Suggestions for top 30 bowlers countdown

[Teja.]

Basically because it is mostly reliant on factors outside the bowlers' control, eg. performance of other bowlers in team, type of bowler, overall strength of bowling attack. If you're Malcolm Marshall your WPI won't be anywhere near as high as a Murali because you are bowling a lower percentage of team's overs and the other bowlers in your team are taking more wickets.

It might shake the rankings up a bit, but not in a way that rewards the better bowlers.

It sounds intuitive but I'm not sure about this with respect to fast bowlers because their workload has soft lower and upper limits per average match regardless of bowling attack. This effect is also counterbalanced by bowlers getting more wickets due to pressure from the other end.

As an example, despite having the most competition for wickets in comparison to every other pacer in history, Marshall's wpm is only bettered by Steyn, Hadlee and Lillee among the 56 fast bowlers who have taken more than 200 test wickets despite there being several ATG bowlers roughly as good as him in much worse bowling attacks.

Looking over the entire list of fast bowlers, SR seems to have a much stronger co-relation to wpm than the strength of the other bowlers in the attack. Even the SR co-relation is not super strong though.

This is different for spinners who can just bowl forever and have a different role in the team anyway IMO.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It sounds intuitive but I'm not sure about this with respect to fast bowlers because their workload has soft lower and upper limits per average match regardless of bowling attack. This effect is also counterbalanced by bowlers getting more wickets due to pressure from the other end.

Yes this is the obvious counter point, but it's very speculative and I don't think it holds much weight when you're looking at the best of the best. You won't convince me that Marshall or McGrath's stats would have suffered if they had less bowling support.

Whereas the effects of these factors on WPI is more self-evident. I don't think "well there might be a tangential counter effect that we are making up for by including WPI" is a good enough reason to include a factor that in itself shouldn't have a place for any logical reason.

Especially illogical to include WPI as well as mixing up fast bowlers and spinners, if you're looking at getting as "accurate" a rating as possible. For the purpose of just a fun exercise though I guess anything that mixes things up will be interesting.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Is there a way to include "Fielding support quality" points..? Its an important factor.
Without that, this exercise is a pointless one.

 

[sunilz]

Is there a way to include "Fielding support quality" points..? Its an important factor.
Without that, this exercise is a pointless one.

What about "Home umpiring support" and "ball tampering and Murray mints support" point.

 

[Gob]

What about "Home umpiring support" and "ball tampering and Murray mints support" point.

Sunilz putting some dirt in the eyes

 

[miscer]

Basically because it is mostly reliant on factors outside the bowlers' control, eg. performance of other bowlers in team, type of bowler, overall strength of bowling attack. If you're Malcolm Marshall your WPI won't be anywhere near as high as a Murali because you are bowling a lower percentage of team's overs and the other bowlers in your team are taking more wickets.

It might shake the rankings up a bit, but not in a way that rewards the better bowlers.

Murali can bowl more partly because he is a spin bowler who doesn't need a run up. That is a feature of spin bowling that allows a higher WPI. How do you factor that in?

 

[venkyrenga]

The more l think of it the more complicated it seems.
If SR is important for bowlers, why is that metric (i.e balls faced per dismissal) non-existent for batsmen?

 

[TheJediBrah]

The more l think of it the more complicated it seems.
If SR is important for bowlers, why is that metric (i.e balls faced per dismissal) non-existent for batsmen?

Batsman's primary job is to score runs, bowlers primary job is to take wickets. Best way to stop batsman making runs is to get them out.

 

[honestbharani]

why is that metric (i.e balls faced per dismissal) non-existent for batsmen?

I did tell you it would be a better one to factor than just SR...

 

[venkyrenga]

Batsman's primary job is to score runs, bowlers primary job is to take wickets. Best way to stop batsman making runs is to get them out.

Then why is ER a metric for bowlers?

 

[Line and Length]

I would like to see some consideration given to the batting position of wickets. Some bowlers were quite adept at cleaning up tails - quite often after all the hard work had been done in removing the recognised batsmen.

 

[venkyrenga]

I would like to see some consideration given to the batting position of wickets. Some bowlers were quite adept at cleaning up tails - quite often after all the hard work had been done in removing the recognised batsmen.

Agreed, but how do we do that? Cricinfo doesn't have that option.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I did tell you it would be a better one to factor than just SR...

Using both makes no sense though. You have to choose one and not the other or they would cancel each other out.

Then why is ER a metric for bowlers?

It's just a function of statistics. Limited use in Test cricket IMO, more valuable in limited-overs

 

[ankitj]

Is there a way to include "Fielding support quality" points..? Its an important factor.
Without that, this exercise is a pointless one.

This is a meme now, isn't it

 

[venkyrenga]

IMO, the methodology for bowlers' ranking should be the mirror image of the method we use for batsmen. The reason we consider the likes of Sachin and Pointing as better than the likes of Dravid and Kallis is that they are more fluent in scoring runs and hence more dominating. Likewise, a bowler with good ER keeps the pressure on and does not let the batsmen dominate him even when he is not taking wickets.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Having said that, ER still has some place in Test bowling. Even if you strike faster, leaking runs can lead to a loss of game momentum, through more confident/form batsmen, release of pressure and also very importantly being able to keep a tight field. If you are going at 4rpo it's hard to keep slips in place and maintain pressure on the batsmen. Having a guy maintaining a low ER keeps pressure which can force a mistake from a frustrated bat, and also means you're more likely to have slips there to catch it.

So yeah both ER and SR matter, and yes they are contradictory . . . this is why average is the best stat to judge off, as it already balances these out and gives you a neat simple number out of it. If I were looking to make an adjusted list like this I wouldn't bother with SR and ER much, if at all, because average alone is just a better measurement. That would be pretty boring though.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

What about "Home umpiring support" and "ball tampering and Murray mints support" point.

Good points..
Quality addition to top order wicket points, wickets excluding minnows.. Etc

 

[venkyrenga]

People who say SR is important for bowlers, would they agree if one said points should be awarded for batsmen for facing more deliveries? If they don't then I think they are contradicting.

 

[trundler]

A bowler who is better at getting top order batsmen out should be rewarded but the trouble with taking percentages is that if you have to bowlers equally adept at taking top order wickets yet one also blows away the tail more often, that bowler would be penalised as he would have a lower percentage of top order wickets despite being as good at that. So WPI would have to be factored in some way and if era/conditions/bowling strength are taken into account it's a useful measure. Lotta work though.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

This is a meme now, isn't it

So, what is the point of having good fielders?

Their purpose is to help bowlers (team) achieve better stats.