Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Good stats Sussex. I tried to do that with Broad and Anderson after Warne claimed Broad 'must be getting more tail end wickets' if his stats are comparable with Anderson, but I couldn't see that it could be done.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Good stats Sussex. I tried to do that with Broad and Anderson after Warne claimed Broad 'must be getting more tail end wickets' if his stats are comparable with Anderson, but I couldn't see that it could be done.

If you get a player profile on Cricinfo, and select any bowling stat, you can change the view to "wicket summary" and it gives you the break down of wickets per batting slot.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... al_summary
Broad

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... al_summary
Anderson

If you factor down Anderson stats to 75% of each slot... as he has more wickets

Anderson takes much more openers than Broad....
Broad takes more one drops....
Middle order 4-6 is identical in ratio
Broad gets more 7-8's, much more
Tail is pretty similar without working it out

OK, thanks for that. And for checking SBvJA.

Sadly those stats don't tell you when the bowlers got the batsmen out. Snapping up an opener after he's scored 150 isn't much better than grabbing a number 8 first ball.

I still think there is some value in knowing the status of the batter dismissed. At least to disprove Warne's theory. Maybe worth pointing out that England's problem in recent times has been getting the last four wickets, and knocking over the tail is really a good knack to have.

Gingerfinch wrote:Sadly those stats don't tell you when the bowlers got the batsmen out. Snapping up an opener after he's scored 150 isn't much better than grabbing a number 8 first ball.

Average accumulated score on the wicket going down is provided per position in the wicket summary. Such a stat is largely redundant on the basis that you are trying to rate a given bowlers ability to take a wicket; the amount of runs his colleagues give away has nothing to do with him alone, and it is dependant on where and when you bowl.

Take an example. Bowler one takes the new ball and gets a wicket first ball (1st position).... then is continually pounded by batsman two and gives away 30 runs to him. Bowler two comes on first change and gets him out first ball.

Bowler one would have an average 0.0 for first facing batsman, and as he fails to take the wicket of the 2nd batsman, the stat isnt generated. It doesnt effect his "average score per wicket" as he doesnt take the wicket to add the runs on. Bowler two has an average for position two at 30...... which seems inferior. But they have done the same thing by removing a player first ball.

Batsman tend to score more runs when dismissed by Broad, but then again, he hasnt taken the new ball as much as Anderson, so the opportunity to bowl at new bowlers is instantly not as great.

you could argue that steyn has taken slightly less top order wickets because he has bowled with other great new ball bowlers such as pollock, ntini and philander

so has had more competition for early wickets than anderson

Arthur Crabtree wrote:One factor in enjoying a pace bowler is the spectacle. Steyn scores highly on that. McGrath scores pretty low, which might be why he doesn't always get into the conversation. Lillee and Garner score high. Maybe the bowler with the greatest visual impact was Shoaib Akhtar, though his stats kept him out of this list.

i dont think there has ever been anything with greater visual impact than a viscious inswinging waqar younis yorker

backfootpunch wrote:you could argue that steyn has taken slightly less top order wickets because he has bowled with other great new ball bowlers such as pollock, ntini and philander

so has had more competition for early wickets than anderson

Pollock was hardly competition for Steyn in his career. They crossed over a long time, but Steyn was inconsistently picked, and Pollock was injured and had lost a lot of pace. In a period of 9 tests between 2004-2008 where they played together, Steyn averaged mid 20's, and Pollock 23..... which is interesting, because Pollock averaged 40 in 2007 over a long period of matches, and this was the first time Steyn showed his true class, and I think when they played together. The stats show therefore that, both Pollock and Steyn did better when they played together as with respect to Steyns career at that point, and Pollocks decline.

Ntini fell apart really quickly at the end of 2008. He was averaging around 29 in the two years that Steyn was leading the attack in 2007/08, but when Ntini's form collapsed in the six test back to back in 2009 vs Australia, he called it a day. Steyn had his worst full year of test cricket in 2009 when Ntini plummeted and he played with Harris/Ntini and the often inconsistent Nel.

When Philander turned up in 2011, the 5 seasons they have played together, Steyn has averaged 17,17,19,20 and 29.....

I think its clear that when other bowlers are doing well around him, its a benefit not a hinderance.

It might be that good bowlers around you would improve your SR, econ and average. But it won't improve your wicket tally. Which is what that comparison with Anderson was concerned with.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:It might be that good bowlers around you would improve your SR, econ and average. But it won't improve your wicket tally. Which is what that comparison with Anderson was concerned with.

this is what i was suggesting

anderson has had less competition for those top order wickets

and since others have been taking wickets as well steyn would therefore be a little fresher when bowling at the tail, that and his extra pace and aggression are why he has lots of tail wickets

though getting the tail is very very important these days, gone are the days when 9/10 and 11 didnt know which end of the bat to hold, everyone is capable of making 30+ these days