User Name Password
Go Back   PakPassion - Pakistan Cricket Forum > Sport > Cricket


Share This Forum!  
 
 
     
 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 6th May 2012, 13:17
Zaz's Avatar
Zaz Zaz is online now
ODI Debutant
 
Debut: Jan 2009
Runs: 12,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 6th May 2012, 13:36
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaz
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.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 6th May 2012, 14:21
Zaz's Avatar
Zaz Zaz is online now
ODI Debutant
 
Debut: Jan 2009
Runs: 12,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 6th May 2012, 14:26
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaz
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.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 6th May 2012, 16:24
Zaz's Avatar
Zaz Zaz is online now
ODI Debutant
 
Debut: Jan 2009
Runs: 12,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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
__________________
If pakistan cricket is to move forward they need to stop going back

Last edited by Zaz; 6th May 2012 at 16:29.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 6th May 2012, 16:40
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaz
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....
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 7th May 2012, 08:52
IndianWillow's Avatar
IndianWillow IndianWillow is offline
First Class Captain
 
Debut: Jun 2010
Runs: 4,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 7th May 2012, 08:59
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndianWillow
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...
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 7th May 2012, 10:20
Random Aussie's Avatar
Random Aussie Random Aussie is offline
Test Match Star
 
Debut: Dec 2007
Runs: 26,327
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.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 7th May 2012, 10:41
shades shades is offline
Junior Player
 
Debut: Mar 2012
Runs: 188
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?
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 7th May 2012, 10:58
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Aussie
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.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 7th May 2012, 11:02
justbetter justbetter is offline
Junior Player
 
Debut: Mar 2011
Runs: 152
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
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 7th May 2012, 11:16
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by justbetter
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.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 7th May 2012, 12:16
Blistering Barnacle Blistering Barnacle is offline
First Class Captain
 
Debut: Mar 2005
Runs: 5,399
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.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 7th May 2012, 12:18
Blistering Barnacle Blistering Barnacle is offline
First Class Captain
 
Debut: Mar 2005
Runs: 5,399
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.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 7th May 2012, 12:21
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blistering Barnacle
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.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 7th May 2012, 12:26
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blistering Barnacle
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.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 7th May 2012, 12:31
ecstatic_freak ecstatic_freak is offline
Tape Ball Captain
 
Debut: Jun 2009
Runs: 1,831
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.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 7th May 2012, 12:44
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecstatic_freak
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.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 7th May 2012, 12:57
ecstatic_freak ecstatic_freak is offline
Tape Ball Captain
 
Debut: Jun 2009
Runs: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 7th May 2012, 12:59
Blistering Barnacle Blistering Barnacle is offline
First Class Captain
 
Debut: Mar 2005
Runs: 5,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 7th May 2012, 13:01
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blistering Barnacle
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.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 7th May 2012, 13:02
Blistering Barnacle Blistering Barnacle is offline
First Class Captain
 
Debut: Mar 2005
Runs: 5,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 7th May 2012, 13:05
Blistering Barnacle Blistering Barnacle is offline
First Class Captain
 
Debut: Mar 2005
Runs: 5,399
That example I gave is why people tend to look at averages and wickets taken rather than s/r first and foremost.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 7th May 2012, 17:32
CricketTruth CricketTruth is offline
Junior Player
 
Debut: May 2012
Runs: 127
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.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 7th May 2012, 17:41
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
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.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 7th May 2012, 17:51
Ruri Ruri is offline
First Class Star
 
Debut: Jul 2011
Runs: 3,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 7th May 2012, 17:58
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
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.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 7th May 2012, 18:03
Ruri Ruri is offline
First Class Star
 
Debut: Jul 2011
Runs: 3,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI

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.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 7th May 2012, 18:06
ads101's Avatar
ads101 ads101 is offline
ODI Debutant
 
Debut: Dec 2009
Runs: 11,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 7th May 2012, 18:07
Ruri Ruri is offline
First Class Star
 
Debut: Jul 2011
Runs: 3,923
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.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 7th May 2012, 18:08
Ruri Ruri is offline
First Class Star
 
Debut: Jul 2011
Runs: 3,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by ads101
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.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 7th May 2012, 18:08
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruri
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.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 7th May 2012, 18:12
Ruri Ruri is offline
First Class Star
 
Debut: Jul 2011
Runs: 3,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 7th May 2012, 18:17
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruri
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.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 7th May 2012, 18:17
Ruri Ruri is offline
First Class Star
 
Debut: Jul 2011
Runs: 3,923
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.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 7th May 2012, 18:23
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruri
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.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 7th May 2012, 18:25
Ruri Ruri is offline
First Class Star
 
Debut: Jul 2011
Runs: 3,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 7th May 2012, 18:31
Ruri Ruri is offline
First Class Star
 
Debut: Jul 2011
Runs: 3,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 7th May 2012, 18:33
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruri
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!!!
Reply With Quote
  #121  
Old 7th May 2012, 18:35
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruri
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.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 7th May 2012, 18:39
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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....
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 7th May 2012, 19:55
Zaz's Avatar
Zaz Zaz is online now
ODI Debutant
 
Debut: Jan 2009
Runs: 12,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 7th May 2012, 20:05
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
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.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 7th May 2012, 20:15
Zaz's Avatar
Zaz Zaz is online now
ODI Debutant
 
Debut: Jan 2009
Runs: 12,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 7th May 2012, 20:18
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaz
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.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 7th May 2012, 23:22
Pak_Pace's Avatar
Pak_Pace Pak_Pace is offline
Tape Ball Captain
 
Debut: Oct 2005
Venue: Sharjah/Toronto
Runs: 1,765
"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!"
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 8th May 2012, 02:16
justbetter justbetter is offline
Junior Player
 
Debut: Mar 2011
Runs: 152
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!
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 8th May 2012, 02:29
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pak_Pace
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 8th May 2012, 02:30
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by justbetter
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.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 8th May 2012, 09:09
AlizeeFan AlizeeFan is offline
First Class Star
 
Debut: Jun 2011
Runs: 3,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaz
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.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 8th May 2012, 20:38
Desi's Avatar
Desi Desi is offline
First Class Captain
 
Debut: Oct 2007
Venue: Milwaukee
Runs: 4,542
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
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 8th May 2012, 20:56
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
^
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.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 9th May 2012, 01:59
Ruri Ruri is offline
First Class Star
 
Debut: Jul 2011
Runs: 3,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
^
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.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 9th May 2012, 02:06
Ironcat's Avatar
Ironcat Ironcat is offline
First Class Star
 
Debut: Jan 2011
Runs: 3,745
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
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 9th May 2012, 02:07
Ruri Ruri is offline
First Class Star
 
Debut: Jul 2011
Runs: 3,923
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.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 9th May 2012, 02:08
Ruri Ruri is offline
First Class Star
 
Debut: Jul 2011
Runs: 3,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironcat
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.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 9th May 2012, 03:21
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruri
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.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 9th May 2012, 03:23
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironcat
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?
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 9th May 2012, 03:27
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruri
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.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 9th May 2012, 05:03
Ruri Ruri is offline
First Class Star
 
Debut: Jul 2011
Runs: 3,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 9th May 2012, 05:09
Random Aussie's Avatar
Random Aussie Random Aussie is offline
Test Match Star
 
Debut: Dec 2007
Runs: 26,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 9th May 2012, 05:10
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruri
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....
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 9th May 2012, 05:18
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Aussie
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...
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 9th May 2012, 06:40
justbetter justbetter is offline
Junior Player
 
Debut: Mar 2011
Runs: 152
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.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 9th May 2012, 07:11
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by justbetter
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.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 9th May 2012, 07:33
Blistering Barnacle Blistering Barnacle is offline
First Class Captain
 
Debut: Mar 2005
Runs: 5,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 9th May 2012, 07:50
Zaz's Avatar
Zaz Zaz is online now
ODI Debutant
 
Debut: Jan 2009
Runs: 12,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 9th May 2012, 08:10
cricketindiafan's Avatar
cricketindiafan cricketindiafan is offline
First Class Captain
 
Debut: Feb 2010
Runs: 4,761
MKJ add a poll to see the majority opinion. Don't think too many people have agreed to your OP.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 9th May 2012, 08:59
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
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...
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 9th May 2012, 09:21
Blistering Barnacle Blistering Barnacle is offline
First Class Captain
 
Debut: Mar 2005
Runs: 5,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
I am right.


Ok bro.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 9th May 2012, 10:45
cricketindiafan's Avatar
cricketindiafan cricketindiafan is offline
First Class Captain
 
Debut: Feb 2010
Runs: 4,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 9th May 2012, 12:18
Random Aussie's Avatar
Random Aussie Random Aussie is offline
Test Match Star
 
Debut: Dec 2007
Runs: 26,327
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...
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 9th May 2012, 12:23
Pak_Pace's Avatar
Pak_Pace Pak_Pace is offline
Tape Ball Captain
 
Debut: Oct 2005
Venue: Sharjah/Toronto
Runs: 1,765
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.
__________________
"Is that a raincoat?"
"YES IT IS!"

Last edited by Pak_Pace; 9th May 2012 at 12:26.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 9th May 2012, 13:40
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blistering Barnacle


Ok bro.
Always. . It's all fun.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 9th May 2012, 13:43
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by cricketindiafan
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.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 9th May 2012, 21:04
ecstatic_freak ecstatic_freak is offline
Tape Ball Captain
 
Debut: Jun 2009
Runs: 1,831
@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.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 9th May 2012, 21:20
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecstatic_freak
@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.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 10th May 2012, 04:45
Blistering Barnacle Blistering Barnacle is offline
First Class Captain
 
Debut: Mar 2005
Runs: 5,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR__KHAN__JI
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.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 10th May 2012, 04:55
MR__KHAN__JI's Avatar
MR__KHAN__JI MR__KHAN__JI is offline
Test Match Debutant
 
Debut: Sep 2010
Runs: 16,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blistering Barnacle
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:15.



Powered by: vBulletin and VBAdvanced CMPS
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PakPassion™ © copyright 2014 All Rights Reserved. Content on PakPassion™ requires permission for reprint.