Current crop of pacers in the world (Starc, Boult, Philander...)

[Texan]

On 8/21/2016 at 7:05 PM, Tibarn said:

That is a false choice, as all three: (wickets, runs, and balls) are involved in bringing a result in a test match as all three are related. Also, all test matches have results, after all there are 3 (win, lose, or draw).

 

However, Test matches are won most often by taking 20 wickets.  If you have watched the last 5 years of Indian overseas tests, you would see that an inability to get wickets was why we didn’t win, particularly this last leg. It’s no surprise that so many players had career high scores (Cook, BMac, Clarke) against us. 

 

The value of a ball bowled is also something that most cricket fans don’t take into account.  There is a limit of 2700 balls in a test match. If bowlers get the other team out rapidly, it provides their batsmen more time to bat, thereby allowing their batsmen to: score at a slower pace (take less risks), score bigger(wear down opponent bowling) and, in the case of chasing a target in the 2nd innings, giving them a lower required run rate(higher probability to chase the target). If neither team can take wickets, and ball remaining = 0, then we get a draw. 

 

Now let me ask you a few questions: 
1) Which of these two seem most likely to correspond to a bowling unit’s ability to take 20 wickets, given that we have established that there are a limited number of balls in a test match?
A) Bowling average: the number of runs a bowler gives up for a wicket taken.
B) Bowling strike rate: the number of balls a bowler bowls before a wicket is taken.

2) Given that a fast bowler has physical limitations, an ability to only bowl around 20 overs in a day, which bowler would take more wickets in a day: 
C) One with a lower bowling strike rate, high average   
D) One with a higher bowling strike rate, lower average

 

3) If two relatively inexperienced test bowlers (Shami and Umesh) show an ability to take wickets greater than any pace bowlers in Indian history, should we deride them for a higher average, something that can be fixed with experience/coaching?
 

Not saying that SR is not important, but average matters too and is to me the more important factor.

 

The reason SRs are lower these days across the board is because batsmen are scoring much quicker and wickets are generally much flatter. If you can restrict run scoring in this age, it maintains pressure on the batsmen. On the contrary, if you give some nice juicy half volleys and wide long hops, it makes it very easy for the batting side to gain momentum.

 

Momentum is really the key in cricket as it is in most sports. Cricket is dominated by a team that can gain momentum and retain it. The reason why batsmen like Sehwag, Gayle who had hardly any foot movement were successful in notching 2 300s each and dominating opposition was because they looked to decisively swing the momentum in their favor. Too bad that there is no statistic in cricket to determine how a batsman or a bowler has the ability to swing the momentum and maintain it for their team.

 

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, Texan said:

Not saying that SR is not important, but average matters too and is to me the more important factor.

 

The reason SRs are lower these days across the board is because batsmen are scoring much quicker and wickets are generally much flatter. If you can restrict run scoring in this age, it maintains pressure on the batsmen. On the contrary, if you give some nice juicy half volleys and wide long hops, it makes it very easy for the batting side to gain momentum.

 

Momentum is really the key in cricket as it is in most sports. Cricket is dominated by a team that can gain momentum and retain it. The reason why batsmen like Sehwag, Gayle who had hardly any foot movement were successful in notching 2 300s each and dominating opposition was because they looked to decisively swing the momentum in their favor. Too bad that there is no statistic in cricket to determine how a batsman or a bowler has the ability to swing the momentum and maintain it for their team.

 

Momentum is gained by taking wickets, not by maintaining ER. Also, when batsmen like Gayle, sehwag, warner are on a roll, you can't contain, you will have to take their wickets.

[MCcricket]

Stats don't convey everything but lower S/R any day better then Lower A/V as if a guy is taking wkt at S/R 44 he is worth his weight in gold and lower Ave could also be because of defensive bowling wide of off stump and in some bowlers who R all time greats they combine both tight bowling in the channel with subtle variations so they have both lower Ave n S/R like Steyn, Mgrath, Hadlee

[Tibarn]

21 hours ago, Texan said:

Not saying that SR is not important, but average matters too and is to me the more important factor.

 

The reason SRs are lower these days across the board is because batsmen are scoring much quicker and wickets are generally much flatter. If you can restrict run scoring in this age, it maintains pressure on the batsmen. On the contrary, if you give some nice juicy half volleys and wide long hops, it makes it very easy for the batting side to gain momentum.

 

Momentum is really the key in cricket as it is in most sports. Cricket is dominated by a team that can gain momentum and retain it. The reason why batsmen like Sehwag, Gayle who had hardly any foot movement were successful in notching 2 300s each and dominating opposition was because they looked to decisively swing the momentum in their favor. Too bad that there is no statistic in cricket to determine how a batsman or a bowler has the ability to swing the momentum and maintain it for their team.

 

Sure, both are certainly important. If a player is good at both, they are a great bowler. My only problem was the trashing of our fast bowlers. They are not bad, at the minimum they are good wicket takers. Both Shami and Umesh have somewhat high averages, but I believe that they both can improve with match experience.