Fit Akhtar wants crack at Aussies

[The Outsider]

I'd rather have a bowler who in good day will have 25-10-60-5

So, on a good day against this bowler the opposition score will be 160/5 in 50 overs assuming 4 RPO from the other end ie. team all out for 320 in 100 overs.

someone who on his good day is 15-5-60-5

So, on his good day opposition will be 120/5 after 30 overs assuming 4 RPO from the other end ie. all out for 240 in 60 overs. Now, lets look at the bad days :

a bad day have 25-10-60-1

implies a score of 160/1 after 50 over ie. 1600 all out in 500 overs.

and bad day is 10-0-60-1

implies 100/1 after 20 overs ie. 1000 all out in 200 overs My bowlers dismissed the opposition for less runs in both cases. QED.

[Shehezaada]

KO punch shwetabh

[CC1981]

So, on a good day against this bowler the opposition score will be 160/5 in 50 overs assuming 4 RPO from the other end ie. team all out for 320 in 100 overs.

I see no logic in this. You are assuming a lot in here- if my preference is for tight bowlers, i am NOT going to have bowlers in my team who go for 4rpo on their bad days in the FIRST PLACE!

My bowlers dismissed the opposition for less runs in both cases.

Err no......utterly ludicrous line of thinking. Your fundamental assumption hinges on me picking expensive bowlers to partner up with my miserly bowler- when i said i wont in the first place ! Case dismissed.

implies a score of 160/1 after 50 over ie. 1600 all out in 500 overs. Quote: and bad day is 10-0-60-1 implies 100/1 after 20 overs ie. 1000 all out in 200 overs My bowlers dismissed the opposition for less runs in both cases. QED.

False and utterly illogical. We are comparing bowlers with nearly same averages and wicket/match ratios- only difference is the strike rate. So 4 bowlers of my mould and 4 bowlers of your mould would, on average, dismiss the sides for the same # of runs. Only difference is, my miserly bowlers will take longer- hence exert more pressure on the batsmen by keeping it tight. Which in practicality, translates to enjoying the occasional collapse caused by my miserly bowlers frustrating the fack out of the batsmen. Your bowlers will dismiss the opposition in one less session on their good days- thats one less session of PAYING PuBLIC enjoying the sport (that is the central objective of any sport- not winning.) On their bad days, your bowlers are totally useless. They wont be taking wickets and the opposition will post 300 in no time. Its not rocket science, it really isnt!

[The Outsider]

I see no logic in this. You are assuming a lot in here- if my preference is for tight bowlers, i am NOT going to have bowlers in my team who go for 4rpo on their bad days in the FIRST PLACE!

You can pick whoever you want and as long as the support attack is the SAME for both bowlers my logic stands. Once you start changing the support attack you are not comparing the two bowlers any more but different attacks.

[CC1981]

You can pick whoever you want and as long as the support attack is the SAME for both bowlers my logic stands.

And this is the flaw in your logic. I am not going to restrict myself to 1 or 2 miserly bowlers- if i prefer miserly bowlers, ALL my bowlers i pick are gonna be miserly in mould. So your logic doesnt stand because it assumes stuff i didnt say or imply. Besides, even if i picked ONE miserly bowler and played according to your rules, i still come out with the advantage because you fail to factor in the pressure caused by the miser translating into wickets for the lesser bowler. So no, your simple mathematical extrapolations are 'good on paper' but thats not the way it works in reality. In reality, a miser will earn wickets for his average partner but the guy who is going at 4 rpo wont because he cannot put the batsmen under pressure to score and chance their arm against lesser bowlers- they are quite happy bleeding your 'low strike rate/high economy rate' bowler. Your argument is a simple mathematical model that is bereft of realities on the pitch. Ie, one more in the line of 'looks good hypothetically..but isnt so in reality' case.

[The Outsider]

All words. Nothing creates pressure on a batting side like the fall of a wicket. That's a pretty well acknowledged fact among cricket experts. And a strike bowler is more likely to give you a wicket.

[CC1981]

Nothing creates pressure on a batting side like the fall of a wicket.

True. Taking wickets does create pressure- more pressure than anythign else. But keeping it tight also creates pressure. On a good day, your bowler and my bowler both are 'creating a lot of pressure' by taking wickets- one in 5 overs more but whatever. On the bad days, your bowler is a totally useless piece of meat. He cant take wickets or create pressure by keeping it tight. Whereas my bowler still keeps it tight and earns a few wickets for his mates by keeping it tight. Sorry but preferring a more expensive bowler (ie, worse economy rate) is far more detrimental on the long run than it is helpful. As we have seen with tight bowlers like Akram,McGrath,Ambrose etc, when contrasted with the not-so-tight types like Akhtar, Waqar, etc- the latter group is a TOTAL ZERO on their bad days- the former group still offers a lot on their bad days. This is why strike rate is a pretty useless guage unless the superior strike rate ALSO goes along with a proportionately superior average.

All words.

So is your's. We are all engaging in words here. Was there ever anything else to this place apart from words ?

[The Outsider]

As we have seen with tight bowlers like Akram,McGrath,Ambrose etc, when contrasted with the not-so-tight types like Akhtar, Waqar, etc- the latter group is a TOTAL ZERO on their bad days- the former group still offers a lot on their bad days.

McGrath, Ambrose, Akram all have superior averages than Akhtar and Waqar(excluding minnows). Please compare bowlers with same averages and tell me whether a bowler with better SR is considered better or not.

[CC1981]

McGrath, Ambrose, Akram all have superior averages than Akhtar and Waqar(excluding minnows). Please compare bowlers with same averages and tell me whether a bowler with better SR is considered better or not.

Waqar minus BD+ ZIM : 297 wickets @ 25.16 Akram minus BD + ZIM : 363 wickets @ 23.77 Not much of a difference. Regardless, if you do not like my example, i will give you Kapil vs Botham. Kapil is considered the superior bowler overall by most- and he sports a similar average but worse strike rate than ITB. I've told you why as long as the averages are the same and the strike rate isnt too high (ie, isnt touching 60 for a pacer), its irrelevant. I notice you arnt touching my 'good days & bad days' argument- which is a very important piece of the big picture.

[The Outsider]

Waqar minus BD+ ZIM : 297 wickets @ 25.16 Akram minus BD + ZIM : 363 wickets @ 23.77

In terms of bowling averages that's not an insignificant difference. Any difference greater than 1 is significant because all these bowlers we are talking about are between 20 and 25.

I notice you arnt touching my 'good days & bad days' argument- which is a very important piece of the big picture.

I've basically ripped it apart by showing that given the same support cast my bowling attack with a strike bowler will bowl out the opposition for less than your bowling attack with an economic bowler on all days. But let me humour you a bit more. On a good day your economical attack with 4 economical bowlers starts off. They concede 2 RPO on their good day and have a SR of 48 ie. they bowl the opposition out for 160 in 80 overs. My bowling attack has 4 strike bowlers with the same average. On a good day they concede 3 RPO, have a SR of 32 and bowl the opposition out for 160 in 53 overs. My attack kicks ass, right? On a bad day your bowlers give 3 RPO and have a SR of 66 to bowl the opposition out for 330 in 110 overs. On a bad day my bowlers give 4 RPO and have a SR of 49 to bowl the opposition out for 330 in 82 overs. My attack still kicks ass, right?

[The Outsider]

Kapil is considered the superior bowler overall by most- and he sports a similar average but worse strike rate than ITB.

Kapil is considered a better bowler than Botham because he bowled in a weak attack on dead pitches for most of his career, not because he had a better ER. In his last 16 tests, Kapil still averaged 29 but his SR fell to smitherens and that's why he took only 33 wickets and was seen by all as to playing for the world record.

[CC1981]

Any difference greater than 1 is significant because all these bowlers we are talking about are between 20 and 25.

Disagree.

I've basically ripped it apart by showing that given the same support cast my bowling attack with a strike bowler will bowl out the opposition for less than your bowling attack with an economic bowler on all days.

Err no, you made a fool of yourself by not taking the very real 'tightening up the proceedings = more wickets for the lesser bowler' aspect into consideration. The rest of your post is nothing more than garbage since it is bereft of ground reality in cricketing terms.

My attack kicks ass, right?

No...as i said..on average you have 110 overs/innings. 80 vs 60 is of no significant advantage.

On a bad day my bowlers give 4 RPO and have a SR of 49 to bowl the opposition out for 330 in 82 overs.

On a bad day, your bowler dont take wickets,period ! This is because on a 'bad day', your bowlers cannot 'buy wickets' for one another by generating pressure by keeping it tight and forcing the opposition batsmen to chance their arms. This is why vats, your stuff is just as stupid as saying Tendy batted slow for his 99, while looking at strike rate only while forgetting that he faced 40 outta 60 deliveries from the best bowler on either side who was keeping it real tight. Ie, its nothing more than number-crunching without any cricketing nuous or context. Cricket is a very inter-dependent sport so your simple mathematical 'extrapolations' are without any cricketing basis. As i said 'looks good on paper..but isnt so in reality'.

Kapil is considered a better bowler than Botham because he bowled in a weak attack on dead pitches for most of his career, not because he had a better ER.

his ER is also something that makes him a better bowler.

[The Outsider]

No...as i said..on average you have 110 overs/innings. 80 vs 60 is of no significant advantage.

Over 80 vs. 50 ie. over 2 innings 60 overs. There are so many more matches which would have had results with an additional 60 overs.

On a bad day, your bowler dont take wickets,period ! This is because on a 'bad day', your bowlers cannot 'buy wickets' for one another by generating pressure by keeping it tight and forcing the opposition batsmen to chance their arms.

Then how come they average the same as your bowlers if they can't take wickets? Come up with some way in which they can average the same as your bowlers.

his ER is also something that makes him a better bowler.

So Kapil was still a top class bowler better than the rest of his career in his last 16 tests by your reasoning because his average still stayed 29 and his ER improved?

[CC1981]

Over 80 vs. 50 ie. over 2 innings 60 overs. There are so many more matches which would have had results with an additional 60 overs.

there are so many matches that were saved by bowlers keeping it tight too instead of gifting runs to the opposition by four-balls every over.

Then how come they average the same as your bowlers if they can't take wickets? Come up with some way in which they can average the same as your bowlers.

On BAD days, when neither is taking a wicket, the one who keeps it tight is INFINITELY more preferrable to the one who is still leaking runs in a waqar/shoaib-esque fashion. Whats so hard to understand ?

So Kapil was still a top class bowler better than the rest of his career in his last 16 tests by your reasoning because his average still stayed 29 and his ER improved?

No because his wicket-match ratio suffered and he wasnt taking as many wickets. My contention is that, if the averages are similar, i'd take the one with better economy rate(hence higher strike rate) simply because he is worth FAR MORE on a bad day than the leaky 'strike bowler' while on their good days, there is little to pick & choose between them.

[The Outsider]

On BAD days, when neither is taking a wicket, the one who keeps it tight is INFINITELY more preferrable to the one who is still leaking runs in a waqar/shoaib-esque fashion. Whats so hard to understand ?

If my bowlers leak so many runs how do they average the same as your bowlers. You haven't even made an attempt to answer that question. You keep on talking about your bowlers bowling 25 overs in an innings. They are going to crash in a heap if the regularly bowl 50 overs in a match.

No because his wicket-match ratio suffered and he wasnt taking as many wickets.

Well, obviously the wicket to match ratio is going to suffer as your strike rate goes down because there are only X number of overs you will be able to bowl in a match. Your entire argument lies around the premise that on good days your bowlers are about as good as mine while on bad days my bowlers get spanked every other ball and yours are still economical. That's a mathematical impossibility if they are to average the same. Make your argument self consistent and we can continue, else I've had enough trying to make you realise the self inconsistency of your argument.

[CC1981]

If my bowlers leak so many runs how do they average the same as your bowlers. You haven't even made an attempt to answer that question.

yes i have. My bowler's good day : 25-10-60-5. My bowler's bad day : 25-8-60-0 Your bowler's good day : 15-3-60-5 Your bowler's bad day : 15-2-60-0 Both have same overall averages...but on a BAD day, my bowler is infinitely superior to your's as he can atleast exert some pressure on the opposition even if he isnt taking wickets. Your bowler is a total loss on the bad day offering nothing of any value.

Well, obviously the wicket to match ratio is going to suffer as your strike rate goes down because there are only X number of overs you will be able to bowl in a match.

In tests you can bowl as much as you want to- from 1 over to 70+ in an innings.

That's a mathematical impossibility if they are to average the same.

No. Read above.

else I've had enough trying to make you realise the self inconsistency of your argument.

Likewise.

You keep on talking about your bowlers bowling 25 overs in an innings. They are going to crash in a heap if the regularly bowl 50 overs in a match.

This is called pedantics. Ambrose for eg. bowled 36 overs/match. That is 18 overs/innings. If you do not like my 25 overs example, insert 18 and mathematically adjust appropriately to get the same idea.

[The Outsider]

Both have same overall averages...but on a BAD day, my bowler is infinitely superior to your's as he can atleast exert some pressure on the opposition even if he isnt taking wickets. Your bowler is a total loss on the bad day offering nothing of any value.

What rot!! Your bowler's ER stays the same on good AND bad day and my bowler's SR goes to ZERO on bad day.

In tests you can bowl as much as you want to- from 1 over to 70+ in an innings.

And once a fast bowler bowls 70+ overs in an innings he will probably never be able to bowl ever in his life.

[CC1981]

What rot!! Your bowler's ER stays the same on good AND bad day and my bowler's SR goes to ZERO on bad day.

Yes and ? My *ENTIRE* argument is that if the average/wicket per match ratio is nearly the same, i will take a bowler who has a better ER than one who has a better St/R. According to the fundamental logic of my argument, the average MUST stay the same and wicket/match MUST stay the same. In my example, your bowler still comes out with an overall superior ST/R while mine comes out with a superior ER..with average & wicket/match CONSTANT. You CANNOT keep the constants as constants if you don't like my example. Since wicket-taking is the main objective of bowling, obviously your bowler's bad day translates to a TOTAL LOSS while my bowler's bad day contributes to the team cause somewhat by keeping it tight & frustrating the batsmen more. My logic here is impeccable, sorry to say.

And once a fast bowler bowls 70+ overs in an innings he will probably never be able to bowl ever in his life.

Perhaps. But again, this is getting into pedantics.

my bowler's SR goes to ZERO on bad day.

Since you are so hoity-toity about mathematics in this thread, i think its appropriate to remind you that SR is calculated by dividing the # of balls by # of wickets. Hence its (15*6)/0. Something divided by zero is undefined...not zero.

[Shehezaada]

there are so many matches that were saved by bowlers keeping it tight too instead of gifting runs to the opposition by four-balls every over. On BAD days, when neither is taking a wicket, the one who keeps it tight is INFINITELY more preferrable to the one who is still leaking runs in a waqar/shoaib-esque fashion. Whats so hard to understand ? No because his wicket-match ratio suffered and he wasnt taking as many wickets. My contention is that, if the averages are similar, i'd take the one with better economy rate(hence higher strike rate) simply because he is worth FAR MORE on a bad day than the leaky 'strike bowler' while on their good days, there is little to pick & choose between them.

come on man...surely you would agree that matches are won by taking wickets and not keeping it tight. Sure your bowler is keeping it tight and POTENTIALLY creating chances at the other end...but our strike king is taking wickets regardless. On a flat deck, would you rather have a man like Akhtar who can clean you up with a 150+ yorker, or McGrath who's going to go up and down all the time and not offer variety?

[The Outsider]

Yes and ? My *ENTIRE* argument is that if the average/wicket per match ratio is nearly the same, i will take a bowler who has a better ER than one who has a better St/R. According to the fundamental logic of my argument, the average MUST stay the same and wicket/match MUST stay the same. In my example, your bowler still comes out with an overall superior ST/R while mine comes out with a superior ER..with average & wicket/match CONSTANT. You CANNOT keep the constants as constants if you don't like my example. Since wicket-taking is the main objective of bowling, obviously your bowler's bad day translates to a TOTAL LOSS while my bowler's bad day contributes to the team cause somewhat by keeping it tight & frustrating the batsmen more. My logic here is impeccable, sorry to say.

Good day : 25-10-60-5 vs. 15-5-60-5 Bad day : 25-10-75-1 vs. 15-0-75-1 My attack rocks as proven in post #61

Perhaps. But again, this is getting into pedantics.

Which means your entire argument is pedantic because in reality there are only X number of overs a bowler will be able to bowl in a test and the lower his SR the lower his wicket/match ratio. Kapil in his last 16 tests is the perfect example of the bowler you are trying to describe ie. same average as before, poorer SR, higher ER. No one in his right mind would say Kapil was even a shadow of the bowler he once was during this phase.

Since you are so hoity-toity about mathematics in this thread, i think its appropriate to remind you that SR is calculated by dividing the # of balls by # of wickets. Hence its (15*6)/0. Something divided by zero is undefined...not zero.

Apologies for the slip but something divided by zero is not undefined rather infinity unless that something happens to be zero.