Instagram

Pakistan vs Australia 2014 (UAE)

Sohail Speaks Ponty''s Blog Fountain's Pen

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread: Strike Rates Represent The Best Attribute For A Bowler... Discuss

Results 81 to 160 of 214
  1. #81
    Debut
    Jan 2009
    Runs
    12,652
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    agree we will have to agree to disagree... its rarely ever black and white

    I agree there may be an assumption there (a very realistic one)... whereas yours was specific to a specific scenario.



    But one simple question.... Imagine you are the captain... 9 times out of 10.

    Would you take getting a wicket 3 balls quicker with your best bowler who you know has a limited number of overs he can bowl in a day and giving 3 runs away in the process.
    Yes if it the wkt was going to take 12 balls more id give away three runs to get a wkt 12 balls earlier (because in the 12 ball period you are likely to concede more than 3 runs as it is) but not for the sake of three balls i wouldnt concede 3 runs


    If pakistan cricket is to move forward they need to stop going back

  2. #82
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaz View Post
    Yes if it the wkt was going to take 12 balls more id give away three runs to get a wkt 12 balls earlier (because in the 12 ball period you are likely to concede more than 3 runs as it is) but not for the sake of three balls i wouldnt concede 3 runs
    at what point do YOU (its all opinion) think it balances out...

    ie how many balls would you feel is equal to 3 runs?


    Bearing in mind that the other bowlers bowling for your side are worse than you....

    1 Best bowler
    2 Second best bowler
    3 Third best bowler
    4 Fourth best bowler
    Last edited by MR__KHAN__JI; 6th May 2012 at 13:40.

  3. #83
    Debut
    Jan 2009
    Runs
    12,652
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    at what point do YOU (its all opinion) think it balances out...

    ie how many balls would you feel is equal to 3 runs?


    Bearing in mind that the other bowlers bowling for your side are worse than you....

    1 Best bowler
    2 Second best bowler
    3 Third best bowler
    4 Fourth best bowler

    I guess about 7-8 balls considering most test bowlers avge 2.5-3.00 runs per over


    If pakistan cricket is to move forward they need to stop going back

  4. #84
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaz View Post
    I guess about 7-8 balls considering most test bowlers avge 2.5-3.00 runs per over
    How do u get from 3rpo to 7 balls?

    And also what about the fact that your other bowlers will have to bowl extra balls and they will have an economy worse than 3. Only the best bowlers have an economy of 3.

  5. #85
    Debut
    Jan 2009
    Runs
    12,652
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    How do u get from 3rpo to 7 balls?

    And also what about the fact that your other bowlers will have to bowl extra balls and they will have an economy worse than 3. Only the best bowlers have an economy of 3.
    Some of the very best bowlers will have low economy rates - the likes of mcgrath, ambrose and wasim avged 2.3-2.6 runs per over

    The best strike bowlers the likes of steyn, waqar are more expensive avging 3.2-3.4 runs per over

    A decent steady fast medium like ryan harris or broad avges out at 2.8 - 2.9 runs per over

    So theres no surprise when i say a decent bowler avges 3 runs per 7 balls
    Last edited by Zaz; 6th May 2012 at 16:29.


    If pakistan cricket is to move forward they need to stop going back

  6. #86
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaz View Post
    Some of your best bowlers will have low economy rates - the likes of mcgrath, ambrose and wasim avged 2.3-2.6 runs per over

    Your strike bowlers the likes of steyn, waqar are more expensive avging 3.2-3.4 runs per over

    A decent steady fast medium like ryan harris or broad avges out at 2.8 - 2.9 runs per over

    So theres no surprise when i say a decent bowler avges 3 runs per 7 balls
    In test matches i'd say the range is 2.8-4....

    You have to bear in mind that you are trying to avoid the bowler going at 4 an over bowling too much.

    In summary - I think that perhaps 3 runs and 5 balls is a happy equilibrium...?

    But IT IS BETTER to get these wickets quicker... as long as it doesnt cost you too much.


    ie rank by strike rate...... but relegate a bowler if his average is more than 3 runs above the "standard".


    In ODIs the range is larger and hence the importance of strike rate would be MORE important....

    The range is 4rpo(best) and 6rpo(worst) bowlers....

  7. #87
    Debut
    Jun 2010
    Runs
    4,997
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    1) Your initial sentence is where the logic falls... They are not analogous.

    2) Your second example is only relevant if i was saying SR is the SOLE measure of a bowlers quality.



    Please utilise my initial example the 3 balls 3 runs one. Would you take it?
    A bowler with a low average is also likely to take a wicket ( or give no runs away) under the same scenario. That is why he has a low average in the first place.


    "This one doesn't take the cake, it takes the bakery" - Gavaskar

  8. #88
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianWillow View Post
    A bowler with a low average is also likely to take a wicket ( or give no runs away) under the same scenario. That is why he has a low average in the first place.
    Low average does not necessarily mean he will take a wicket quicker...

    He wouldnt in the scenario described if his strike rate is worse...

  9. #89
    Debut
    Dec 2007
    Runs
    27,273
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What about a guy with a strike rate of 80 and an average of 25? He would be an awesome bowler to have.

    Now reverse the equation and tell me that is an awesome bowler to have.

  10. #90
    Debut
    Mar 2012
    Runs
    188
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Average is much better. Frankly i (or anybody for that matter) will prefer opposition team all out for 220 in 85 overs than a team getting all out for 300 in 70 overs.
    That is average vs strike rate!!
    Even if the difference is miniscule lets say 220 in 85 overs to 240 in 70 overs, I would still prefer 220 in 85 overs. Why gift the opposition 20 runs?

  11. #91
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Random Aussie View Post
    What about a guy with a strike rate of 80 and an average of 25? He would be an awesome bowler to have.

    Now reverse the equation and tell me that is an awesome bowler to have.
    You didnt answer my 3 ball 3 run scenario.... RA - you of all people should know that lurching to extremes isnt the right way to look at things.

    Lets deal with the majority of cases and then we can come on to the extreme.

    How many runs would you give up to get a wicket for your strike bowler 3 balls earlier?

    Bearing in mind..

    1) He has a finite number of balls/overs he can bowl
    2) The other bowlers will be worse than him
    3) In between the 3 balls he is likely to face a different (worse) bowler.

  12. #92
    Debut
    Mar 2011
    Runs
    152
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    why would a captain bring on someone with the thought he will get a wicket in 3 balls anyway? Thats more extreme since no one has a SR of 3????
    if its all made up fantasy then i would prefer the bowler who gets a wicket in 5 balls for 2 runs over the one who gets a wicket in 3 balls for 3 runs

  13. #93
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by justbetter View Post
    why would a captain bring on someone with the thought he will get a wicket in 3 balls anyway? Thats more extreme since no one has a SR of 3????
    if its all made up fantasy then i would prefer the bowler who gets a wicket in 5 balls for 2 runs over the one who gets a wicket in 3 balls for 3 runs
    Not a strike rate of 3... but a strike rate of 3 batter than the others.

    I'm not sure you understand the point - you may need to read previous posts more clearly.

  14. #94
    Debut
    Mar 2005
    Runs
    5,491
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Khan Ji, I suppose you are trying to support the case of Waqar being better than Wasim and a bunch of others, given your other thread.

    Fact is, there's a reason people look at averages foremost and then consider other factors.

  15. #95
    Debut
    Mar 2005
    Runs
    5,491
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You have look at a bowler like Warne. His S/r would be far lower than numerous bowlers in history....does that mean that Warne is not a premier bowler? Of course not. Any team would take a spinner like Warne, regardless of the pitch conditions.

  16. #96
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blistering Barnacle View Post
    You have look at a bowler like Warne. His S/r would be far lower than numerous bowlers in history....does that mean that Warne is not a premier bowler? Of course not. Any team would take a spinner like Warne, regardless of the pitch conditions.
    A spinner always takes longer to take a wicket than a strike bowler....

    There is a reason they are not called strike bowlers.

    You need spinners to come on when the strike bowlers need a rest.

    They cant bowl for that long.

    Spinners can bowl for longer without getting tired.

  17. #97
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blistering Barnacle View Post
    Khan Ji, I suppose you are trying to support the case of Waqar being better than Wasim and a bunch of others, given your other thread.

    Fact is, there's a reason people look at averages foremost and then consider other factors.
    Not particularly..

    I genuinely think that getting a wicket quicker is better (as long as you don't give too many runs away)...

    It's 100% clear.


    Ps: you should never conclude that one player is better than another based on a stat.

  18. #98
    Debut
    Jun 2009
    Runs
    1,832
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Strike rate is a very important measure for a Test match, it just goes on to show that a bowler with better strike has an ability to run through the opponents. Should it be considered as the only criteria to look at a bowler's ability? Definitely not, is it as important as AVG or ECON, imo, its more important than both but on its own, it doesn't tell the true story.

  19. #99
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ecstatic_freak View Post
    Strike rate is a very important measure for a Test match, it just goes on to show that a bowler with better strike has an ability to run through the opponents. Should it be considered as the only criteria to look at a bowler's ability? Definitely not, is it as important as AVG or ECON, imo, its more important than both but on its own, it doesn't tell the true story.
    It's even more important for an ODI or T20... Cos a wicket stops MORE runs being scored in relative terms.

  20. #100
    Debut
    Jun 2009
    Runs
    1,832
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    It's even more important for an ODI or T20... Cos a wicket stops MORE runs being scored in relative terms.
    Its touch and go for ODIs and T20s where bowling is more defensive than Test matches but you are right in assuming that "strike rate" is a very important measure for any kind of bowler.

  21. #101
    Debut
    Mar 2005
    Runs
    5,491
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    A spinner always takes longer to take a wicket than a strike bowler....

    There is a reason they are not called strike bowlers.

    You need spinners to come on when the strike bowlers need a rest.

    They cant bowl for that long.

    Spinners can bowl for longer without getting tired.
    there's not much point in arguing with someone who refuses to acknowledge the reality of the situation.

    Using terms like "Strike bowler" when that could equally apply to Warne or Ajmal in an ODI is really silly.

    Let me just put it this way....Irfan Pathan and Shane Warne have a very similar s/r. Are they as about as good as each other?

    Irfan Pathan in fact has a much better s/r than Kumble, an ATG spin bowler. Kumble himself has a s/r only a little better than Abdul Razzaq.

    Now that should tell you something about judging bowlers on s/r primarily.

    If you still don't get it, well, there's not much point in anyone trying to persuade you otherwise in this regard.

  22. #102
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blistering Barnacle View Post
    there's not much point in arguing with someone who refuses to acknowledge the reality of the situation.

    Using terms like "Strike bowler" when that could equally apply to Warne or Ajmal in an ODI is really silly.

    Let me just put it this way....Irfan Pathan and Shane Warne have a very similar s/r. Are they as about as good as each other?

    Irfan Pathan in fact has a much better s/r than Kumble, an ATG spin bowler. Kumble himself has a s/r only a little better than Abdul Razzaq.

    Now that should tell you something about judging bowlers on s/r primarily.

    If you still don't get it, well, there's not much point in anyone trying to persuade you otherwise in this regard.
    You are assuming I look JUST at strike rate.

    I am simply saying its the primary tool.

  23. #103
    Debut
    Mar 2005
    Runs
    5,491
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    You are assuming I look JUST at strike rate.

    I am simply saying its the primary tool.
    And I just demonstrated that it's not the primary tool.

  24. #104
    Debut
    Mar 2005
    Runs
    5,491
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That example I gave is why people tend to look at averages and wickets taken rather than s/r first and foremost.

  25. #105
    Debut
    May 2012
    Runs
    127
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Averages are definitely more important than Strike Rate and the first thing you look at for a bowler. Why? Simply coz in test cricket the main concern is bowling out the opposition as cheaply as possible. Time does come into it in various situations, but the main aim is definitely to bowl as side out as cheaply as possible.

    The bowler with the lower average and higher will in most situations be better for the team than the one with the higher average and lower strike rate.

    Take Ambrose and Waqar, both legends of cricket. Ambrose averages 21 and strikes at 54.5. Waqar averages 23.5 and strikes at 43. Who would I rather have overall? Ambrose

    On average Ambrose will bowl a team out for 210 and it will take 91 overs. Waqar will bowl a team out for 235 and it will take 71 overs.

    On a smaller scale Ambrose will take 5 wickets for 105 in 45 overs.
    Waqar will take 5 wickets for 118 in 35 overs.
    If Ambrose was to bowl 35 overs he would have roughly 4-84.

    As a captain I'd rather have the bowler who concedes less runs per wicket. The main situation where Waqar is preferred is when you are comfortably ahead of the game, the opposition has no hope in chasing your total and you have limited time to bowl them out. The other situation you would prefer Waqar would be if the bowlers at the other end are complete trash and leaking runs without taking wickets. Otheriwse you would prefer Ambrose.

  26. #106
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You just don't get it....

    Waqar would get the batsman 12 balls earlier giving 2 extra runs away...

    I would take that any day of the week.


    That gives me 12 extra balls from my 10 ever spell to get more batsmen out before they start feasting on my trashy bowlers at the other end.


    Think about it. Really think. Then reply.
    Last edited by MR__KHAN__JI; 7th May 2012 at 17:45.

  27. #107
    Debut
    Jul 2011
    Runs
    4,007
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    A spinner always takes longer to take a wicket than a strike bowler....

    There is a reason they are not called strike bowlers.

    You need spinners to come on when the strike bowlers need a rest.

    They cant bowl for that long.

    Spinners can bowl for longer without getting tired.
    Okay, I understand the problem.

    You're talking about strike bowlers. But your initial question is about bowlers in general. In general, a lower average bowler is better, because honestly, you should have enough time to take 20 wickets regardless.

    Average is the most important for a bowler in general terms. McGrath is a better bowler than Steyn. Steyn is a better strike bowler than McGrath.

    All in all while SR is important, its not the most important factor for a bowler.

    Lets take it to an extreme strike rate of 10. Averaging 40. 40 runs per every 10 balls bowled is terrible. Would I have him in the team? Hell no, he may pick wickets faster than anyone ever in the history of the game, but he'll give up 200 runs by himself in securing a five-fer.

    Take a 25 average bowler with 80 SR, 15 less average, 8x as much strike rate. He's good, he'll get a fiver for 125 runs on average. He's saved my team 75 runs there in taking the same amount of wickets.

    What's crucial is this, a smaller change in average for the better makes him good, despite having 8x as much SR. It implies that average, as it changes, is far more influential than SR.

    And as to your example with Wasim and Waqar, I could care less. You're dealing with tiny changes. But the only reason the comparison is being made is because Waqar had a bloody good average, otherwise this would be irrelevant. Average is still the first thing you're looking at, the first thing setting the greats from the nongreats. I'll even say that Waqar's stats are better, but you're arguing over a .06 change in test average. If the average was below fractions of 1 different, they're pretty much the same. You can look at SR then. Don't make it sound like you looked at SR first.
    Last edited by Ruri; 7th May 2012 at 17:58.

  28. #108
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I could use the same extreme...

    Average 20 but strike rate of 100.... It'll take him forever to get any wickets....,

    What use is he.

    The extremes dont work for either....

    And you shouldn't look at any one in isolation.

    But getting the wickets quicker by giving away a reasonable number of extra runs is better.


    Forget extremes....

    Look at the waqar ambrose example.... Which would u prefer?
    Last edited by MR__KHAN__JI; 7th May 2012 at 18:03.

  29. #109
    Debut
    Jul 2011
    Runs
    4,007
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post

    But getting the wickets quicker by giving away a reasonable number of extra runs is better.
    Okay, I'll agree to that. But read the final paragraph of earlier post.

    Point:

    You're never going to call a bowler great in any case with an average over 30. Yes or no?

    That's the minimum, that's the bar. I would take the 20 average 100 SR, call him good. But I will never call a bowler even decent with an average over 35 regardless of low strike rate.

    The only reason SR can be taken into account, is if they already have good averages.

  30. #110
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    11,711
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    I could use the same extreme...

    Average 20 but strike rate of 100.... It'll take him forever to get any wickets....,

    What use is he.

    The extremes dont work for either....

    And you shouldn't look at any one in isolation.

    But getting the wickets quicker by giving away a reasonable number of extra runs is better.


    Forget extremes....

    Look at the waqar ambrose example.... Which would u prefer?
    The guy who averages 20 but a strike rate of 100 will be useful. He'll give away just 20 runs per wicket. Let's say a bowling team composed of five of these bowlers averaging 20, SR of 100. That will mean they will limit and bowl out the opposition for around 200 runs on average. Which is very good. Even if it took a long time to bowl them out. Because if the lead is only 200, your batsmen can chase that lead down in a quicker time (as there are less runs to get) and put on a lead.

    You can never look at either strike rate or economy separately (especially in tests). You could be good in one of them but still be a bad bowler. But looking solely at averages, yes you can. Because it is a representation of both strike rate and average, and the most important thing how many runs on average you'll let the batsmen get before they are bowled out. Which is the main aim of a bowling team, bowling out the opposition for a low total.

  31. #111
    Debut
    Jul 2011
    Runs
    4,007
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As to Waqar and Curtly, they're close. Curtly has a godly average, but I like looking at wickets taken per innings after averages are relatively close and I'd pick Waqar.

    Point is, SR is important if and only if Averages are met.

  32. #112
    Debut
    Jul 2011
    Runs
    4,007
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ads101 View Post
    The guy who averages 20 but a strike rate of 100 will be useful. He'll give away just 20 runs per wicket. Let's say a bowling team composed of five of these bowlers averaging 20, SR of 100. That will mean they will limit and bowl out the opposition for around 200 runs on average. Which is very good. Even if it took a long time to bowl them out. Because if the lead is only 200, your batsmen can chase that lead down in a quicker time (as there are less runs to get) and put on a lead.

    You can never look at either strike rate or economy separately (especially in tests). You could be good in one of them but still be a bad bowler. But looking solely at averages, yes you can. Because it is a representation of both strike rate and average, and the most important thing how many runs on average you'll let the batsmen get before they are bowled out. Which is the main aim of a bowling team, bowling out the opposition for a low total.
    Exactly, perfectly put.

  33. #113
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruri View Post
    Okay, I'll agree to that. But read the final paragraph of earlier post.

    Point:

    You're never going to call a bowler great in any case with an average over 30. Yes or no?

    That's the minimum, that's the bar. I would take the 20 average 100 SR, call him good. But I will never call a bowler even decent with an average over 35 regardless of low strike rate.

    The only reason SR can be taken into account, is if they already have good averages.
    Yes.

    I agree that there is a "fair" compensation for getting a wicket 5 balls quicker...

    But I would rank by strike rate as you have a finite number of balls you can bowl... And then drop someone down if their average is very bad..., ie the amount of runs they give away to get a wicket quicker... Made it "not worthwhile." ( eg Brett lee... )


    Ranking by average..., just rewards mediocre bowlers keeping it tight and picking up a wicket here or there....





    In terms of an upper limit on AVE... I would also have an upper limit on SR in your case....

    Averaging 20 but never getting a wicket would be a waste of the new ball...
    Last edited by MR__KHAN__JI; 7th May 2012 at 18:14.

  34. #114
    Debut
    Jul 2011
    Runs
    4,007
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    Yes.

    I agree that there is a "fair" compensation for getting a wicket 5 balls quicker...

    But I would rank by strike rate as you have a finite number of balls you can bowl... And then drop someone down if their average is very bad..., ie the amount of runs they give away to get a wicket quicker... Made it "not worthwhile." ( eg Brett lee... )


    Ranking by average..., just rewards mediocre bowlers keeping it tight and picking up a wicket here or there....
    Average is the deciding factor there. And theres nothing wrong with bowling tight. That's a style of bowling, by working over a batsman, not blowing them out. McGrath rode it to the top with a nagging line, it's not like his reverse swinging yorker was what got him the highest amount of Pace bowler wickets in the game.

  35. #115
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruri View Post
    Average is the deciding factor there. And theres nothing wrong with bowling tight. That's a style of bowling, by working over a batsman, not blowing them out. McGrath rode it to the top with a nagging line, it's not like his reverse swinging yorker was what got him the highest amount of Pace bowler wickets in the game.
    But the vice versa would also be true if ranking by AVE... So that's not a valid point.


    And I would take a Steyn over McGrath.


    McGrath had warne and others to back him up.... Which makes him look better.


    A better example is Pollock.

    Low average... But high strike rate... Useful but not a Steyn. Steyn every time.

  36. #116
    Debut
    Jul 2011
    Runs
    4,007
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As to your sort by SR then look at average to see if good:

    http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/con...ds/283274.html

    That's your list of best bowlers. Lohmann, Bond, Steyn, Barnes, Finn....

    Luckily most of us look at wickets taken in career -> average -> other factors.

  37. #117
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruri View Post
    As to your sort by SR then look at average to see if good:

    http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/con...ds/283274.html

    That's your list of best bowlers. Lohmann, Bond, Steyn, Barnes, Finn....

    Luckily most of us look at wickets taken in career -> average -> other factors.
    On iPhone so can't see detail.

    Sort the best bowlers (ie 300 wickets) by both AVE and SR... And you will see something.



    I think you are being unfair in your conclusion as you are assuming SR is everything. [[SR is not everything.... Just the most important]]

    I rate Finn extremely highly precisely cos of his strike rate.... He should be in the side..., the name of the game is to take 20 wickets!!!!

    Steyn and bond are amongst the best. Bond just got hit with injuries so didn't have a long career!!!

    Barnes and lohmonn were special.... Back in the day!!
    Last edited by MR__KHAN__JI; 7th May 2012 at 18:25.

  38. #118
    Debut
    Jul 2011
    Runs
    4,007
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    But the vice versa would also be true if ranking by AVE... So that's not a valid point.


    And I would take a Steyn over McGrath.


    McGrath had warne and others to back him up.... Which makes him look better.


    A better example is Pollock.

    Low average... But low strike rate... Useful but not a Steyn.
    But higher SR is more forgivable after sorting average. The average needs to be decent, no sub-30 average has exceeded 119 SR, and for those who played 20 or more matches it was generally lower than 80.

    I'd take McGrath. I love Steyn and dislike McGrath, but McGrath made it last.

  39. #119
    Debut
    Jul 2011
    Runs
    4,007
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    On iPhone so can't see detail.

    Sort the best bowlers (ie 300 wickets) by both AVE and SR... And you will see something.



    I think you are being unfair in your conclusion as you are assuming SR is everything. [[SR is not everything.... Just the most important]]

    I rate Finn extremely highly precisely cos of his strike rate.... He should be in the side..., the name of the game is to take 20 wickets!!!!

    Steyn and bond are amongst the best. Bond just got hit with injuries so didn't have a long career!!!

    Barnes and lohmonn were special.... Back in the day!!

    And you can take 20 wickets and give less runs. 450 overs is a lot of time for 4 innings.

    Average takes SR and Economy into account and is the telling statistic.

  40. #120
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruri View Post
    But higher SR is more forgivable after sorting average. The average needs to be decent, no sub-30 average has exceeded 119 SR, and for those who played 20 or more matches it was generally lower than 80.

    I'd take McGrath. I love Steyn and dislike McGrath, but McGrath made it last.
    Ignore lastage.

    Assume they played the same number of games...

    Who would u take?



    Id say opposite.... Most of the best average around 21-25... Hence a diffetential of SR by 0-15 makes a HUGE difference..., we are talking getting a wicket Up to 2.5 overs quicker but giving up to 4 runs....

    I know which I would take!!!

  41. #121
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruri View Post
    And you can take 20 wickets and give less runs. 450 overs is a lot of time for 4 innings.

    Average takes SR and Economy into account and is the telling statistic.
    I am saying SR is MUCH MORE important than RPO...

    AVE gives both an equal weighting...

    HENCE... SR > AVE as a stat.
    Last edited by MR__KHAN__JI; 7th May 2012 at 18:40.

  42. #122
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    I am saying SR is MUCH MORE important than RPO...

    AVE gives both an equal weighting...

    HENCE... SR > AVE
    I think this post sums it up quite nicely....

  43. #123
    Debut
    Jan 2009
    Runs
    12,652
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    On iPhone so can't see detail.

    Sort the best bowlers (ie 300 wickets) by both AVE and SR... And you will see something.



    I think you are being unfair in your conclusion as you are assuming SR is everything. [[SR is not everything.... Just the most important]]

    I rate Finn extremely highly precisely cos of his strike rate.... He should be in the side..., the name of the game is to take 20 wickets!!!!

    Steyn and bond are amongst the best. Bond just got hit with injuries so didn't have a long career!!!

    Barnes and lohmonn were special.... Back in the day!!
    Wrong, the name of the game is to bowl out the opposition cheaper than they bowl you out - hence avge is the best deciding actor

    Cricket is not about which team gets bowled out in the least number of deliveries


    If pakistan cricket is to move forward they need to stop going back

  44. #124
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wrong.

    Getting 20 wickets is crucial.. As quick as possible with the least number of runs.

    The key is getting the biggest bang for your buck from your strike bowlers before the rubbish Bowlers come on and get bullied... Hence increasing overall RPO.

  45. #125
    Debut
    Jan 2009
    Runs
    12,652
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    Wrong.

    Getting 20 wickets is crucial.. As quick as possible with the least number of runs.

    The key is getting the biggest bang for your buck from your strike bowlers before the rubbish Bowlers come on and get bullied... Hence increasing overall RPO.
    No, that may be the case in odis but not in tests

    In tests theirs no restriction on the number of balls a bowler can bowl hence the key is not strike rate but bowling the opposition out for less than they bowled you hence avge


    If pakistan cricket is to move forward they need to stop going back

  46. #126
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaz View Post
    No, that may be the case in odis but not in tests

    In tests theirs no restriction on the number of balls a bowler can bowl hence the key is not strike rate but bowling the opposition out for less than they bowled you hence avge
    Even in tests your strike bowler has a limited number of overs when he is at his best....

    But agree that it's more prevalent in ODIs.
    Last edited by MR__KHAN__JI; 7th May 2012 at 20:19.

  47. #127
    Debut
    Oct 2005
    Venue
    Sharjah/Toronto
    Runs
    1,766
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    "S/R is important if and only if average is met" or vice versa isn't a very strong argument. Extreme cases don't ever exist, so why bother use those in an argument? A bowler with a good S/R will have a decent or good average, and also vice versa. [As for bowlers with in-range value in one attribute but out-of-range in the other, well, they are mediocre in any case, so doesn't matter what they are better in]

    If you put numbers to it, I think a good range would be avg. between 20 - 30 and S/R between 40 - 60 (talking about tests). I doubt any bowler will have a lower avg. than 20 but higher S/R than 60 (and again, vice versa).

    Even then, best attribute really depends on how good (and in what attribute) the other bowlers are. If you are the best/strike bowler, S/R should be the primary attribute because you want your other bowlers, who are not as good, to take least amount of wickets possible (bowler will bowl same no. of overs whether he has low avg. or low S/R, hence lower S/R will take more wickets).

    Looking at it in another way, the additional runs conceded by bowler with lower S/R (as compared to bowler with lower avg.) would be less than the combined additional runs conceded by other "worse" bowlers because they had to bowl more (had to take more wickets => bowled more). I think within the range of avg. and S/R discussed, this probably will be true more often than not (unless other bowlers are pretty good themselves, which kind of invalidates the best/strike bowler condition)


    "Is that a raincoat?"
    "YES IT IS!"

  48. #128
    Debut
    Mar 2011
    Runs
    152
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    surely you wouldnt take steyn over mcgrath in 1 day games, even though those are the games with limited overs, which I think is one of your points that makes SR more important than average?

    personally I would take mcgrath anyday of the week. Steyn is awesome too, I suspect he won't be able to keep up those numbers going into his twilight years since he bowls with such venom, must be hard on the body. It will be interesting to watch though!

  49. #129
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pak_Pace View Post
    "S/R is important if and only if average is met" or vice versa isn't a very strong argument. Extreme cases don't ever exist, so why bother use those in an argument? A bowler with a good S/R will have a decent or good average, and also vice versa. [As for bowlers with in-range value in one attribute but out-of-range in the other, well, they are mediocre in any case, so doesn't matter what they are better in]

    If you put numbers to it, I think a good range would be avg. between 20 - 30 and S/R between 40 - 60 (talking about tests). I doubt any bowler will have a lower avg. than 20 but higher S/R than 60 (and again, vice versa).

    Even then, best attribute really depends on how good (and in what attribute) the other bowlers are. If you are the best/strike bowler, S/R should be the primary attribute because you want your other bowlers, who are not as good, to take least amount of wickets possible (bowler will bowl same no. of overs whether he has low avg. or low S/R, hence lower S/R will take more wickets).

    Looking at it in another way, the additional runs conceded by bowler with lower S/R (as compared to bowler with lower avg.) would be less than the combined additional runs conceded by other "worse" bowlers because they had to bowl more (had to take more wickets => bowled more). I think within the range of avg. and S/R discussed, this probably will be true more often than not (unless other bowlers are pretty good themselves, which kind of invalidates the best/strike bowler condition)
    Yes.

    A more detailed explanation of one of my earlier posts.

  50. #130
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by justbetter View Post
    surely you wouldnt take steyn over mcgrath in 1 day games, even though those are the games with limited overs, which I think is one of your points that makes SR more important than average?

    personally I would take mcgrath anyday of the week. Steyn is awesome too, I suspect he won't be able to keep up those numbers going into his twilight years since he bowls with such venom, must be hard on the body. It will be interesting to watch though!
    I don't know Steyns ODI record off the top of my head.. But I don't think it's that good.
    Last edited by MR__KHAN__JI; 8th May 2012 at 02:44.

  51. #131
    Debut
    Jun 2011
    Runs
    3,238
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaz View Post
    Wrong, the name of the game is to bowl out the opposition cheaper than they bowl you out - hence avge is the best deciding actor

    Cricket is not about which team gets bowled out in the least number of deliveries
    Something like this?

    Bowling Figures

    Australia

    Overs Bowled - 242
    Wickets Taken - 20

    SR - 72.6

    South Africa

    Overs Bowled - 160
    Wickets Taken - 16

    SR - 60

    First Inning

    Australia
    Overs - 80
    SR - 48

    SA
    Overs - 80.5
    SR - 48.5

    Second Inning
    Australia
    Overs - 162
    SR - 97.2

    SA
    Overs - 79.1
    SR - 79.1

    Australia took a huge lead in the first inning and won the match.
    Last edited by AlizeeFan; 8th May 2012 at 09:12.



  52. #132
    Debut
    Oct 2007
    Venue
    Milwaukee
    Runs
    4,640
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    bowler A - average 40 with SR of 30
    bowler B - average 20 with SR of 60


    bowler A - 10 overs - 80 runs - 2 wickets
    bowler B - 10 overs - 20 runs - 1 wicket


    I know which I would choose

  53. #133
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ^
    not a fair comparison....

    Name me one bowler with an ave of 40 and SR of 30?

    Averages vary between 20 and 25 for the best bowlers.
    Strike rates vary from 40 to 60 for the best bowlers.

    They should be your parameters.
    Last edited by MR__KHAN__JI; 8th May 2012 at 20:57.

  54. #134
    Debut
    Jul 2011
    Runs
    4,007
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    ^
    not a fair comparison....

    Name me one bowler with an ave of 40 and SR of 30?

    Averages vary between 20 and 25 for the best bowlers.
    Strike rates vary from 40 to 60 for the best bowlers.

    They should be your parameters.
    So 5 average = 20 difference in SR?

    So each 1 average is worth 4 SR? I will take those standards.
    On a 1:1 ratio, I would pick average over SR.

    20 Average 45 SR > 25 Average 40 SR.

    Each change of 1 point in average is worth more to me than 1 point in SR, and if we are working within bounds, then can you not say that Average is more important because smaller changes to average are worth more than the same exact change in SR?

    So basically, all of this SR and Average stuff is crap, if people fit the parameters, they're fine. And minute things like that will go either way. If someone has a drastically low SR for just a little more average, than sure, pick him. As I said, I believed Waqar to be more than Wasim.

    But doesn't make SR more important. It simply means that Waqar had such a drastic difference in SR, that it overcame the 0.06 higher average he had. Same for most bowlers. The rest is preference, and where you draw the line of ratio of differences in SR:Average is subjective. All I know is that the aforementioned ratio is definitely greater than 1.

  55. #135
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Runs
    3,745
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't know why this thread is still meandering on. Read post #10 - there's your answer.

    http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...8&postcount=10

  56. #136
    Debut
    Jul 2011
    Runs
    4,007
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Who would you choose and objectively call the better bowler? Shoaib Akthar or Glenn McGrath?
    25.69 Average and 45.7 S/R
    vs
    21.69 Average and 51.9 S/R

    Or forgetting wickets taken and career.
    Finn's
    26.92 and 43.4 S/R
    Asif's
    24.36 at 48.7?
    Harris 23.63 at 49.1

    For my money it would be McGrath.

  57. #137
    Debut
    Jul 2011
    Runs
    4,007
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironcat View Post
    I don't know why this thread is still meandering on. Read post #10 - there's your answer.

    http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...8&postcount=10
    Because there's a total of roughly three people that believe SR is the most important stat, and everyone else believes otherwise and no one will budge one way or another.

    That's generally how arguments go, it's not like anyone will ever manage to convince someone otherwise.

  58. #138
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruri View Post
    So 5 average = 20 difference in SR?

    So each 1 average is worth 4 SR? I will take those standards.
    On a 1:1 ratio, I would pick average over SR.

    20 Average 45 SR > 25 Average 40 SR.

    Each change of 1 point in average is worth more to me than 1 point in SR, and if we are working within bounds, then can you not say that Average is more important because smaller changes to average are worth more than the same exact change in SR?

    So basically, all of this SR and Average stuff is crap, if people fit the parameters, they're fine. And minute things like that will go either way. If someone has a drastically low SR for just a little more average, than sure, pick him. As I said, I believed Waqar to be more than Wasim.

    But doesn't make SR more important. It simply means that Waqar had such a drastic difference in SR, that it overcame the 0.06 higher average he had. Same for most bowlers. The rest is preference, and where you draw the line of ratio of differences in SR:Average is subjective. All I know is that the aforementioned ratio is definitely greater than 1.
    I thought you were getting it... Now you have lost it again.

    Read post 127.

  59. #139
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironcat View Post
    I don't know why this thread is still meandering on. Read post #10 - there's your answer.

    http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...8&postcount=10
    Iron cat.

    You lost the argument... So stopped debating.. And now are coming back?


    Would you give up 3 runs to get a wicket 5 balls quicker?

  60. #140
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruri View Post
    Who would you choose and objectively call the better bowler? Shoaib Akthar or Glenn McGrath?
    25.69 Average and 45.7 S/R
    vs
    21.69 Average and 51.9 S/R

    Or forgetting wickets taken and career.
    Finn's
    26.92 and 43.4 S/R
    Asif's
    24.36 at 48.7?
    Harris 23.63 at 49.1

    For my money it would be McGrath.
    Very unfair..

    McGrath has 800 test wickets and has played longer than Akhtar....


    I would give up 3 runs to get a wicket 5 balls earlier!!!! As a minimum. I would give up 3 runs to get a wicket 5 balls earlier!!!! As a minimum. All other things being equal!!!

    Read post 127.
    Last edited by MR__KHAN__JI; 9th May 2012 at 03:49.

  61. #141
    Debut
    Jul 2011
    Runs
    4,007
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    Very unfair..

    McGrath has 800 test wickets and has played longer than Akhtar....


    I would give up 3 runs to get a wicket 5 balls earlier!!!! As a minimum. I would give up 3 runs to get a wicket 5 balls earlier!!!! As a minimum. All other things being equal!!!

    Read post 127.
    Still more than a 1:1 ratio.

    I've always still held that Average is more important. And the above question was to ask based purely on stats as I said.

    SR is important, but Average is the god of all discussions. There's a reason the majority of the posters say so. Average is what sets the best bowlers apart, because they take wickets without conceding too many runs. Finn is an example, the reason his strike rate is so good, is because he is so hittable that when a good ball comes along, they play it. Being able to contain the flow of runs is a skill I think is very needed and that's why its Average for me.

    We'll never get anywhere, this argument is getting really pointless.
    Last edited by Ruri; 9th May 2012 at 05:05.

  62. #142
    Debut
    Dec 2007
    Runs
    27,273
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    Iron cat.

    You lost the argument... So stopped debating.. And now are coming back?


    Would you give up 3 runs to get a wicket 5 balls quicker?
    Will you stop with this 3 runs and 5 balls or whatever.

    You posted this thread and said discuss. Basically everyone disagreed with you. And you wont let it go, which is why people are frustrated.

    Averages is how we judge players in cricket. End of. Great bowlers average under 25, that is the mark that stands the test of time.

    Strike rates give anomalies, like Brett Lee being better than Wasim Akram, thats why we use averages because they are a reliable measure of quality.

  63. #143
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruri View Post
    Still more than a 1:1 ratio.

    I've always still held that Average is more important. And the above question was to ask based purely on stats as I said.

    SR is important, but Average is the god of all discussions. There's a reason the majority of the posters say so. Average is what sets the best bowlers apart, because they take wickets without conceding too many runs. Finn is an example, the reason his strike rate is so good, is because he is so hittable that when a good ball comes along, they play it. Being able to contain the flow of runs is a skill I think is very needed and that's why its Average for me.

    We'll never get anywhere, this argument is getting really pointless.
    I agree that we will have to agree to disagree.

    Strike rate is comparatively more important than RPO... Hence SR >AVE

    As explained by post 127.


    Finn is good....

  64. #144
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Random Aussie View Post
    Will you stop with this 3 runs and 5 balls or whatever.

    You posted this thread and said discuss. Basically everyone disagreed with you. And you wont let it go, which is why people are frustrated.

    Averages is how we judge players in cricket. End of. Great bowlers average under 25, that is the mark that stands the test of time.

    Strike rates give anomalies, like Brett Lee being better than Wasim Akram, thats why we use averages because they are a reliable measure of quality.
    No need to get frustrated... Apologies I i have driven you to that.

    I am just making a point and plenty of people agree.

    Many disagree which is fair enough.

    It's the spirit of forums...

    Averages also give anomalies...

    If you don't want to then fair enough. But I'd be interested to know which you would choose... Give up 3 runs for a wicket 5 balls quicker...

  65. #145
    Debut
    Mar 2011
    Runs
    152
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    To win a game of cricket would you prefer your team to chase more runs or less runs. Would you prefer your bowlers to get the opposite team out for less runs or more runs when trying to defend a target.

    The answer lies with in.

  66. #146
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by justbetter View Post
    To win a game of cricket would you prefer your team to chase more runs or less runs. Would you prefer your bowlers to get the opposite team out for less runs or more runs when trying to defend a target.

    The answer lies with in.
    Agreed.

    If your strike bowlers get wickets quicker opposition score will be lower.

  67. #147
    Debut
    Mar 2005
    Runs
    5,491
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    Agreed.

    If your strike bowlers get wickets quicker opposition score will be lower.
    People have already shown this as false. Getting wickets quicker in terms of number of balls is no guarantee that the runs will be lower.

    Can't believe you're still going on about this.

    Furthermore, people have given you many examples proving that judging a player based primarily on s/r is misleading, whereas going on averages provides a much better comparison.

  68. #148
    Debut
    Jan 2009
    Runs
    12,652
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    Agreed.

    If your strike bowlers get wickets quicker opposition score will be lower.
    Jeez! I think its about time u gave up this argument which is now going round in circles

    80% of people have disagreed with you and so have the presented stats, its time to accept you are wrong and move on


    If pakistan cricket is to move forward they need to stop going back

  69. #149
    Debut
    Feb 2010
    Runs
    5,235
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    MKJ add a poll to see the majority opinion. Don't think too many people have agreed to your OP.

  70. #150
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am right. It is right to prefer a bowler who saved me more than 5 of his deliveries for a cost of 3 runs. (especially if he is your best bowler and you need to make the most of a finite resource)

    But I won't continue with the thread if there is no more appetite to debate. The debate has gone as far as it can for now.

    I totally appreciate others views... Everyone needs to think for themselves.

    Not sure what a poll would add... The majority isn't always right...

  71. #151
    Debut
    Mar 2005
    Runs
    5,491
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    I am right.


    Ok bro.

  72. #152
    Debut
    Feb 2010
    Runs
    5,235
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    I am right. It is right to prefer a bowler who saved me more than 5 of his deliveries for a cost of 3 runs. (especially if he is your best bowler and you need to make the most of a finite resource)

    But I won't continue with the thread if there is no more appetite to debate. The debate has gone as far as it can for now.

    I totally appreciate others views... Everyone needs to think for themselves.

    Not sure what a poll would add... The majority isn't always right...
    Wonder why you opened this thread then.

  73. #153
    Debut
    Dec 2007
    Runs
    27,273
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ok what about those times during a game where bowlers bowl to contain, to build pressure, to carry out a plan? It is your best bowlers you can rely on to do this job. Averages reflect that, strike rate does not.

    By extension your ideal attack is one that goes all out for wickets and who cares about runs? Put eight men around the bat. There is a reason why teams don't use this strategy.

    I'm game :-) keep going then...

  74. #154
    Debut
    Oct 2005
    Venue
    Sharjah/Toronto
    Runs
    1,766
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think what matter is that when average and S/R are within a range that is considered to be very good [avg of 20 to around 25, perhaps up to 30, and S/R between 40 to 60], S/R plays a more crucial role. And it's because giving away a few extra runs is worth it when your other bowlers have to end up taking fewer wickets.

    Having a better average only means that that particular bowler gives away fewer runs, but it's a team game, and ultimately the team will in most cases (by most cases I mean where other bowlers are obviously worse than that bowler) give away more runs because of the combined tally conceded by the others. So while that bowler, on an individual basis might seem to have done better, it costs the team.

    Only case where average is more important than S/R is when all bowlers have that same average, which is never the case. And even then, there will be cases where you want to get wickets quickly rather than defending runs, ie. 3rd/4th innings.

    That range of avg. and S/R has to be taken into consideration because anyone out of it (whether average or S/R) is simply not good enough to be worth discussing. Ranking mediocrity is pointless, and anyway, as I said earlier, you'll hardly ever get a bowler who is very good in one attribute but crap in the other.
    Last edited by Pak_Pace; 9th May 2012 at 12:26.


    "Is that a raincoat?"
    "YES IT IS!"

  75. #155
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blistering Barnacle View Post


    Ok bro.
    Always. . It's all fun.

  76. #156
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cricketindiafan View Post
    Wonder why you opened this thread then.
    Cos it's PP and it's all

    We shouldn't take life too seriously!!!

    I think it's been an interesting discussion.

    Just got a bit too serious.

  77. #157
    Debut
    Jun 2009
    Runs
    1,832
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @Mr Khan, As some posters have pointed out that you started this thread to prove that Waqar was better than Wasim or better than most of the bowlers cause of his impressive strike rate. Let me help you there as i have watched their entire career.

    imo, Akram, is the best Pakistani bowler ever, if you talk bout only bowling then he is even better than Imran. (obviously Imran was the best Pakistani cricketer ever but its for another day). Wasim was more skilled, more variety, a brilliant mind for a bowler, only thing that Waqar has over Akram is Aggression and never-die-attitude. Waqar never gave up and he was naturally more aggressive than Akram but Akram was a better bowler. Akram was all bout guile, skill, setting up a batsman, seam, swing, better new ball bowler and equally impressive with the old ball, lets put it this way, Akram was more naturally gifted.

  78. #158
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ecstatic_freak View Post
    @Mr Khan, As some posters have pointed out that you started this thread to prove that Waqar was better than Wasim or better than most of the bowlers cause of his impressive strike rate. Let me help you there as i have watched their entire career.

    imo, Akram, is the best Pakistani bowler ever, if you talk bout only bowling then he is even better than Imran. (obviously Imran was the best Pakistani cricketer ever but its for another day). Wasim was more skilled, more variety, a brilliant mind for a bowler, only thing that Waqar has over Akram is Aggression and never-die-attitude. Waqar never gave up and he was naturally more aggressive than Akram but Akram was a better bowler. Akram was all bout guile, skill, setting up a batsman, seam, swing, better new ball bowler and equally impressive with the old ball, lets put it this way, Akram was more naturally gifted.
    Stats don't necassarily prove anyone is better than another.

    I really dont want to compare waqar and Wasim here.

    I think they were both great.

    I started this thread to show that the strike rate stat is more important than average and to debate with others....

    No one has yet said to me they wouldn't give up 3 runs to get a wicket 5 balls earlier.

  79. #159
    Debut
    Mar 2005
    Runs
    5,491
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI View Post
    No one has yet said to me they wouldn't give up 3 runs to get a wicket 5 balls earlier.
    The reason why no one is discussing this is because it's a really silly argument and depends on a variety of factors.

    For instance, as someone else pointed out, what if the opposition only needs 3 runs to win?

    Furthermore, you don't just pick one random situation out of your hat, but you look at a bowler's overall performance.

    Your whole argument now has boiled down to this 3 runs in 5 balls earlier scenario, which frankly is the most ridiculous argument and not even a good one if that was the sole judging criteria.

    You also haven't responded to many of the arguments others have made in this thread - it seems like you just ignore those arguments that you can't respond to.

  80. #160
    Debut
    Sep 2010
    Runs
    16,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blistering Barnacle View Post
    The reason why no one is discussing this is because it's a really silly argument and depends on a variety of factors.

    For instance, as someone else pointed out, what if the opposition only needs 3 runs to win?

    Furthermore, you don't just pick one random situation out of your hat, but you look at a bowler's overall performance.

    Your whole argument now has boiled down to this 3 runs in 5 balls earlier scenario, which frankly is the most ridiculous argument and not even a good one if that was the sole judging criteria.

    You also haven't responded to many of the arguments others have made in this thread - it seems like you just ignore those arguments that you can't respond to.
    I don't know how to say this without being harsh... Take it in the right spirit....

    I have no issue with People having different ideas and thoughts...

    But in respect of your post... Have you read anything I actually wrote?

    1) I have already said ignore the extreme scenario... Deal with the question in the 9 times out of 10 scenario. (initially)

    2) of course you don't judge a bowler solely on stats. Or single stats. The question is over the most important stat.

    3) my arguments hasn't boiled down to anything in particular.... But the 3 run 5 ball argument is one you can't wriggle out of because it puts into context my point about SR.

    4) I think I have responded to all of the arguments if not all of the posts.

    If there is a genuine argument I haven't responded to let me know and I will.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

:: Cricket-Blog:: wasimakramlive.com:: Sri Lanka Cricket News:: Bouncer Sports:: Cricket Heroes::