kubrickian Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Ashwin oscillates between two ends. He can be magical or quiet mediocre. But a test batting average of 42 always puts him ahead of any other spinner. So it is going to be between Ojha vs other spinners. Why not in place of Ishant ? Ishant struggled to take wickets in Australia and England. Its ridiculous to expect him to take wickets in Indian conditions. Surely, he is in the team for some other reasons than his performance. I cant believe he is picked ahead of the best bowler in the team.
tweaker Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 he will take 10+ wicket in 1 match and will play another 6 matches without taking wickets.when his place is in danger then he will take another 10+ wicket and will ensure that he is in the team for another 6 test
rkt.india Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Why not in place of Ishant ? Ishant struggled to take wickets in Australia and England. Its ridiculous to expect him to take wickets in Indian conditions. Surely' date=' he is in the team for some other reasons than his performance. I cant believe he is picked ahead of the best bowler in the team.[/quote'] Ishant has never been really effective overseas but he used to be more effective in India and his record before WI test series in India was very good in India but now he has gotten worse and they are playing him uselessly rather than let him go back to domestic and work on his issues.
saneindian Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Huge challenge coming up for Ashwin. Needs to carry on his good form to erase the bad memories of England series. Hopefully he has learnt a lesson on why not to overuse his variations in Test matches.
Marut Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 IMO in ODI strike rate = avg in importance in Tests strike rate > average How? Please explain. WIth average I have an idea of both the economy rate and strike rates together. Strike rates give you no clue about the economy rates. If a bowler is expensive, strike rates mean nothing. Bolwer A: Strike rate of 48 with a economy of 2.5 runs per over is equal to an average of 20.0 Bolwer B: Strike rate of 48 with a economy of 4.0 runs per over is equal to an average of 32.0 Strike rate is 48 in both cases, looks damn good, but until you see the average you won't realize that the second bowling figures are pretty ordinary. If you had selected bower B based on strike rates, then God save you.
rkt.india Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 How? Please explain. WIth average I have an idea of both the economy rate and strike rates together. Strike rates give you no clue about the economy rates. If a bowler is expensive, strike rates mean nothing. Bolwer A: Strike rate of 48 with a economy of 2.5 runs per over is equal to an average of 20.0 Bolwer B: Strike rate of 48 with a economy of 4.0 runs per over is equal to an average of 32.0 Strike rate is 48 in both cases, looks damn good, but until you see the average you won't realize that the second bowling figures are pretty ordinary. If you had selected bower B based on strike rates, then God save you. SR is more important in tests than ODIs.
Marut Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 SR is more important in tests than ODIs. Not as important as average. Explain on the basis of strike alone, whether you would select bowler A or bowler B in my example.
kubrickian Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 How? Please explain. WIth average I have an idea of both the economy rate and strike rates together. Strike rates give you no clue about the economy rates. If a bowler is expensive, strike rates mean nothing. Bolwer A: Strike rate of 48 with a economy of 2.5 runs per over is equal to an average of 20.0 Bolwer B: Strike rate of 48 with a economy of 4.0 runs per over is equal to an average of 32.0 Strike rate is 48 in both cases, looks damn good, but until you see the average you won't realize that the second bowling figures are pretty ordinary. If you had selected bower B based on strike rates, then God save you. In test matches, its important to take wickets even if you give away a few runs extra. You can only win by taking 20 wickets. So even if a bowler has average and economy on a little higher side but has a good strike rate, he will be a very good bowler. Bowling strike rate means the average number of balls bowled per wicket taken. The lower the strike rate, the more effective a bowler is at taking wickets quickly. Average for a bowler means average number of runs given per wicket taken. Say, if a bowler has strike rate of 100 with an average of 32, it means he is a defensive bowler who bowls many dot balls but gets only one wicket for 16 overs. If another bowler has a strike rate of 40 and average of 35, he is a much better option as he strikes every 6 overs and making a much bigger impact.
moniker Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Not as important as average. Explain on the basis of strike alone' date=' whether you would select bowler A or bowler B in my example.[/quote'] Obviously if the strike rates are same, you might consider the average as a tie breaker. But take this example. Bowler A strikes at every 7 overs but averages 32. Bowler B strikes at every 10 overs but averages 25. Who'd you consider in tests? I'd go with bowler A who gets me a wicket quicker by 3 overs. I'd be happily willing to trade off conceding 7 more runs than bowler B for the wicket.
rkt.india Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Not as important as average. Explain on the basis of strike alone' date=' whether you would select bowler A or bowler B in my example.[/quote'] A bowler who has better SR will always help in team getting out quicker and will be a bigger match winner as team will have to bowl lesser overs. In fact, in test matches, if a bowler has a good SR, he will eventually have a good average too. A bowler can have good average but that does not necessarily leads to better SR. Better SR tells you about the ability to take the wickets. Look at BS Bedi and Underwood's record. Their averages are good but SR are poor. As VVVS explained above in this post.
rkt.india Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Steyn has an higher economy than most other ATG bowlers, but because he has a great SR, he maintains a great average too. Similarly look at Anderson who has similar economy to Steyn but because his SR is not as good as Steyn, he has high average too.
Marut Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Obviously if the strike rates are same, you might consider the average as a tie breaker. But take this example. Bowler A strikes at every 7 overs but averages 32. Bowler B strikes at every 10 overs but averages 25. Who'd you consider in tests? I'd go with bowler A who gets me a wicket quicker by 3 overs. I'd be happily willing to trade off conceding 7 more runs than bowler B for the wicket. I would go with B. I would like to dismiss the opponent for 250 and not 320. The few overs you gain are not a problem in test cricket that lasts five days.
rkt.india Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 I would go with B. I would like to dismiss the opponent for 250 and not 320. The few overs you gain are not a problem in test cricket that lasts five days. But thing is you will rarely have a bowler who has great SR but poor average that guy will be an exception. Great SR in itself determines a better average because even if one considers runs at high ER, he will get more wickets and will balance it out like Steyn has done, even Waqar has ER on higher side than a giuy like Pollock who has as good an average as Waqar but still has an average SR. Waqar 23.56 3.25 43.4 Pollock 23.11 2.39 57.8 Now with this Waqar takes 10 wickets in 43.4 overs at 235, pollock in 57.8 overs at 231. Difference of 14.8 overs and 4 runs. Waqar did it early and bowler who takes wickets quicker always gives his team time to take 20 wickets in a test match.
moniker Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 I would go with B. I would like to dismiss the opponent for 250 and not 320. The few overs you gain are not a problem in test cricket that lasts five days. But those three overs open up opportunities for bowler A and other bowlers to take more wickets. You have 18 whole extra balls to bowl at the batsmen. All bowler B does here is save 7 runs.
Dumbbells Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 He s the best spinner we have at this moment. If he can reduce his weight and work on his fitness, he can land the ball very accurately on the pitch. He needs to work on his fitness in order to stay at the top.
G_B_ Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 He s the best spinner we have at this moment. If he can reduce his weight and work on his fitness' date=' he can land the ball very accurately on the pitch. He needs to work on his fitness in order to stay at the top.[/quote'] to be fair it does look as if he has worked on his weight. I base this on looking at him in test 4 v england and 1st test v aus I also agree with some of the posts made. Ashwin needs to swing was being dominating to being a non entity. There is not much inbetween.
Marut Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 But thing is you will rarely have a bowler who has great SR but poor average that guy will be an exception. Great SR in itself determines a better average because even if one considers runs at high ER' date=' he will get more wickets and will balance it out like Steyn has done.[/quote'] Steyn has a good economy (3.3), that is why his strike rates are deadly. Steyn at an economy of say 4 or 4.5 at the same strike rate will not be such a feared bowler. On the other hand, Steyn at the same average with a higher strike rate will contine to be feared. Bowlers with lower strike rates make the match exciting, in the same way batsmen with higher strike rates make the match exciting. But just like batsmen need higher averages to be really useful, bowlers need good averages to be really useful. Test cricket, which last five days, is more about averages than strike rates. If you dismiss the opponent cheaply you win more games.
Marut Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 But those three overs open up opportunities for bowler A and other bowlers to take more wickets. You have 18 whole extra balls to bowl at the batsmen. All bowler B does here is save 7 runs. Save 7 runs per batsman. That is 70 runs for ten batsmen. That is a lot.
moniker Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Save 7 runs per batsman. That is 70 runs for ten batsmen. That is a lot. Ok. I somewhat agree. Now I see that a good mix of both is required. If you have a good average, you give your batsmen lesser runs to chase. And if it is coupled with a better strike rate, you give your batsmen ample time to score those runs!
vvvslaxman Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 its makes so much sense to play them together.. just see this comment and see how different they are but they suit each other... drop bhajji ok one question ..who will u play away from home ? ignore the batting.. Odds of spinners coming into play is very less abroad except on certain pitches like capetown, oval, hobart etc. Even there you need to be a magician like AJmal who flopped in the other two matches. Neither Ashwin nor Ojha are magicians. They have different strengths. Neither of them would be capable of running through a side abroad like they do in India. So i would rather back Ashwin.
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