***Official*** England in Sri Lanka

[Perm]

****, hate when cricinfo doesn't work properly.

Mustard taking on Vaas and doing quite well, 26* from 16 thus far.

 

[Goughy]

It's not just based on increasing ODI economy-rates, it's based on things that have happened in Tests too.

The best bowlers of the late 1990s, those few still playing in the last 3 or 4 years, have continued to excel to their exact previous levels.

Thats not remotely true. Funnily enough, a few days ago I did a run rate comparison from all bowlers with 200 or more Test wickets (ie the top bowlers) that played at least 20 Tests in the 90s and a min of 20 Tests in the 2000s.

The vast majority saw their runrates increased with only 1 or 2 decline. Far different to how you would assume if it was normal variation.

Cant find my piece of paper now though. Dont take my word on it as Ill post the info as soon as I find it.

OK, lets say a difference of 0.1 runs an over between the 90s and 2000s is too small to categorise and we will call that the same.

Bowlers Run rates 90s to 2000s (min 200 Test wkts and 20 Tests in each period)

Increased
Warne
Kallis
Kumble
Streak
Vettori
Vaas
Gough
Caddick
Waqar

Stayed Same (increased or fell by less than 0.1 runs per ovr)
Saqlain
Srinath
Pollock

Declined
Murali
McGrath

In addition to the raw numbers, several bowlers saw their Run Rate increase far more dramatically than McGrath and Murali (fell 0.13) saw theirs decline.

Without a doubt, the best bowlers of the 90s would have seen their economy rates increase (as they did)

 

[pasag]

Mustard gone but looked good, will be interested to see more of him throughout the series.

 

[Perm]

Roofers!

 

[Richard]

Thats not remotely true. Funnily enough, a few days ago I did a run rate comparison from all bowlers with 200 or more Test wickets (ie the top bowlers) that played at least 20 Tests in the 90s and a min of 20 Tests in the 2000s.

The vast majority saw their runrates increased with only 1 or 2 decline. Far different to how you would assume if it was normal variation.

Cant find my piece of paper now though. Dont take my word on it as Ill post the info as soon as I find it.

How many of it was due to clear decline in powers though? Eg, the likes of Donald, Wasim, etc. who were clearly lesser bowlers in the final few games of their careers?

BTW, 2000 would be an inappropriate starting-point; September 2001 would be the required one TBH.

 

[Richard]

OK, lets say a difference of 0.1 runs an over between the 90s and 2000s is too small to categorise and we will call that the same.

Bowlers Run rates 90s to 2000s (min 200 Test wkts and 20 Tests in each period)

Increased
Warne
Kallis
Kumble
Streak
Vettori
Vaas
Gough
Caddick
Waqar

Stayed Same (increased or fell by less than 0.1 runs per ovr)
Saqlain
Srinath
Pollock

Declined
Murali
McGrath

In addition to the raw numbers, several bowlers saw their Run Rate increase far more dramatically than McGrath and Murali (fell 0.13) saw theirs decline.

Without a doubt, the best bowlers of the 90s would have seen their economy rates increase (as they did)

That was quick...

As I thought, mostly those whose economy-rates increased were people who became lesser bowlers, or (in Kumble's case) merely different bowlers (because in taking more wickets even at more expensive economy-rates he was better, not worse, at Tests).

 

[Richard]

Mustard taking on Vaas and doing quite well, 26* from 16 thus far.

FFS, I hate it when sloggers hit good line-and-length bowlers around. Thank god Maharoof got rid of him before he did any serious damage.

 

[pasag]

Bell gone.

 

[Perm]

Roofers again

 

[pasag]

KP gone, Maharoof gets his 3rd and England in a bit of trouble here.

 

[Perm]

Three for him. KP gone, as are England.

 

[Richard]

Should have been 4 TBH. Not easy, no, but catchable, yes.

 

[Richard]

Good call Sanjay:

"He's got a slip in position" - half a second later it goes straight to him.

 

[Richard]

Even though I'm practically talking to myself here - another superb slower ball from Laaasith Maaalinga.

 

[Mahindinho]

I'm listening! To you and the Guardian OBO commentary, anyway. Looking forward to the highights tonight.

 

[Goughy]

That was quick...

As I thought, mostly those whose economy-rates increased were people who became lesser bowlers, or (in Kumble's case) merely different bowlers (because in taking more wickets even at more expensive economy-rates he was better, not worse, at Tests).

Hold on, you made a statement (that econ rates stayed the same for bowlers in the 2000s that played in the 90s) that I proved to be incorrect and then you claimed it is as you thought.

Genius

 

[Richard]

I'm listening! To you and the Guardian OBO commentary, anyway. Looking forward to the highights tonight.

Haha, actually read the currently-reading-this-thread list and thought "ah, Mahinda's listening".

BTW, Cook out. Farveez strikes again. This is even better than the 10 overs for 19.

 

[Richard]

Hold on, you made a statement (that econ rates stayed the same for bowlers in the 2000s that played in the 90s) that I proved to be incorrect and then you claimed it is as you thought.

Genius

A couple of things: when I say "the 1990s and 2000s" it's good to bear in mind that for the purposes of calibre of bowlers, 2000 and 2000\01 are part of the 1990s. Not chronologically correct, but it's Dickinson Cricket Slag if you will.

Also, it's fairly useless to know that bowlers who became lesser as time went on had their ERs increase: of course they did. It doesn't interest me that Donald's ER went up as he became a lesser bowler. What interests me is when bowlers who remained the same had their ERs increase.

 

[Goughy]

But that is why 20 Tests as the min. It stopped guys just having the very end of your career (eg Wasim) included or those that have a small sample size for a period.

The fact that Donald isnt on my list makes me wonder why you are mentioning him

 

[Richard]

Because he's the most obvious case of someone who declined at exactly the time that the scores started to inflate, and my favourite bowler of those who made the 1990s such a brilliant time.

It doesn't neccessarily have even to be the end of your career to decline. I can't believe anyone would dispute Kallis has declined as a bowler; nor that Vettori did (not terminally) between the start of 2002 and the middle of 2004. This is just a for-example. Gough and Caddick also fit those who declined as far as I'm concerned.

Heck, even Warne is considered by almost everyone who was around to be a lesser bowler 2002-2007 than he was 1993-1997, Atherton being the most vocal on that subject.

About the only two in the bowlers you gave who I'd consider didn't decline in some respect, in fact, are Streak and Vaas.

The others, their decline in ER can be put down to decline in skill. I'd be interested, mind, in a comparison of Vettori debut to Dec 2001 and from Nov 2004 to present (substandard sides excluded in the latter part obviously).