South Africa can topple Australia at top of LG ICC ODI Championship for first time

[Richard]

Err... fingerspinners are typically more economical than wristspinners. 'Tis fact.

And... hence the typical fingerspinner is a better ODI bowler than the typical wristspinner... no?

 

[Richard]

Even if the south africans manage to get the no.1 spot[if aussies lose to the black caps] i don't think they even deserve it, i say this because there last 17 odi games have been at home [baring CT where also they won 2 games and lost 2 games]. They have beaten teams like india, zim,aus[3-2], and pakistan. Its a fact that sub-continent sides always struggle is south african conditions.

Tell me something...

Has any credit to South Africa ever come forth from your keyboard?

 

[Dick Rockett]

Seems a fair enough comment. Generally speaking, finger spinning tends to be easier to control, while wrist spinners are more likely to do more with the ball but can struggle in terms of accuracy.

Perhaps, but I don't know about passing it off as "fact", or using it as a reason why Dan Vettori has a better economy rate than Brad Hogg.

 

[silentstriker]

And... hence the typical fingerspinner is a better ODI bowler than the typical wristspinner... no?

Except I want my spinner to take wickets, not merely be economical (but I think we've had this discussion before ).

 

[PhoenixFire]

And... hence the typical fingerspinner is a better ODI bowler than the typical wristspinner... no?

Depensd what role you want the spinner to take......

 

[Dick Rockett]

Except I want my spinner to take wickets

Which Vettori does. I realise you're not exactly talking about him, but it was the Vettori/Hogg comparison that got this discussion going.

 

[Richard]

Except I want my spinner to take wickets, not merely be economical (but I think we've had this discussion before ).

No reason not to have it again.

Only the top wristspinners take wickets in ODIs, and top wristspinners are exceptionally rare.

 

[Richard]

Depensd what role you want the spinner to take......

Well, most people with any sense want all their ODI bowlers to be economical. IMO there's no place in a ODI for a spinner who goes for 4.5-an-over and more and gets the odd wicket in the middle of the innings, enough to maintain a 30-33 sort of average.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, most people with any sense want all their ODI bowlers to be economical. IMO there's no place in a ODI for a spinner who goes for 4.5-an-over and more and gets the odd wicket in the middle of the innings, enough to maintain a 30-33 sort of average.

You can call me senseless because you can go 5-5.5 an over but if you take two wickets, you're doing fine in my book. And I don't want my bowler to maintain 30-33 sort of average either. Powar (in his young career) averages 27 and an econ rate of 4.58. Which is about right for me.

 

[Richard]

IMO that's acceptance of mediocrity. Powar's average, from all I've seen, is likely to go up, but an ER of 4.58 is not that good. It's not disastrous either, but it's certainly not good.

As for 10-55-2... that's a good spell? Yes, you are senseless, then. If you go for 55 off 10 you've got to take 5 or 6 wickets to justify that for me.

Anyhow, it all depends. If you take 2 wickets at the end of an innings, that's essentially worthless. As, often, are wickets in the middle, especially if they don't go hand-in-hand with tying-down the run-rate. The only time you can forgive expensiveness because wickets are taken (and they'd damn well better be taken with wicket-taking deliveries - don't expect me to give credit to a bowler who goes for 36 off 6 and has 3 Long-Hops slammed into the hands of fielders) is if those wickets fall at the start. Eg, Liam Plunkett in the Second Final. But that's pretty rare. Hence, to me, wickets by-and-large aren't too important in ODIs.

 

[PhoenixFire]

As for 10-55-2... that's a good spell? Yes, you are senseless, then. If you go for 55 off 10 you've got to take 5 or 6 wickets to justify that for me.

So you want your ODI spinner to average 10, right............

 

[Richard]

He can average 100 for all I care if he goes for 4.09-an-over.

(FOR EXAMPLE!!!!!!!)

 

[Dick Rockett]

I have to agree with SS here, to a certain extent. With scores in ODIs getting higher all the time, an E/R of 4.5 is quite good. That's only an innings score of 225, remember. I wouldn't be confident of that score being defended in this day and age.

The days of the <4 RPO career bowler are gone I think.

 

[Richard]

SM Pollock
GD McGrath
M Muralitharan

In any case, in the 1990s and 2000s a ER <4-an-over has always been the preserve of the greats. It's the 4 to 4.4 region that counts IMO, and that hasn't changed much since WC92, other than that there are currently a lot of poor bowlers around. The good ones are still doing as well as they ever did.

 

[PhoenixFire]

SM Pollock
GD McGrath
M Muralitharan

You have just stated 3 extremes, they are the only current bowlers with > RPO Economy rates.

 

[Richard]

So how many others were there between, say, 1990 and 2000?

Wasim Akram and Fanie de Villiers are the only ones I can think of.

In any case - that was merely in response to 16toS's comment that "The days of the <4 RPO career bowler are gone I think".

 

[shortpitched713]

Well, most people with any sense want all their ODI bowlers to be economical. IMO there's no place in a ODI for a spinner who goes for 4.5-an-over and more and gets the odd wicket in the middle of the innings, enough to maintain a 30-33 sort of average.

Well nowadays considering that the average run rate is around 5.5...

 

[shortpitched713]

SM Pollock
GD McGrath
M Muralitharan

And guess what, all of them have their ERs deflated by playing a significant part of their careers in an era with less aggressive batting.

 

[Dick Rockett]

SM Pollock
GD McGrath
M Muralitharan

I realise there are still some, but obviously their numbers have dwindled. How that came to be isn't really relevant to the point I was making, which is still that 4.5 is a respectable economy rate in the modern game.

 

[Richard]

Well nowadays considering that the average run rate is around 5.5...

Because there are so many poor bowlers around at the moment.

And guess what, all of them have their ERs deflated by playing a significant part of their careers in an era with less aggressive batting.

Unless I'm much mistaken all 3 have ERs below 4-an-over in more recent times (the last 5 years, for instance) too.

Incidentally: 1996 saw less aggressive batting than 2006?