*Official* South Africa in England Thread

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ambrose bowled 10 overs for 70odd runs before...

 

[Rik]

On occasions, all bowlers go at 4.5 an over.

Over his career he goes at 3.14 an over.

When you consider how quickly teams seems to score at Test level nowadays, it doesn't look too bad at all, and makes a mockery of comments you've made saying he has trouble with accuracy.

Yet Ntini's econ rate this series makes a mockery of the comment you've just made...:rolleyes:

 

[marc71178]

Erm how exactly - I point out that every bowler has spells when they go for runs, then point out that over his career his economy isn't that bad.

What I actually said that every bowler concede runs at time is borne out by his economy in this series, yet you felt compelled to try and pick fault with it.

Oh, and the fact he's got 22 wickets in 4 games isn't bad either.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Let us observe Ntini's stats in this series.

22 wickets @ 29.04 in 4 games.
Econ: 4.06
SR: 42.90

His SR is second best among the regular bowlers.

Kallis, Pollock and Hall have taken 39 wickets between them in 8 combined games, so I think Ntini has done a decent job in support.

On the flip side, the best English SR is by Kabir Ali.... who's played just one Test. His SR is 43.2, which is slightly worse than Ntini. England's best wicket-taker Kirtley has a SR of 45.6.

English bowlers have allowed 2467 runs in the series so far for just 55 wickets. That's an average of over 44 and you can probably imagine the SR.

South African bowlers have allowed 2071 runs in the series thus far for 71 wickets. Their average is 29.16... very close to Ntini's.

One more minor point, Ntini has the highest wickets by a bowler on either team in this series.

 

[Rik]

Erm how exactly

Well...maybe it's the fact that basically every spell he's gone for runs (yes he's taken wickets but that isn't the point" and has suffered from innacuracy. If it had not been for Smith's runs, the ammount of runs he has conceeded would have led to him being pulled out of the attack more often. Ok he takes a wicket every 7 overs but an average of 30 isn't great. So Craig's point that he suffers from innacuracy is valid, and that is the comment you claimed was incorrect. I can tell you, as someone who has watched the entire series so far, that Ntini has suffered from innacuracy at times. This is not a comment on how many wickets he's taken, it's a comment on his accuracy, which, unfortuantely, sometimes he is lacking. *Trumpet Encour*

 

[marc71178]

But the point is I never denied that, just pointed out that over his CAREER (ie all the time and not just one series) he has been reasonably economical given the current average run rate in Test cricket.

Where has what I've said been made a mockery of in this current series?

 

[Rik]

But the point is I never denied that, just pointed out that over his CAREER (ie all the time and not just one series) he has been reasonably economical given the current average run rate in Test cricket.

Where has what I've said been made a mockery of in this current series?

When you said that Craig's comment which was about Ntini's accuracy was not true, when it's been blatently obvious not only in this series but ever since his selection that accuracy has never been his strong point, although it has improved in the last year or 2. Econ rate does not tell the whole story.

 

[marc71178]

Interestingly, despite his occasional directional problems, 23% of his wickets so far have been bowled, but only 6% LBW.

There does seem to be a large difference there, which is probably just freakish, but when you add 26% as caught behind, it suggests that he does seem to get a lot of wickets with straight balls.

(Note that I'm not denying can be inaccurate at times, just saying that he can also be extremely accurate as well)

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

when it's been blatently obvious not only in this series but ever since his selection that accuracy has never been his strong point, although it has improved in the last year or 2. Econ rate does not tell the whole story.

So I gather that you have actually seen every one of Ntini's Test matches (or at least a majority) over the course of his career?

 

[Craig]

An economy rate at 3.14 at Test level isnt much to be proud of. An economy off under 3 an over for a bowler is good enough for me at Test level.

Maybe my cricket eudcation came from a different school as some people here as I have always believed that you must take 20 wickets to win and not to concede very many runs.

Also a lot of bowlers I believe do lack patience. If they dont get wickets they become inpatient and give away runs.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ntini bowls alongside the most economical bowler in the game. If he's taking wickets and fairly quickly (40 SR is decent), then I would accept that he's going for an expensive 3 an over. That's 60 runs in 20 overs. :wow:

BTW Waqar Younis' career RPO is 3.25 and he's a fairly decent fast bowler...:rolleyes: ...373 wickets...:rolleyes:

Don't say that they are two different types of bowler, because both Ntini and Waqar are essentially strike bowlers.

 

[Mr. P]

What relevance does his batting have on how good a bowler he is?

Perseverance. Not exactly easy to come in and bowl full out after making 150 with the bat is it?

 

[Craig]

True Liam but you keep missing my point. As well as taking wickets you must be accurate. How many times do I have say this? Maybe next time I should try in French or Japanese.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I am getting your point, but you don't seem to be reading my replies.

When you're a strike bowler, you don't have to be economical or accurate all the time. Waqar Younis proved this. He's obviously accurate enough to get 120+ Test wickets. Not all of those could be careless shots and wild slashes.

He's also accurate enough to have a commendable 4.19 ODI econ.

 

[Rik]

So I gather that you have actually seen every one of Ntini's Test matches (or at least a majority) over the course of his career?

No, nor do I need to. Such is the wonder of the technological world.

 

[marc71178]

An economy rate at 3.14 at Test level isnt much to be proud of. An economy off under 3 an over for a bowler is good enough for me at Test level.

Despite the fact that a lot of Test cricket is 3 and a half to 4 an over?

Doesn't mean there's that many good bowlers in Test Cricket then does it?

Maybe my cricket eudcation came from a different school as some people here as I have always believed that you must take 20 wickets to win and not to concede very many runs.

And Ntini takes his wickets at an average of about 28, but he takes them relatively quickly.

 

[Neil Pickup]

This is an interesting argument... :rolleyes:

 

[Craig]

Surely Liam you cant compare one-day cricket to Tests. I cant be held responsible if the bowlers picked are not good enough.

Waqar Younis is a great bowler famed for his pace, and his ability to swing the ball either way and reverse swinging it, but accuracy isnt his greatest forte with a poor ODI rpo and a highish Test rpo.

Look it cant be unresoniable to expect your bowlers at Test level to go under 3 an over.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

My point is simple.

In the case of Ntini, he is purely a strike bowler. He is surrounded by Pollock and Kallis - 2.27 and 2.68 respectively. Hall is also under 3 per over.

Brett Lee goes at 3.50 per over, but he functions purely as a strike bowler. Not every strike bowler is an Ambrose or a McGrath.

 

[Craig]

Then you can say the same thing about Shane Bond. He goes for about as many as Brett Lee (rpo is similar).