 'wicket taker' is almost invariably going to have more poor games than good ones.

I do however believe that Ealham is especially overrated by Richard because, as we have argued on this topic before, the reason why his average is so high is because most teams were quite happy to milk him at a touch under 4 an over given the time of the inning in which he bowled in and the era in which he played. For most of the 1990s, 250 odd was a good score and teams that scored at 4 an over in the middle overs were more or less satisifed with their RR. Ealham rarely ever bowled in the first 15 or in the slog overs and this helped him maintain a marginally above average ER which Richard loves to play up.

 

[Richard]

I don't think I've ever called Ealham a ODI bowler from the very top drawer. I do, however, have to constantly point-out that he was a good ODI bowler, which plenty of people refuse to give him credit for. Comments along the lines of "great, if you were in charge we'd have Mark Ealham playing for England" are pretty silly really, given that with the current selectors we've had Tim Bresnan, Sajid Mahmood, Liam Plunkett etc. playing instead.

And to argue that any of the aforementioned three, or plenty of others picked who weren't quite that bad, are better OD bowlers than Ealham is nothing short of laughable.

 

[Migara]

For people who value E/R over wickets, what is the opinion of Prosper Utseya, who has a good ODI economy rate but a poor average.

This is another example Kumar Dharmasena.

But he fitted very well to SL bowling unit. Current English or SAF team will die for a spinner like him, who averages 22.6 with the bat too.

 

[Precambrian]

This is another example Kumar Dharmasena.

But he fitted very well to SL bowling unit. Current English or SAF team will die for a spinner like him, who averages 22.6 with the bat too.

Much underrated guy. Teamed up with Murali for SL's success in the mid to late 90s. He did add more value to the SL team than his stats say. Would slow down the RR in the middle overs and bottle up the pressure and Murali would take wickets at the other end.

 

[Richard]

Yeah Dharmasena was a very fine ODI bowler. TBH, I was considering mentioning him in that Utseya post, as he was the first person to come to mind when I first came accross Utseya, as a comparison.

Dharmasena-Murali was one of the best ODI spinning combinations you'll see. Maybe the best. One who bowled relentlessly fast, flat and at the same spot; the other who bowled slowly, turned the ball miles and still hit excellent areas.

Kumble-Joshi must've been pretty good for a time as well. But Kumble ceased to be that good at ODIs after WC99.

Dharmasena, though, proves that a bowler of that type (fast, flat economical spinner) can indeed be a highly useful addition to a good side.

 

[Precambrian]

Yeah Dharmasena was a very fine ODI bowler. TBH, I was considering mentioning him in that Utseya post, as he was the first person to come to mind when I first came accross Utseya, as a comparison.

Dharmasena-Murali was one of the best ODI spinning combinations you'll see. Maybe the best. One who bowled relentlessly fast, flat and at the same spot; the other who bowled slowly, turned the ball miles and still hit excellent areas.

Kumble-Joshi must've been pretty good for a time as well. But Kumble ceased to be that good at ODIs after WC99.

Dharmasena, though, proves that a bowler of that type (fast, flat economical spinner) can indeed be a highly useful addition to a good side.

Harbhajan is doing somewhat that kind of a job in ODIs for a while now. And that has added to his value despite his average taking a hit.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, Harbhajan is a damn good ODI bowler as well but his style is completely different to Dharmasena's and much more like Saqlain Mushtaq's (though not anywhere near so effective in terms of taking wickets).

Excellent loop and dip, fabulous control of length, an eagle eye to watch the batsman to the last nanosecond before letting go of the ball, terrific variation of loop and speed and knowledge of when to use them, and a Doosra to keep the batsmen guessing and make him even more difficult on a surface where his Off-Break turns very much.

Daniel Vettori too fits all the above categories except the last.

Since the turn of the 1990s and the start of the modern era of ODIs, there have been precious few spinners who've made particularly good ODI bowlers: Warne, Murali, Mushtaq Ahmed, Dharmasena, Kumble (up to WC99 and not thereafter), Saqlain, Harbhajan, Croft and Vettori, and that's about it. All using different styles: the first three spinning the ball loads but still having excellent control (control which is beyond most bowlers who spin it so much); Dharmasena and Kumble firing it through flat to make advancing down incredibly difficult but with enough grip on the pitch to make sweeping or using the pace far from straightforward either; Saqlain and Harbhajan using flight and a Doosra; and Croft and Vettori using flight and guile. Utseya might've joined that list had Zimbabwe not fallen in a heap shortly before he debuted.

 

[Migara]

Since the turn of the 1990s and the start of the modern era of ODIs, there have been precious few spinners who've made particularly good ODI bowlers: Warne, Murali, Mushtaq Ahmed, Dharmasena, Kumble (up to WC99 and not thereafter), Saqlain, Harbhajan, Croft and Vettori,

One notable absentee in that list. Jayasuriya deserves a mention. Obviously better than Croft. And I would think Upul Chandana was also way better than Croft and Dharmasena. Bradd Hogg later became a force, but he was finding his feet in spin bowling in the 90s. Venkathapathy Raju, Rajesh Chauhan, Sunil Joshi, Ruwan Kalpage were also good.

 

[Migara]

Here goes another one, Ruwan Kalpage. Very tight bowler, but high average, quicksilver fielder and a useful bat.

And Gavin Larsen is the king out of them

 

[Richard]

Larsen was a seamer though. One of the best, certainly, but a seamer.

As for Jayasuriya, I can't really consider him as good as Croft myself TBH. He was good for a batsman who bowled (which is what he eventually became, having started the other way around) but he wasn't someone you could always bank on for 10 good overs. He had a brilliant quicker-ball Yorker though, one of the best I've seen.

Hogg, well, he certainly turned-out far better than I'd ever imagined he was going to, but I still don't think he was as good as the group I mentioned.

Chandana, I was always less convinced about than some. As for Raju, Chauhan, Joshi and Kalpage, never have taken much note of any (though admittedly I did mention Joshi earlier and I know he certainly wasn't bad) so I'd have to get back to you on them.

 

[Uppercut]

Think you tend to not give enough thought to who bowls when, Dicko. Having an economy rate of 4.68 as a death/powerplay bowler, as Younis did, has to be worth more than someone averaging around 4 bowling during the middle overs, before the wicket-taking even comes into account.

 

[krkode]

Joshi's 5/6 in 10 overs against South Africa was probably the most awesome ODI bowling performance I've witnessed by an Indian...

 

[Uppercut]

Joshi's 5/6 in 10 overs against South Africa was probably the most awesome ODI bowling performance I've witnessed by an Indian...

Not a patch on Andre Botha's 2/5 off 8 against Pakistan

 

[zaremba]

No good ODI attack, IMO, can be built around a bowler who regularly concedes plenty of runs. A really economical bowler - whether he takes wickets of not, and obviously the best do both - is the most vital part of any ODI attack.

The attack as a whole needs to be economical. In order to achieve this, the attack needs above all to have someone who can take crucial wickets. And Waqar at his peak could do that in a way which almost no-one in the history of cricket has been able to come close to.

As I've said before, I think you sometimes fail to differ between ODIs and Tests enough. Because Waqar was so enormously better than Ealham in Tests the notion that both are in their different ways excellent at ODIs is outrageous to you.

People mock you for the high regard in which you hold Ealham, but in fairness you're quite right. He was indeed a fine bowler, in fact a fine all-rounder. However Waqar was an all-time great and Ealham wasn't. And I feel you under-rate Waqar as an ODI bowler. For me, he was a great ODI bowler who could bowl with the new ball, bowl in the middle overs or bowl (as he very often did, while retaining a fine average and economy rate) at the death.

If I'm guilty of failing to differentiate between the skills to be cherished in Tests and the skills that you can scrape by with in ODIs, then so be it.

I always think of Peter Taylor (who?) as the classic example illustrating this debate. He was a fine ODI bowler but essentially a cricketing travesty - an emblem of all that was bad about ODI cricket - the epitome of negative play over attacking play. 10-1-35-0 is not what entertaining cricket is about, for my money.

So I will build my team around Waqar and if I lose I will grin and bear it.

 

[Goughy]

Give me Lee, Shoaib, Waqar and Malinga over Ealham, Larsen, Utseya and Collymore everyday of the week.

Not only would they be more successful but far more entertaining and far less dull.

 

[krkode]

The attack as a whole needs to be economical. In order to achieve this, the attack needs above all to have someone who can take crucial wickets. And Waqar at his peak could do that in a way which almost no-one in the history of cricket has been able to come close to.
...
So I will build my team around Waqar and if I lose I will grin and bear it.

Well for the most part I don't think the Pakistan attack was every successfully built around Waqar (or Akhtar who is similar). It was built around Wasim Akram which allowed Waqar to exceed runs, as it were, and also be incredibly lethal with his wicket-taking. Wasim, on the other hand, provided the economy (under 4 RPO). I imagine in the days of Imran and Wasim, Imran played the tidy role and Wasim played the wicket-taker's role although I can't say that with any confidence.

Donald-Pollock made a similar duo (although Donald was pretty economical, Pollock was even more so) and McGrath and Lee as well. More recently, Vaas and Malinga.

 

[zaremba]

Well for the most part I don't think the Pakistan attack was every successfully built around Waqar (or Akhtar who is similar). It was built around Wasim Akram which allowed Waqar to exceed runs, as it were, and also be incredibly lethal with his wicket-taking. Wasim, on the other hand, provided the economy (under 4 RPO).

I agree entirely that you need bowling partnerships and you need a bowling attack comprising a number of bowlers with different skills. But what Waqar had was an element (sheer wicket taking ability) which to my mind is worth a thousand Gavin Larsens or Peter Taylors.

 

[Richard]

Give me Lee, Shoaib, Waqar and Malinga over Ealham, Larsen, Utseya and Collymore everyday of the week.

Not only would they be more successful but far more entertaining and far less dull.

And give me a blend of the two - whichever the names may be - over one similar-grouped set any day as well.