Taking Wickets for the Other End

[Uppercut]

It's a bit of a commentators' favourite, so what are people's thoughts on it?

There's no doubt, as is especially obvious when you're at the game, that bowling works best in partnerships. The entire atmosphere changes when the batsman is under pressure at both ends and the crowd are either nervous or excited. You can really see the tension get to batsmen at times.

The problem I have with it is that it only ever comes up when a bowler isn't taking wickets in their own right. Waqar Younis (for example) whizzing the ball past your outside edge at one end helps out the other bowler for sure, but it's only when someone isn't taking many wickets themselves (like Flintoff or Harmison) that people start crediting them for helping other bowlers take wickets.

The other issue is that people often mistake "keeping the batsman under pressure" for "having a good economy rate". Batsmen can be scoring at 2 per over off a bowler, but if they're not going to get out at that end and they know it there's no pressure whatsoever.

Personally I think it's all a bit of a cop-out. Hitting a batsman a few times and making him a bit uncomfortable then leaving it to your team-mates to do the important job of actually getting him out isn't especially worthy of praise. To me it's like the opener who scores a 40 and sees off a good new-ball spell but leaves it to his team-mates in the middle order to put the big runs on the board. It's better than nothing, but it's still a bit below par.

 

[Pothas]

There are definetly two different issues here, economy certainly does not buy wickets at the other end. Mascarenhas is an example of a player that very rarely concedes many runs but quite often he bowls spells of something like 10 overs for 15 runs that do not include a single threatening ball.

There are times when it does happen though although in the case of Flintoff (who the term is often used about) I think it is used as a way of trying to give credit for good solid bowling when it oten has very little to do with the dismissal.

 

[oitoitoi]

There are definetly two different issues here, economy certainly does not buy wickets at the other end. Mascarenhas is an example of a player that very rarely concedes many runs but quite often he bowls spells of something like 10 overs for 15 runs that do not include a single threatening ball.

There are times when it does happen though although in the case of Flintoff (who the term is often used about) I think it is used as a way of trying to give credit for good solid bowling when it oten has very little to do with the dismissal.

Yeah apart from maybe Mcgrath and Pollock there are very few players I'd credit this with. Getting wickets from the other end IMO is basically bowling so threateningl that batsmen know their number's coming up and they try to score rashly against the bloke at the other end. It pretty much never happens in international cricket, and rarely at lower levels. I know when I'm facing a bowler I look to set myself up against him and what the other bowler is doing is very far from my mind as it's totally irrelvant at that moment in time, I'd imagine for an international batsmen it would be ten-fold. In test cricket or any kind of timed cricket you play each ball on it's merit, so what a different bowleer was doing 4 balls ago has no bearing on what you do to this ball.

I remember hearing Andrew Miller saying this about Flintoff in the Carribean series when people were questioning his wicket taking ability, it made me wonder just how bad Miller thought some of Flintoff's team mates must be!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Disagree with it not really being a factor. Bowling well at one end can see the batsman look to score at the other and that's when wickets can fall. Obviously the guy at the other end has to bowl decently, but he can definitely benefit form the batsman being unable to get the guy at the other end away. See Stuart MacGill at the SCG (I think it was) when he took 12 and Warne took 2 or 3...Warne was by far the better bowler of the two and beat the bat repeatedly, but MacGill cashed in.

If one bowler is bowling well then 2 runs an over isn't going to be that easy to get. I'd suggest most batsmen try to target the bowler that he thinks is easiest to get away for run-scoring opportunities. Sometimes the bowler benefits from the guy at the other end bowling a great spell.

 

[Pothas]

Bowling obviously works in parnterships and having a world class bowler at one end it always going to help his teamates and undermine the batsmans confidence but I think the term 'taking wickets at the other end' is a slighlty disingenuous one.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Bowling obviously works in parnterships and having a world class bowler at one end it always going to help his teamates and undermine the batsmans confidence but I think the term 'taking wickets at the other end' is a slighlty disingenuous one.

I think if you set the batsman up and your teammate cashes in then it's apt.

 

[slugger]

Chatfield - Hadlee combo worked well.

 

[honestbharani]

Having a defensive field and bowling in such a way that you can't score too many of a certain bowler can get wickets at the other end, as with the field up, the batsman might try to attack the other bowler and help him get wickets that way. It certainly works that way when you have two bowlers, one of whom is good at bowling to his field and the other who is generally not that threatening but can get wickets when batsmen are trying to attack him..


It happens so often at school/college level that it is not funny. When you really play at a decent level often enough, esp. 3 day cricket, you will certainly realize this.

 

[Uppercut]

Having a defensive field and bowling in such a way that you can't score too many of a certain bowler can get wickets at the other end, as with the field up, the batsman might try to attack the other bowler and help him get wickets that way. It certainly works that way when you have two bowlers, one of whom is good at bowling to his field and the other who is generally not that threatening but can get wickets when batsmen are trying to attack him..


It happens so often at school/college level that it is not funny. When you really play at a decent level often enough, esp. 3 day cricket, you will certainly realize this.

Sure does, that's one-day cricket though, yeah?

 

[Uppercut]

Disagree with it not really being a factor. Bowling well at one end can see the batsman look to score at the other and that's when wickets can fall. Obviously the guy at the other end has to bowl decently, but he can definitely benefit form the batsman being unable to get the guy at the other end away. See Stuart MacGill at the SCG (I think it was) when he took 12 and Warne took 2 or 3...Warne was by far the better bowler of the two and beat the bat repeatedly, but MacGill cashed in.

The issue for me is that ALL good bowlers do it, but only the ones who can't take wickets at their end are credited for it. Warne took countless "wickets for the other end", far more than Harmison or Flintoff ever did, but no one ever credits him for them because he's got enough wickets at his end. Harmy and Flintoff are credited with wickets at the other end as if it's a unique trait no good bowler possesses, and it's only because they can't take many wickets themselves.

 

[Athlai]

Well a player like Oram is a guy who can't earn himself Test wickets yet can keep the batsman under a lot of pressure throughout his spell. Batsman unless they are playing for a draw will alway be put under pressure if they aren't able to score runs.

 

[zaremba]

Disagree with it not really being a factor. Bowling well at one end can see the batsman look to score at the other and that's when wickets can fall. Obviously the guy at the other end has to bowl decently, but he can definitely benefit form the batsman being unable to get the guy at the other end away. See Stuart MacGill at the SCG (I think it was) when he took 12 and Warne took 2 or 3...Warne was by far the better bowler of the two and beat the bat repeatedly, but MacGill cashed in.

Moving down a rung or two (ahem), when I was at University I played a game for my college with another bowler who played for Combined Universities and went on to sign for Warwickshire (a prize for anyone who can work out who he was). We were both legspinners and bowled our 10 overs each in tandem straight through. He bowled beautifully, but it was my very modest offerings that got the wickets, and he didn't get any. This was due to the fact that the batsmen were desperate to attack me due to the pressure created at the other end by this complete genius (as he seemed to us) who was turning the ball 3 feet in either direction.

 

[Jakester1288]

Chatfield - Hadlee combo worked well.

Whilst I didn't see any of that, Warne - McGrath was pretty damn good too!

 

[honestbharani]

Sure does, that's one-day cricket though, yeah?

we have 2 day and 3 day matches at that level here... Not too often but there is one tourney..

 

[honestbharani]

The issue for me is that ALL good bowlers do it, but only the ones who can't take wickets at their end are credited for it. Warne took countless "wickets for the other end", far more than Harmison or Flintoff ever did, but no one ever credits him for them because he's got enough wickets at his end. Harmy and Flintoff are credited with wickets at the other end as if it's a unique trait no good bowler possesses, and it's only because they can't take many wickets themselves.

AWTA... But the thing is, it is understandable why it will be forgotten in the case of a guy who has taken truckloads of wickets himself than a guy who has taken a very less number of wickets but does that "taking wickets for others"...

 

[Son Of Coco]

The issue for me is that ALL good bowlers do it, but only the ones who can't take wickets at their end are credited for it. Warne took countless "wickets for the other end", far more than Harmison or Flintoff ever did, but no one ever credits him for them because he's got enough wickets at his end. Harmy and Flintoff are credited with wickets at the other end as if it's a unique trait no good bowler possesses, and it's only because they can't take many wickets themselves.

I don't think it's fair to say Warne was never credited for creating pressure that saw wickets fall at the other end. And I'd be very surprised if anyone ever credited Flintoff or Harmison with this on days where they've bowled rubbish (Harmy more so than Flintoff).

 

[Hurricane]

Chatfield - Hadlee combo worked well.

This combo did work and chatfield contributed nothing except for economy. I don't recall him beating the bat much and don't ever recall him bowling a bouncer.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think it's fair to say Warne was never credited for creating pressure that saw wickets fall at the other end. And I'd be very surprised if anyone ever credited Flintoff or Harmison with this on days where they've bowled rubbish (Harmy more so than Flintoff).

It's an apologetic remark on Flintoff's below-par bowling record. "Sure, he averages 32, but that's not accounting for all the wickets he took for the other end." Err.. nor does any other bowler's average.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Flintoff would be about the first person in world cricket who you'd want to bowl in partnership with. Murali probably pipping him.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Moving down a rung or two (ahem), when I was at University I played a game for my college with another bowler who played for Combined Universities and went on to sign for Warwickshire (a prize for anyone who can work out who he was). We were both legspinners and bowled our 10 overs each in tandem straight through. He bowled beautifully, but it was my very modest offerings that got the wickets, and he didn't get any. This was due to the fact that the batsmen were desperate to attack me due to the pressure created at the other end by this complete genius (as he seemed to us) who was turning the ball 3 feet in either direction.

If you'd have said off-spinner rather than leg I'd have guessed Loudon.

He did have a slight suggestion of a doosra in his armoury tho...?