Chandan Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 Becomes only the 2nd Bowler ever to take 200 wkts at a SR of less than 40 The only other guy to do it was Waqar Younis Heres the top 10 sorted by Strike rate Bowler Tests Wkts SR Avg Waqar Younis 38 200 38.67 20.61 DW Steyn 39 201 39.10 23.07 DK Lillee 41 206 45.36 24.07 IT Botham 42 202 45.53 21.21 MD Marshall 44 205 46.05 21.64 AA Donald 43 204 46.79 22.45 JR Thomson 52 200 47.73 28.01 FS Trueman 47 198 48.71 22.22 RR Lindwall 53 200 49.51 22.50 RGD Willis 60 207 48.07 25.26 D Gough 49 205 50.21 26.60 MA Holding 49 202 51.42 24.00 RJ Hadlee 46 202 51.48 26.04 J Garner 46 203 51.76 21.01 B Lee 52 203 52.02 31.21 Imran Khan 46 206 52.20 23.81 AME Roberts 48 202 52.84 25.61 SM Pollock 50 203 53.10 20.26 SCG MacGill 43 203 53.11 28.14 GD McGrath 46 202 53.24 23.45 MJ Hoggard 53 203 53.62 29.07 Just one spinner. Wow! Had Macgill got a fair chance, he'd have taken 500+wickets certainly.
Roshanrocks Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 nice stats BossBhai.... finally some stat thread to read
achilles Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 Nice stats. We have a lot of catching up to do I feel.
Serani Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 Steyn one of the only great fast bowlers to emerge in the last few years.
achilles Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 Steyn one of the only great fast bowlers to emerge in the last few years. Yes. Wonder whats wrong with the Jerome Taylor's of the world. All the promise and an injury blows it all up.
anssrini Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 Surprised that both Warne and Murali are not there inspite of them having taken so many wickets in their career. Spinners tend to bowl a lot more than pacers so it is understandable there are so few of them in that list.
achilles Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 I think Chandan & Boss have nailed the issue of MacGill. Well pointed out, guys.
Precambrian Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 Surprised that both Warne and Murali are not there inspite of them having taken so many wickets in their career. Spinners tend to bowl a lot more than pacers so it is understandable there are so few of them in that list. Murali didn't take off really till he perfected his doosra.
Brainfade Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 Just one spinner. Wow! Had Macgill got a fair chance' date=' he'd have taken 500+wickets certainly.[/quote'] Had the same thought. He was an excellent bowler. On the other hand, it is impossible to predict how he would have turned out if he had to take on a bigger, continuous load. The way his career went, he was always "fresh" and novel. To his credit, he had the skill to turn those sporadic appearances into great production. Bossbhai, excellent stat! When you have some time, would you run an analysis that compares the longitudinal strike rates of all the bowlers on your above list? I.e., SR at 100 wkts., 200 wkts, 300 wkts ..... it will be interesting to see the progression/regression over time. Thanks!
Brainfade Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 There is only one glitch in Steyns stats ... too many lower order ( 8 -11 ) wkts . Infact he has the highest % of Lower Order wkts amongst all fast bowlers. PS: Look who is at the other end :winky: [B]Bowler Wkts TO LO %TO %LO[/B] [B]J Srinath 236 179 57 75.85 24.15[/B] [B]Z Khan 242 197 45 81.40 18.60[/B] Of course, being pessimists, we will use that as evidence to show that "Indian bowlers can never get the tail out!!" Don't worry about the stat request, Boss. It is easy for me to sit here and fire requests - I realize how much work it would be :-)! My guess is that the biggest SR differential would be for Kapil's [sR (301 - 434) - SR (0 - 300)]
Brainfade Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 Its not *that* difficult to do ... but it would be pretty unreadable because of the no.of columns. This is a stat best illustrated graphically for 3-4 bowlers. So, maybe just for the Indian bowlers (Kapil, Srinath, Kumble, Harbhajan and Zaheer)? KrutagnategaLu, Saar!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now