Are we seeing a revival in quality pace attacks in test cricket?

[War]

Quality of pace has gone down apparently as Asif and Aamer face certain life bans.

Terrile news. I will cry just now..

 

[Aoun13]

Just when our bowling was looking gun, these bastards ruin it.:crying

 

[sami ullah khan]

Terrile news. I will cry just now..

Oh No Please don't. I did not mean to hurt your feelings :sarcasm

 

[enigma]

Vettori's bowling average is 33.86. If we exclude his performace against Bangladesh his average is 37.86. Any bowler who averages about 38, removing Bangladesh, is average. Is that not a fair assessment ?

And I don't know why you're mentioning his captaining, batting etc, I only mentioned his bowling. He's nothing special.

Adarsh added 8 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...

A bowling attack of Mills, Gillespie, Southee and Vettori up with the world's best ?! What ?!

England : Anderson, Broad, Finn and Swann are better.
South Africa: Steyn, Morkel, Harris, Kallis and Tsotsobe/Botha are better.
Pakistan : Aamer, Asif, Gul, Ajmal/Kaneria are better.

At best the New Zealand bowling line up is on par with India, Srilanka and West Indies. If you have statistics that show otherwise, I'd be glad to admit I'm wrong.

Well, as others have mentioned already, stats don't tell you the whole story but still I'll try to engage in some reasoning based on statistics.

Ok, if we leave out Warne & Murali who averaged 25 & 23 respectively (they were just freaks) & try to see other great spinners' Test averages without the matches against Zimbabwe & Bangladesh, especially sub-continental ones as they're supposed to be the best in the trade -
Harbhajan 32, Kumble 31, Saqlain 31, M Ahmed 33, Qadir 33

Even if we go back a little more in time to have a look at the great Indian-Quartet -
Bedi 29, Chandrasekhar 30, Prasanna 30, Venkataraghavan 36

Bear in mind that everyone in that Quartet have taken a fair number of wickets against an average New Zealand at an average of 20-25, so if you take those away, they'll average much higher.

Now, one must consider the fact that all of the above spinners have played 70% or more of their matches in conditions helpful to spin to various degrees while Vettori has played 70% or more of his matches in conditions where there's absolutely no help for spinners; further, one must also consider the fact that non-sub-continental left-arms-spinners are usually used as defensive bowlers so often they're just bowling to contain & not to take wickets, & that means they end up giving away a fair amount of runs without actually giving themselves a chance of taking wickets & that SUBSTANTIALLY increases their bowling averages & same is true of Vettori.

So in the light of all of the above, one may conclude that if sub-continental bowlers who get to bowl attackingly in spin-friendly conditions are averaging in low thirties then an average of mid-thirties for a non-sub-continental spinner who rarely gets to bowl for taking wickets isn't that bad afterall.

Further, as people've already mentioned, stats aren't everything & anyone who understands cricket & has watched Vettori bowl & in the light of the facts raised here, would understand why Vettori is a class-act; afterall, if you look at Venkataraghavan's average of 36, you'd think he wasn't that good but only those who saw him or played against him know why he's regarded as a great spinner.

 

[TumTum]

Vettori is overrated, really can't see how you can say that he is not. The only thing he is good at is keeping it tight with variations and accuracy, which doesn't have much of an effect at Test level.

IMO stats are everything (in a career span), it doesn't matter how good you are, if you are not getting the results it means jack ████. For example to be a great T20 or ODI bowler, Economy is just as important as your Average, in Tests SR is just as important as your Average. One way or another Stats do reveal everything but the physical appearance, mentaility, etc, etc.

 

[khalek]

Steyn, Bollinger, Johnson (on his day) are the main deadly fast bowlers going around. Aamer and his talent will definitely be missed if he gets a life ban. I hope guys like Roach, Southee keep improving and turn into good test match bowlers.

 

[enigma]

Vettori is overrated, really can't see how you can say that he is not. The only thing he is good at is keeping it tight with variations and accuracy, which doesn't have much of an effect at Test level.

If anything, I'd say he's underrated as is obvious from posts here & has never got the respect that he deserves & even though he's yet to finish his career, he already goes down in history as one of the great left-arm-spinners of the sport. As I've said, if great sub-con spinners of the past & present, are averaging in low-thirties even after playing a fair amount of cricket in spin-friendly conditions then you must give Vettori a concession of at least 4-5 extra runs per wicket considering the history of non-sub-con SLA bowlers as well as the fact that he hardly ever gets to bowl in a congenial environment; much like sub-con pacers are given a concession of 4-5 or more runs per wicket compared to non-sub-con pacers due to unhelpful conditions they bowl in & that's the reason why, even though people like Kapil Dev, Chaminda Vaas, etc are considered to be greats of the game even though they average 30 while most great non-sub-con pacers average 25 or lower.

IMO stats are everything (in a career span), it doesn't matter how good you are, if you are not getting the results it means jack ████.

Well, believe it or not, your strong emphasis on stats in determining players' quality is a result of you having NOT dealt too much with Cricket-stats in your life, that's why you don't realize how Cricket-stats fool us when we look at them without considering the relevant context.

As I've said, looking at his ordinary bowling average of 36, most people who've never seen him bowl would think Venkataraghavan was just an ordinary spinner, & that a certain W.G. Grace who averaged 32 in 36 Test-Innings was just an average batsman & hence doesn't deserve to be called the "Father of Cricket" but those who don't judge players on stats alone would think otherwise.

Judging players by stats alone is layman's way of doing it, it's easy & very convenient but a view which is totally hollow, & lacking in depth & comprehensiveness.

 

[enigma]

Be good if curators around the world could prepare some pitches with a bit of pace and bounce. Way too many advantages for batsmen these days

Agreed, Cricket's uniqueness is that it offers a contest between bat & ball but idiots in the ICC & Boards around the world don't realize it & then they say Test cricket is waning in popularity :sarcasm They go by the foolish formula of more runs = more crowds, which is just a short-term fix, it's not going to keep the game afloat in the long-run. We need more lively pitches with a little help for bowlers so there's a contest out there & I'm sure people would love to come & watch like the recent series in England I thought were pretty exciting & would've been more exciting if Pak actually had a few batsmen in their line-up.

The drastic drop in quality of bowling in 2000s is a direct result of the stupid trend of preparing flat pitches that started with stupid field restrictions & more runs = more crowds mantra in 1990s, which allows the bat to dominate, so more & more youngsters want to become batsmen & less of them want to become bowlers, which directly reduces the production of good bowlers in world cricket, which allows the bat to dominate even more & so on the cycle continues to get worse & worse unless there is intervention; I hope the idiots in ICC & Cricket-Boards around the world realize this & may be set up a "pitch panel" that inspects & ensures that pitches around the world are sporting pitches that'll generate a contest between bat & ball, if not then the grounds should be penalized.

 

[TumTum]

Well, believe it or not, your strong emphasis on stats in determining players' quality is a result of you having NOT dealt too much with Cricket-stats in your life, that's why you don't realize how Cricket-stats fool us when we look at them without considering the relevant context.

As I've said, looking at his ordinary bowling average of 36, most people who've never seen him bowl would think Venkataraghavan was just an ordinary spinner, & that a certain W.G. Grace who averaged 32 in 36 Test-Innings was just an average batsman & hence doesn't deserve to be called the "Father of Cricket" but those who don't judge players on stats alone would think otherwise.

Judging players by stats alone is layman's way of doing it, it's easy & very convenient but a view which is totally hollow, & lacking in depth & comprehensiveness.

If you are talking about the conditions of where they bowled, you can easily factor in the usual bowling & batting averages of that area. Obviously if you factored in era's, ground's, opposition quality (look at their averages), if player A has a better average than player B, player A is better. Simple as that.

Common example is Flintoff, people say he was a much better bowler than his stats suggest, but that is rubbish because he bowled a bad length for picking up handful of wickets. He was intimidating that's for sure, but was not great.

Obviously the case with WG Grace is different, but just because there are a few people which you can't judge with stats alone doesn't mean I am wrong.

 

[enigma]

If you are talking about the conditions of where they bowled, you can easily factor in the usual bowling & batting averages of that area. Obviously if you factored in era's, ground's, opposition quality (look at their averages), if player A has a better average than player B, player A is better. Simple as that.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that as there are too many factors that tend to skew the statistics erroneously; the same ground (pitch that is) may behave differently in different matches; as for opposition's quality, it's possible that when a player played them, they were not at their best in a series/match so the player was able to get cheap runs/wickets while another player just happened to catch them on their best days; there are so many other things that greatly affect statistics, yes, they do tell a story but a rather incomplete one & as I've said, only those who've seen players play & played against them will be able tell you the whole story. (or one learns to see that when they've worked long enough with Cricket-statistics & understand the nuances of the sport & its statistics)

Common example is Flintoff, people say he was a much better bowler than his stats suggest, but that is rubbish because he bowled a bad length for picking up handful of wickets. He was intimidating that's for sure, but was not great.

He bowled just-short-of-a-good-length which is what the likes of Ambrose & McGrath & many tall greats bowled, I suppose they were bowling the wrong length as well :sarcasm

And YES, I also believe he was a much better bowler than his stats suggest, he didn't always play as a full-bowler, for a while at the start of his career, he was just used as a defensive bowler to try & contain the opposition, only later on was he seen as a full-bowler & given the full reign & allowed to attack & go for wickets, plus, he was also used very sparingly sometimes due to him being injury-prone which limited his opportunities of taking more wickets than he has & thereby further lowering his average which was raised due to him being used defensively in early part of his career, not to mention he has played majority of his matches in an "era of flat pitches". Besides, I think his potency as a wicket-taker is pretty evident from his ODI average of 24.

Obviously the case with WG Grace is different, but just because there are a few people which you can't judge with stats alone doesn't mean I am wrong.

On the contrary, just because there are lots of bad players with bad stats doesn't mean I'm wrong The reaosn for bringing up Grace was to illustrate that stats are always to be seen in their relevant context like in case of Vettori I've compared stats with other spin-greats & history of SLA bowlers; stats when looked at without looking at their relevant context can be misleading.

 

[TumTum]

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that as there are too many factors that tend to skew the statistics erroneously; the same ground (pitch that is) may behave differently in different matches; as for opposition's quality, it's possible that when a player played them, they were not at their best in series/match so the player was able to cheap runs/wickets while another player just happened to catch them on their best days; there are so many other things that greatly affect statistics, yes, they do tell a story but a rather incomplete one & as I've said, only those who've seen players play & played against them will be able tell you the whole story. (or one learns to see that when they've worked long enough with Cricket-statistics & understand the nuances of the sport & its statistics)



He bowled just-short-of-a-good-length which is what the likes of Ambrose & McGrath & many tall greats bowled, I suppose they were bowling the wrong length as well :sarcasm

For the 1st paragraph, that is true but it all evens out once somebody has played a full career. There will be times when you are gifted wickets and etc etc, but I think we can all agree that especially at Test level you will get to face many different conditions.

Actually both Ambrose and McGrath mixed their lengths really well. For one delivery they would bowl it short of a length, the next on a length, and the next just full of a length (like a seamless transition). Flintoff on the other hand didn't trouble the batsmen with the fullish deliveries as much as his short stuff or he was mentality unable to understand you needed to pitch up the ball (either way, it doesn't make him a great bowler, stats are justified).

Also the argument of how the bowler was used also is dud, it doesn't matter in what strategy is made for your bowling (like if you are asked to contain the batsmen), if you are good enough you can get results either way. The best defense is a good offense

TumTum added 3 Minutes and 52 Seconds later...

And BTW I think we have to agree to disagree on Vettori, he is a good ODI bowler but for me he is pretty much useless for NZ when playing decent teams at Test level.

 

[enigma]

For the 1st paragraph, that is true but it all evens out once somebody has played a full career. There will be times when you are gifted wickets and etc etc, but I think we can all agree that especially at Test level you will get to face many different conditions.

No, it doesn't even out, players just say that to themselves to get them to move on & not keep feeling bad about "what could've been"; it'll always be that some just get lucky with some cheap runs/wickets than others & some not but you wouldn't believe how much of a difference it makes statistically, that's why if you ever hear cricketers answer "who's better questions", they'll usually not base their reasoning on statistics because they understand that even two players who've played in the same era or even the same team with batting/bowling averages with a difference of 0-5, they WON'T just go on averages to justify who's better, especially if they've played with or against them.

Sometimes, someone is more often the one to get majority of catches dropped of his bowling, someone is more often the one to nick the great balls while others play & miss, someone is more often the one to keep beating the bat but not get the edge, someone is more often the one get the tail-enders out to add to their wickets tally but someone else isn't, and so on. In fact, you wouldn't believe if I tell you that the difference between the averages of some of the great bowlers is determined by how constistently they're LUCKY ENOUGH to get to bowl to the tail-end & LUCKY ENOUGH to get them out quickly before their partner at the other end gets LUCKY

Andy Roberts has the costliest average of all the great WI quicks but many who played with & against him believed he was the best among his WI compatriots while WI's most prolific opponent Gavaskar called him "complete bowler" who he found the most difficult to handle among all WI quicks but as you can see as far as the numbers go, he has the worst average of all those quicks. So in reality, it NEVER evens out STATISTICALLY, some just end up getting worst end of the stick while others don't, it's just something people say to soothe themselves.

Actually both Ambrose and McGrath mixed their lengths really well. For one delivery they would bowl it short of a length, the next on a length, and the next just full of a length (like a seamless transition). Flintoff on the other hand didn't trouble the batsmen with the fullish deliveries as much as his short stuff or he was mentality unable to understand you needed to pitch up the ball (either way, it doesn't make him a great bowler, stats are justified).

I don't know which Ambrose & McGrath you're talking about but the ones I saw hardly ever got fuller than just-short-of-a-good-length, of course there was the once in a blue-moon fuller delivery but that can hardly be termed as "mixing it up" so even Flintoff often "mixed it up" in that sense; & didn't he rip through Aus in 2005 with reverse swing & I don't think you get any swing, let alone reverse swing, by bowling short so wasn't that stupid afterall I guess.

Also the argument of how the bowler was used also is dud, it doesn't matter in what strategy is made for your bowling (like if you are asked to contain the batsmen), if you are good enough you can get results either way. The best defense is a good offense

No, you've no idea how much of an effect bowling strategy has on players' stats. If you bowl over-the-wicket to right-handers as a left-arm-spinner or round-the-wicket to right-handers as a Leg-spinner then you immediately reduce your wicket-taking opportunities CONSIDERABLY & if you're made to do that consistently then your average isn't going to be that good for sure; if you're asked to bowl very wide outside off-stump as a pacer then you reduce your chances of taking wickets; if you're asked to contain then you don't get to experiment a lot with your line, length & deliveries which again reduces your wicket-taking opportunities & so on, so that "good bowlers will get wickets" argument doesn't quite work so smoothly, YES, if they're good enough they'll get wickets but its the PRICE ie their AVERAGE that'll vary A LOT depending on when they're bowling the way they want to & when they're made to bowl a certain way for team's cause.

And BTW I think we have to agree to disagree on Vettori, he is a good ODI bowler but for me he is pretty much useless for NZ when playing decent teams at Test level.

Yes, agree to disagree on that

 

[TumTum]

No, it doesn't even out, players just say that to themselves to get them to move on & not keep feeling bad about "what could've been"; it'll always be that some just get lucky with some cheap runs/wickets than others & some not but you wouldn't believe how much of a difference it makes statistically, that's why if you ever hear cricketers answer "who's better questions", they'll usually not base their reasoning on statistics because they understand that even two players who've played in the same era or even the same team with batting/bowling averages with a difference of 0-5, they WON'T just go on averages to justify who's better, especially if they've played with or against them.

Sometimes, someone is more often the one to get majority of catches dropped of his bowling, someone is more often the one to get nick the great balls, someone is more often the one to keep beating the bat but not get the edge, someone is more often the one get the tail-enders out to add to their wickets tally but someone else isn't, and so on. In fact, you wouldn't believe if I tell you that the difference between the averages of some of the great bowlers is determined by how constistently they're LUCKY ENOUGH to get to bowl to the tail-end & LUCKY ENOUGH to get them out quickly before their partner at the other end gets LUCKY

If you are beating the outside edge all the time and hardly ever getting the wickets, it doesn't make you as good as a bowler who regularly finds wickets. It is as simple as that.

Dude stats can tell you everything you just written, it can tell you if a bowler has taken more of his wickets against top order batsmen or tail enders, where he scored his runs (like in which series, what innings, what grounds).

In cricket, stats almost cover everything except captaincy and fielding.

TumTum added 3 Minutes and 59 Seconds later...

I don't know which Ambrose & McGrath you're talking about but the ones I saw hardly ever got fuller than just-short-of-a-good-length, of course there was the once in a blue-moon fuller delivery but that can hardly be termed as "mixing it up" so even Flintoff often "mixed it up" in that sense; & didn't he rip through Aus in 2005 with reverse swing & I don't think you get any swing, let alone reverse swing, by bowling short so wasn't that stupid afterall I guess.

Are you serious? Or just trying to be funny?

How is the world's most accurate length bowler bowled "just-short-of-a-good-length" all the time?

Don't make a fool out of yourself.

TumTum added 1 Minutes and 42 Seconds later...

No, you've no idea how much of an effect bowling strategy has on players' stats. If you bowl over-the-wicket to right-handers as a left-arm-spinner or round-the-wicket to right-handers as a Leg-spinner then you immediately reduce your wicket-taking opportunities CONSIDERABLY & if you're made to do that consistently then your average isn't going to be that good for sure; if you're asked to bowl very wide outside off-stump as a pacer then you reduce your chances of taking wickets; if you're asked to contain then you don't get to experiment a lot with your line, length & deliveries which again reduces your wicket-taking opportunities & so on, so that "good bowlers will get wickets" argument doesn't quite work so smoothly, YES, if they're good enough they'll get wickets but its the PRICE ie their AVERAGE that'll vary A LOT depending on when they're bowling the way they want to & when they're made to bowl a certain way for team's cause.

As I said if you are good enough, you will get results whatever strategy you are used in.

Just imagine if you swap around Vettori and Swann from their respective teams, will Vettori suddenly become a wicket taker and Swann will just block out an end?

 

[War]

Oh No Please don't. I did not mean to hurt your feelings :sarcasm

Hey i wasn't mocking your or the PAK team at all sir. I am serious, i'll be very sad if Asif & Aamir get banned.

War added 3 Minutes and 15 Seconds later...

By the way totally agree with poster Enigma here.

 

[shravi]

Lol, DumDum got owned.