Take a bow Ashwin!

[vvvslaxman]

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

Fastest to get to 75 wickets :hmmm: You cannot get there just by doing what you said. He generally plays whole series well or not.

[vvvslaxman]

Ok. I somewhat agree. Now I see that a good mix of both is required. If you have a good average' date=' 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![/quote'] Point is , it is very rare a bowler has a poor average with great strike rate. When you have a bowler who is capable of taking a wicket ever 6 overs, logically teams would play him out rather than go after him. If a bowler looks like taking wicket every ball he is considered more dangerous than a bowler who bowls lot of maidens but threatening only ever 15 overs. Batsmen will be well set. Strike rate is premiere aspect of a bowling in Tests. When you have couple of steyns in your side you bowl a side out in 75 overs for 250 runs. When you couple of Pollocks you bowl a side in 105 overs 250 runs. Think about fielding side. They have to stand under the sun for extra 30 overs because you have a poor strike rate. Imagine the psychic of a team that is able to bowl a side out inside a day compared to the side which takes 1 and a half day to bowl a side out. A bowler with better strike rate is far more valuable than a bowler with average overall.

[vvvslaxman]

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.

His ER has to be 4.5 to have such a poor average and great strike rate. Such combination is nowhere to be seen in history.

[The Outsider]

Point is ' date=' it is very rare a bowler has a poor average with great strike rate. When you have a bowler who is capable of taking a wicket ever 6 overs, logically teams would play him out rather than go after him. If a bowler looks like taking wicket every ball he is considered more dangerous than a bowler who bowls lot of maidens but threatening only ever 15 overs. Batsmen will be well set. Strike rate is premiere aspect of a bowling in Tests. When you have couple of steyns in your side you bowl a side out in 75 overs for 250 runs. When you couple of Pollocks you bowl a side in 105 overs 250 runs. Think about fielding side. They have to stand under the sun for extra 30 overs because you have a poor strike rate. Imagine the psychic of a team that is able to bowl a side out inside a day compared to the side which takes 1 and a half day to bowl a side out. A bowler with better strike rate is far more valuable than a bowler with average overall.[/quote'] You are talking about a scenario when the average of the two bowlers is the same. In that case of course you will prefer the one with a better strike rate. However, if you have your Steyns and bowl them out for 250 in 75 overs and I have my Ambroses and bowl them out for 230 in 90 overs, I know I will always choose the Ambroses. Bowling average is the most important indicator and when they are the same the better strike rate wins.

[moniker]

His ER has to be 4.5 to have such a poor average and great strike rate. Such combination is nowhere to be seen in history.

Yes, that was just a hypothetical analysis. Such stats are rare of course.

[Marut]

Ok. I somewhat agree. Now I see that a good mix of both is required. If you have a good average' date=' 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![/quote'] Yes. Take for example, Shoaib Akhtar and Ambrose. Shoaib SR 45.7 Avg 25.69 Ambrose SR 54.5 Avg 20.99 Shoaib obviously has better strike rate, but Ambrose was a far more deadly bowler inspite of an inferior S/R due to his average. Shoaib can skittle you out for 257 runs in fewer overs than Ambrose, but Ambrose will skittle you out for 210 though he may take a few more overs to do so. Are those overs crucial, or are the 47 runs crucial? It depends, I guess. For reputed international bowlers, you will generally notice that S/R and average go together, because if either of them is very much off balance, the guy is unlikely to continue playing for a long time.

[R.D forever]

It is better not expect Ashwin to perform abroad.. 2-3 wickets per innings and keeping it tight ll be more than enough.. But in the subcontinent , he must be the leader of the attack and take 5wh regularly.. we badly need a strike bowler..

[rkt.india]

However, if you have your Steyns and bowl them out for 250 in 75 overs and I have my Ambroses and bowl them out for 230 in 90 overs, I know I will always choose the Ambroses. Bowling average is the most important indicator and when they are the same the better strike rate wins.

You are talking about an ideal scenario here as neither Steyn nor Ambrose is going to bowl all those overs himself. They will be a part of an attack and not all bowlers can be of same ability then it depends on the structure of the attack to determine which kind of a bowler is more important in that combination.

[The Outsider]

You are talking about an ideal scenario here as neither Steyn nor Ambrose is going to bowl all those overs himself. They will be a part of an attack and not all bowlers can be of same ability then it depends on the structure of the attack to determine which kind of a bowler is more important in that combination.

Of course that is true. In an ideal attack you would want the right mix of such bowlers. I was pointing out to the fallacy in vvvslaxman's argument where he chose to compare an attack of Pollocks and Steyns when in fact if you want to make such a comparison it should be between Ambroses and Steyns because one has a superior strike rate and the other a superior average. What's the point in comparing players with same average - in that case it's obvious you will pick the one with a better strike rate.

[vvvslaxman]

Of course that is true. In an ideal attack you would want the right mix of such bowlers. I was pointing out to the fallacy in vvvslaxman's argument where he chose to compare an attack of Pollocks and Steyns when in fact if you want to make such a comparison it should be between Ambroses and Steyns because one has a superior strike rate and the other a superior average. What's the point in comparing players with same average - in that case it's obvious you will pick the one with a better strike rate.

20 runs vs 15 less overs.. you could go either way depending on what is more important. For my money i would go for quick death at the expense of few extra runs.

[Marut]

Point is ' date=' it is very rare a bowler has a poor average with great strike rate. When you have a bowler who is capable of taking a wicket ever 6 overs, logically teams would play him out rather than go after him. If a bowler looks like taking wicket every ball he is considered more dangerous than a bowler who bowls lot of maidens but threatening only ever 15 overs. Batsmen will be well set. Strike rate is premiere aspect of a bowling in Tests. When you have couple of steyns in your side you bowl a side out in 75 overs for 250 runs. When you couple of Pollocks you bowl a side in 105 overs 250 runs. Think about fielding side. They have to stand under the sun for extra 30 overs because you have a poor strike rate. Imagine the psychic of a team that is able to bowl a side out inside a day compared to the side which takes 1 and a half day to bowl a side out. A bowler with better strike rate is far more valuable than a bowler with average overall.[/quote'] Pollock and Steyn have similar averages and Steyn has a superior strike rate. Who does not want Steyn in this scenario? Compare two bowlers one who has a better S/R and another who has a better average, and we cannot conclude that the one with the better strike rate is better. Quite a few bowlers have very good strike rates - Lee, Johnson, Cairns, Ntini etc but they don't have very good averages to be considered more valuable bowlers compared with many other bowlers who have inferior strike rates.

[The Outsider]

20 runs vs 15 less overs.. you could go either way depending on what is more important. For my money i would go for quick death at the expense of few extra runs.

Maybe that example was too close for you to see the difference. How about Ambrose and the following bowlers who have the same strike rate: 1. Bob Willis 2. Walsh 3. Gillespie 4. Botham 5. McDermott 6. Ntini 7. Johnson 8. Brett Lee

[vvvslaxman]

Maybe that example was too close for you to see the difference. How about Ambrose and the following bowlers who have the same strike rate: 1. Bob Willis 2. Walsh 3. Gillespie 4. Botham 5. McDermott 6. Ntini 7. Johnson 8. Brett Lee

Ambrose is definitely better than them because of superior average since the strike rate is within 1 or 2 points range. It is quiet surprising for me to see how AMbrose has such a poor strike rate considering the amount of time he singlehandedly ran through sides.

[adi B]

all 3-avg,strike rate,economy are correlated

[Muloghonto]

Ambrose is definitely better than them because of superior average since the strike rate is within 1 or 2 points range. It is quiet surprising for me to see how AMbrose has such a poor strike rate considering the amount of time he singlehandedly ran through sides.

Not very surprising, as WI had no credible spinners and due to Bishop's back injuries, he was mostly missing from the side. As such, the set-plan against West Indies always was to see off Ambrose and Walsh, then make hay against the Benjamins, Hoopers and et al. It wasn't very uncommon to see Ambrose's opening spell look someting like 10-5-15-1 as a result.