Bowlers and Bowling

[D/L]

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare

Cricinfo Poll

Who's your favourite among contemporary fast bowlers?

Dale Steyn - 44.93% - 25066
Junaid Khan - 11.65% - 6501
Mitchell Starc - 10.88% - 6071
Mitchell Johnson - 8.63% - 4815
James Anderson - 7.45% - 4158
Trent Boult - 6.81% - 3801
Lasith Malinga - 3.73% - 2078
Ishant Sharma - 2.62% - 1464
Steven Finn - 0.93% - 518
Tim Southee - 0.89% - 495
Morne Morkel - 0.71% - 394
Kemar Roach - 0.41% - 229
Stuart Broad - 0.35% - 193
Total votes: 55783

I can't believe Broad got so few votes ...

I can.

However, it all seems fairly pointless.

[Michelle Fivefer]

Originally Posted by Minor Maggie

A recent BBC poll had Jimmy ahead of Dale Steyn. I guess it depends on who you support who you vote for.

The BBC is a British institution so more parochial. Cricinfo is international. Dale Steyn would get a lot of support from neutral voters.

[1000yardstare]

Steyn strike rate 41.58. Lohmann, Ferris and Bond played less than 18 Tests so Steyn has the best strike rate in the history of the game.

Fast bowlers wickets of batsmen 1-3, 4-7, 8-11
(fast bowlers 400+ wickets)

225-196-142 - McGrath (563)
177-179-163 - Walsh (519)
175-136-123 - Kapil Dev (434)
158-144-129 - Hadlee (431)
150-147-124 - Pollock (421)
132-137-145 - Akram (414)
155-157-105 - Anderson (413)
147-146-112 - Ambrose (405)
128-144-130 - Steyn (402)

Akram 35% and Steyn 32.3% the best bowlers bowling at the tail.
McGrath 40% and Kapil Dev 40.3% the bowlers against the top order
Anderson 37.8% and Ambrose 36% the best against the middle order.

[ConfusedMale]

Wahab Riaz isn't even there?

[Rebelstar]

Originally Posted by Minor Maggie

A recent BBC poll had Jimmy ahead of Dale Steyn. I guess it depends on who you support who you vote for.

He's flavour of the month, even year, for breaking (English) records although his main achievement is staying fit enough to play enough Tests to get there.

I was watching an old episode of Pointless and two lads picked 'cricket' as their final category, back when you only got one question/subcategory. It was name bowlers who have taken 300+ wickets.

The pair picked good bowlers, but Shoaib Akhtar, Jim Laker and the other one they picked didn't play enough Tests, I think Shoaib became a bit more of a one day specialist. My calls were Marshall (pointless), Donald (also pointless) and I can't remember who the 3rd was but he wasn't listed as pointless. I also considered other pointless answers like Waqar, but my point is only in recent years have players played enough Tests to take much over 300 wickets and it's more longevity of career than quality of bowler to reach the landmark people haveh ard ons over Jimmy

[1000yardstare]

Originally Posted by Rebelstar

He's flavour of the month, even year, for breaking (English) records although his main achievement is staying fit enough to play enough Tests to get there.

I was watching an old episode of Pointless and two lads picked 'cricket' as their final category, back when you only got one question/subcategory. It was name bowlers who have taken 300+ wickets.

The pair picked good bowlers, but Shoaib Akhtar, Jim Laker and the other one they picked didn't play enough Tests, I think Shoaib became a bit more of a one day specialist. My calls were Marshall (pointless), Donald (also pointless) and I can't remember who the 3rd was but he wasn't listed as pointless. I also considered other pointless answers like Waqar, but my point is only in recent years have players played enough Tests to take much over 300 wickets and it's more longevity of career than quality of bowler to reach the landmark people haveh ard ons over Jimmy

His last 15 Tests 70 wickets at 23.02. If he plays another 15 he will be up near 500 wickets. Pity he's not a quality bowler though.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by Rebelstar

He's flavour of the month, even year, for breaking (English) records although his main achievement is staying fit enough to play enough Tests to get there.

I was watching an old episode of Pointless and two lads picked 'cricket' as their final category, back when you only got one question/subcategory. It was name bowlers who have taken 300+ wickets.

The pair picked good bowlers, but Shoaib Akhtar, Jim Laker and the other one they picked didn't play enough Tests, I think Shoaib became a bit more of a one day specialist. My calls were Marshall (pointless), Donald (also pointless) and I can't remember who the 3rd was but he wasn't listed as pointless. I also considered other pointless answers like Waqar, but my point is only in recent years have players played enough Tests to take much over 300 wickets and it's more longevity of career than quality of bowler to reach the landmark people haveh ard ons over Jimmy

Yet Botham retired over twenty years ago and the top wicket takers for england include the likes of Fred Trueman, Bob Willis and Deadly Underwood who retired even earlier. A lot of other English bowlers during that period since so it's not just a matter of test frequency and longevity.

[Rebelstar]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

Yet Botham retired over twenty years ago and the top wicket takers for england include the likes of Fred Trueman, Bob Willis and Deadly Underwood who retired even earlier. A lot of other English bowlers during that period since so it's not just a matter of test frequency and longevity.

I know it's not just a question of longevity, but if you don't play 80+ Tests it's unlikely you'll be near 400 Test wickets.

In fairness I probably should have expanded on "recent years" as being 80s onwards, but since it was the end of my lunch break I didn't have any time to check read or anything else, when you aren't able to take your time you can say or post something that you know what you meant but you don't make it 100% clear.

Of those with over 300 wickets for England 3 played in the 80s or later, and SIX out of the top 10 wicket takers for England played into the 80s or later including FOUR in the 00s.

Without checking exact maths, Bedser and Trueman look the closest to 5 wickets per match, the rest around 4 or less. Those up to taking 4+ wickets per match, even 5, would still have to play 60+ Tests to reach 300 and more to reach 400.

Doesn't really matter what residual records existed when Botham retired, most records are pushed down eventually and reshaped as athletes get quicker/fitter, pitches get flatter, careers last longer etc.


And as I've probably said before the batsman regarded as the best ever, averaging all but 100, is nowhere near the top of the runs charts. Point being people bang on about Anderson as "best ever" and such, he has been a good steady bowler, but doesn't make him the best because he's got most wickets and I'd say he isn't the best English bowler.

[Rebelstar]

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare

His last 15 Tests 70 wickets at 23.02. If he plays another 15 he will be up near 500 wickets. Pity he's not a quality bowler though.

I've never said he's rubbish if that's what you're implying, I am just pointing out that most <> best and you point out if he plays MORE TESTS he'll get closer to 500 which if Swann had done he'd be up there too.

A rubbish bowler wouldn't get 100+ Tests, 50 perhaps (Giles).

[draexem]

I should point out that of the last 15 tests, 12 were played in England and the other 3 against a mediocre WINDIES side. So, considering he'll need to play away from home over the next little bit, he won't average nearly as low (being more a conditions bowler than bowlers like Steyn are.)

[Breacan]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

Yet Botham retired over twenty years ago and the top wicket takers for england include the likes of Fred Trueman, Bob Willis and Deadly Underwood who retired even earlier. A lot of other English bowlers during that period since so it's not just a matter of test frequency and longevity.

I'd tend to disagre: Most English bowlers with 200+ wickets took between 3.5 and 4 wickets a match.

The exceptions were Flintoff (2.8), Snow (4.1), Swann (4.3, to my surprise), Trueman and Bedser (both 4.6).

So clearly the number of tests played is a dominant factor (surprise, surprise), which means frequency and longevity matter.

Thos with the longest test careers (13+ years) are in descending order: Underwood, Botham, Statham, Trueman, Willis. Despite taking wickets at roughly similar rates per match, the old timers had to play at the top level for much longer. Contrast that with Broad: his wickets per match is relatively low at 3.6; he's played for relatively short 8 years, yet he's on 299 wickets already.

[D/L]

Originally Posted by Ali TT

Yet Botham retired over twenty years ago and the top wicket takers for england include the likes of Fred Trueman, Bob Willis and Deadly Underwood who retired even earlier. A lot of other English bowlers during that period since so it's not just a matter of test frequency and longevity.

Botham's many test wickets taken whilst the world's best batsmen were playing in World Series Cricket may make his being up there a bit of an anomaly.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by D/L

Botham's many test wickets taken whilst the world's best batsmen were playing in World Series Cricket may make his being up there a bit of an anomaly.

Bit like Broad's good fortune to bowl so much against this Aussie side

[D/L]

Indeed, particularly with Anderson being absent in this test.

[slop]

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare

Bowlers still going - 200+ wickets

417 - Harbhajan (35)
413 - Anderson (33)
402 - Steyn (32)
308 - Broad (29)
302 - Johnson (33)
263 - Herath (37)
218 - Morkel (30)

Will Johnson make it to 400? He still looks fit enough for another two years. Steyn and Anderson to 500? Broad and Johnson to 400? It's quite likely that Steyn will reach 600 at the rate he is going.

192 - Siddle
189 - Sharma
167 - Panesar
165 - Edwards
163 - Gul
158 - Lyon
147 - Al-Hasan
144 - Southee
134 - Ashwin
123 - Boult, Philander
122 - Taylor
120 - Roach
113 - Ohja

Doubt if Philander or Siddle with get 200. Panesar could make a surprise comeback.

If Panesar can make a comeback so can Philly

Steyn, Anderson and Johnson can't have that many years left and they'd have to take 50 wickets a year to reach those milestones (600/500/400). That's not something they do that often. I can see Anderson and Steyn reaching 500 with a year or two while their form tails off at the end. But Johnson I have a feeling will significantly lose effectiveness with pace and will have a quicker end to his career in the next couple of years.

Hope I'm wrong on all and they continue for a long time.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by slop

If Panesar can make a comeback so can Philly

Steyn, Anderson and Johnson can't have that many years left and they'd have to take 50 wickets a year to reach those milestones (600/500/400). That's not something they do that often. I can see Anderson and Steyn reaching 500 with a year or two while their form tails off at the end. But Johnson I have a feeling will significantly lose effectiveness with pace and will have a quicker end to his career in the next couple of years.

Hope I'm wrong on all and they continue for a long time.

Johnson has both a slightly unreliable action and a reliance on pace so I think you're probably right about him. I'm less sure how long Anderson and Steyn have but both have generally done pretty well form and fitness wise so should have a while left.

[1000yardstare]

Do bowlers wickets tail off as they get older?

Steyn - career 5.02
2012 - 10 Tests 39 wickets - 3.9 wickets per Test
2013 - 9 Tests 51 wickets - 5.66
2014/5 - 11 Tests 52 wickets - 4.72

Johnson - career 4.31
2012 - 2 Tests 12 wickets
2013 - 6 Tests 34 wickets - 5.66
2014/5 - 15 Tests 66 wickets - 4.40

Anderson - career 3.85
2012 - 14 Tests 48 wickets - 3.42
2013 - 14 Tests 52 wickets - 3.71
2014/5 - 16 Tests 73 wickets - 4.56

McGrath 4.54.
In 05 (13) it was 4.76
In 06 (5) 3.60
In 07 (1) 6.00

He felt his body was up to it at the age of 37.

[square leg umpire]

Surprised Steyn's 32. he doesn't seem to have been around that long.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by square leg umpire

Surprised Steyn's 32. he doesn't seem to have been around that long.

Debut 2004 against us wasn't it? And AB. Didn't Steyn smash Vaughan's stumps all ends up in one game.

Nathan Lyon is well on the way to a pretty decent career.

[Ali TT]

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare

Do bowlers wickets tail off as they get older?

Steyn - career 5.02
2012 - 10 Tests 39 wickets - 3.9 wickets per Test
2013 - 9 Tests 51 wickets - 5.66
2014/5 - 11 Tests 52 wickets - 4.72

Johnson - career 4.31
2012 - 2 Tests 12 wickets
2013 - 6 Tests 34 wickets - 5.66
2014/5 - 15 Tests 66 wickets - 4.40

Anderson - career 3.85
2012 - 14 Tests 48 wickets - 3.42
2013 - 14 Tests 52 wickets - 3.71
2014/5 - 16 Tests 73 wickets - 4.56

McGrath 4.54.
In 05 (13) it was 4.76
In 06 (5) 3.60
In 07 (1) 6.00

He felt his body was up to it at the age of 37.

McGrath's swansong was in the 2007 world cup. I think his average and economy rate were filthily low.