THE CORDON HOME

BLOGS ARCHIVES
SELECT BLOG
March 14, 2008

Trivia - bowling

The bowlers who took the most high-quality wickets

Anantha Narayanan
Malcolm Marshall in action, April 10, 1991
 © Getty Images
Enlarge

About a month back, I had done a post on the most consistent bowlers in Tests, as part of an analysis on bowlers. I had mentioned then that there would be two measures for bowlers - the second one is on the quality of wickets taken by bowlers.

In view of the very high number of comments received, we will close the comments by evening of Friday, 21 March so that a comprehensive follow-up can be posted.

Consider three recent innings summaries:

West Indies 215 all out (Sehwag 3-33, Patel 3-51, Kumble 3-57) These numbers suggest Virender Sehwag was the best of the lot and Anil Kumble the worst. In reality, it was the other way around. Kumble took the wickets of Chris Gayle, Brian Lara and Dwayne Bravo. Munaf Patel took the wickets of Daren Ganga, Ramnaresh Sarwan and Denesh Ramdin, while Sehwag collected the tailenders - Ian Bradshaw, Jerome Taylor and Pedro Collins. Another example:

India 240 all out (Ntini 3-41, M Morkel 3-86) Makhaya Ntini captured the wickets of Wasim Jaffer, Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly while Morne Morkel captured the wickets of Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Kumble and Zaheer Khan. For that matter, the spell of Andre Nel, who captured only two wickets - those of Sehwag and Dravid - is better than that of Morkel.

Bangladesh 259 all out (Ntini 4-35, Steyn 4-66) Here both bowlers took the same number of wickets, but Dale Steyn took the top four while Ntini mopped up the tail.

In the wickets column of scorecards there is the bland pronouncement that a bowler has captured x number of wickets. There is no information on whose wickets he captured. This analysis seeks to secure such information.

The computation is simple. Every wicket captured by a bowler in the 1865 Test matches played so far is analysed, and the sum of career batting averages of the batsmen dismissed is calculated. It is then divided by the number of wickets captured by each bowler and a Batting Quality Index (BQI) arrived at. It's a simple but exhaustive calculation, which is impossible manually.

The top ten bowlers in this list - criterion being at least 100 Test wickets - ordered by BQI is startling. (I would appreciate it if readers do not immediately write in saying "Wasim Akram is the greatest", "Who are these clowns", "Boje and Dillon could not find a regular place in their teams" etc.)

Table 1: Ordered by BQI

SNo Bowler            Bow Cty Mat Wkt  Sum of   BQI
BatAvge

1.Boje N LSP Saf 43 100 3453.0 34.53 2.Flintoff A RFM Eng 67 197 6652.0 33.77 3.Connolly A.N RFM Aus 29 102 3444.0 33.76 4.Giles A.F LSP Eng 54 143 4812.0 33.65 5.Dillon M RFM Win 38 131 4366.0 33.33 6.Collinge R.O LFM Nzl 35 116 3825.0 32.97 7.Zaheer Khan LFM Ind 53 170 5599.0 32.94 8.Caddick A.R RFM Eng 62 234 7706.0 32.93 9.Hoggard M.J RFM Eng 66 247 8118.0 32.87 10.Martin C.S RFM Nzl 37 125 4086.0 32.69

The list is headed by virtually unknown bowlers. Why does this happen?

Possibly because they do not bowl at the end, picking up tail-end wickets. The other more established bowlers get the opportunity. These bowlers tend to bowl during the middle of the innings.

The other peculiarity is the presence of the three current England bowlers. Here the possible reason is that England has played Australia and India recently and the average of batting averages for these two teams is quite high.

I would be interested in reading comments from interested readers on possible reasons for this peculiar situation.

136.Steyn D.W         RFM Saf  20 105  2655.0  25.29
137.Barnes S.F        RFM Eng  27 189  4646.0  24.58
138.Blythe C          LSP Eng  19 100  2449.0  24.49
139.Wardle J.H        LSP Eng  28 102  2416.0  23.69
140.Noble M.A         ROB Aus  42 121  2859.0  23.63
141.Turner C.T.B      RFM Aus  17 101  2291.0  22.68
142.Giffen G          ROB Aus  31 103  2229.0  21.64
143.Peel R            LSP Eng  20 102  1960.0  19.22
144.Briggs J          LSP Eng  33 118  2025.0  17.16
145.Lohmann G.A       RFM Eng  18 112  1755.0  15.67

At the other end of the table we have the pre-World War-I players, indicating very low batting averages for batsmen playing at that time. Dale Steyn is a surprise inclusion, possibly because his last 54 wickets (over 50%) have been against the weaker batting teams of New Zealand, West Indies and Bangladesh, who have lower batting averages.

For a full list, please click here.

However let us seek to address this situation by looking at two other measures. The first is the difference between BQI and the career bowling average for the bowler. While it is true that having a high BQI means that the bowler has picked up better quality wickets, it might be more than offset by a high bowling average, which means the bowler has conceded a lot of runs for each wicket captured. The difference between these two figures will give a clear indication of the bowler's quality. The higher the difference, the better the bowler.

Table 1: Ordered by Difference between BQI and Bowling Average

SNo Bowler            Bow Cty   BowAvg  BQI    Diff

1.Marshall M.D RF Win 20.95 30.06 9.11 2.Davidson A.K LFM Aus 20.53 29.51 8.97 3.Ambrose C.E.L RF Win 20.99 29.85 8.86 4.McGrath G.D RFM Aus 21.64 30.43 8.79 5.O'Reilly W.J RLB Aus 22.60 31.12 8.53 6.Barnes S.F RFM Eng 16.43 24.58 8.15 7.Laker J.C ROB Eng 21.25 29.30 8.05 8.Croft C.E.H RF Win 23.30 31.22 7.91 9.Miller K.R RF Aus 22.98 30.65 7.68 10.Adcock N.A.T RF Saf 21.11 28.17 7.07

Ha! The list looks a lot more 'normal'. This is certainly a list of the outstanding bowlers of all time. Again, no mails bringing up other bowlers' names please. These are great bowlers who will stand comparison with anyone outside the list.

136.Giles A.F         LSP Eng   40.60  33.65  -6.95
137.Yadav N.S         ROB Ind   35.10  28.14  -6.96
138.Wright D.V.P      RLB Eng   39.11  31.06  -8.06
139.Boje N            LSP Saf   42.65  34.53  -8.12
140.Venkataraghavan S ROB Ind   36.12  27.56  -8.56
141.Emburey J.E       ROB Eng   38.41  29.69  -8.71
142.Abdul Razzaq      RFM Pak   36.93  27.66  -9.27
143.Shastri R.J       LSP Ind   40.96  31.69  -9.27
144.Mohammad Rafique  LSP Bng   40.76  31.35  -9.41
145.Hooper C.L        ROB Win   49.43  31.52 -17.91

Again, one feels vindicated. Boje is at the end with a huge negative difference. There is no denying that these are bowlers of average skills and in case of Mohammad Rafique, playing for a weak team. The last in this list is Carl Hooper, a very ordinary bowler indeed.

For a full list, please click here.

Another analysis I have done is to consider the number of lower-order wickets taken by a bowler and determine a % of lower-order wickets taken.

Who is a lower-order batsman? For the purpose of this exercise, I have defined it as a batsman batting at positions 8 to 11, and averaging less than 25 [to take care of situations when a Adam Gilchrist or Kapil Dev or Ian Botham might have batted at No. 8 or lower]. Only Daniel Vettori, with a batting average of 26.39, goes out of this classification. But then who can say that Vettori, with two Test centuries, is not an allrounder.

Initially I did this analysis based on batting average. However, that distorted the complete picture since the batting averages of batsmen during pre-WW-I and recently those from Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have been quite low. Hence I have gone back to the batting position.

In addition, any nightwatchman, determined through a proprietary algorithm, is considered as a lower-order batsmen.

Table 3: Ordered by % of lower-order wickets

SNo Bowler            Bow Cty Mat Wkts LowOrder Wkts
& %age

1.Zaheer Khan LFM Ind 53 170 23 (13.5) 2.Collinge R.O LFM Nzl 35 116 18 (15.5) 3.Boje N LSP Saf 43 100 16 (16.0) 4.Martin C.S RFM Nzl 37 125 22 (17.6) 5.Edmonds P.H LSP Eng 51 125 22 (17.6) 6.Flintoff A RFM Eng 67 197 36 (18.3) 7.Reid B.A LFM Aus 27 113 21 (18.6) 8.Pathan I.K LFM Ind 28 100 19 (19.0) 9.Intikhab Alam RLB Pak 47 125 24 (19.2) 10.Ghavri K.D LFM Ind 39 109 21 (19.3) 11.Hall W.W RF Win 48 192 37 (19.3) 12.Mushtaq Ahmed RLB Pak 52 185 36 (19.5) 13.Allen D.A ROB Eng 39 122 24 (19.7) 14.Srinath J RFM Ind 67 236 47 (19.9) 15.Thomson J.R RF Aus 51 200 40 (20.0)

This is a very good table, showing bowlers whose tally of lower-order wickets is less than 20% of the career wickets. It shows the value of Zaheer Khan to the Indian attack, as also Flintoff, Martin and Pathan to their respective teams.

134.Vettori D.L       LSP Nzl  77  238    81 (34.0)
135.Gupte S.P         RLB Ind  36  149    51 (34.2)
136.Rhodes W          LSP Eng  58  127    44 (34.6)
137.Mallett A.A       ROB Aus  38  132    46 (34.8)
138.Johnson I.W       ROB Aus  45  109    39 (35.8)
139.Adams P.R         LSP Saf  45  134    48 (35.8)
140.Giffen G          ROB Aus  31  103    37 (35.9)
141.MacGill S.C.G     RLB Aus  42  203    74 (36.5)
142.Wardle J.H        LSP Eng  28  102    38 (37.3)
143.Noble M.A         ROB Aus  42  121    47 (38.8)
144.Briggs J          LSP Eng  33  118    50 (42.4)
145.Lohmann G.A       RFM Eng  18  112    52 (46.4)

At the end of the table, these are bowlers whose tally of lower-order wickets is greater than a third of their total. It looks as if these bowlers have often been brought in to clean up the tail. There are quite a few pre-WW-I bowlers. A surprise is the presence of Vettori and MacGill, especially, who seems to have been brought in to bamboozle the tail despite the presence of other fast bowlers.

For a full list, please click here.

Some possible reader queries are anticipated and answered below.

1. At what individual score does the bowler dismiss the batsman. It is true that, for the fielding team, it is better for a batsman to be dismissed at 10 rather than 100. However, that is a more complex computation and has been done in a different context.

2. Whatever happens, capturing Tendulkar's wicket, even when he is on 100, is invaluable since he is capable of scoring a lot more runs than, say, when Dinesh Kartik has scored 25. It has been assumed that Tendulkar's wicket is Tendulkar's wicket, whatever be his individual score. Also, it might be true, in certain cases, that capturing Brad Haddin's wicket at 10 might be more valuable than capturing Matthew Hayden's wicket when he is at 100.

3. What about current form? While it may be true a few matches back Sehwag's wicket was going quite cheaply, his potential, as shown in the Adelaide Test, can never be underestimated. It is also true that even when Rahul Dravid or Ricky Ponting are going through indifferent form, their wickets are extremely valuable, because of their potential to score big.

Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems

RSS Feeds: Anantha Narayanan

Keywords: Trivia

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Rafael on (February 2, 2013, 20:42 GMT)

This a great article on the aliticappon of analytics in sports. Another aliticappon of this approach comes in mind is to predict the winner. The difference in the runs/goals scored by two teams could be taken up as the target variable and should be regressed based on all possible relevant parameters. The p value for each estimated point within the confidence interval will predict how likely the team is to win/loose.Applications are endless.

Posted by Dawood on (October 28, 2008, 2:58 GMT)

Wicket is a Wicket. Either of Brian Lara or of Shoaib Akhter. A good bowler is the one who terrorises the Batsman and produces awesome deliveries. Your analysis doesnt include those wrong decisions which were made by the Umpire's in favour of the Batsman. If only the Wickets of a good Batsman matters, then there should be no place for non-batters in the Team. They should just come and Bowl and not Bat. The Difference between an ordinary Bowler and a good Bowler is the Number of different Deliveries He can Bowl, His accuracy, His wickets, His average and His consistancy. Not how many wickets He has taken of good Players or bad Players.

Posted by dinesh on (March 30, 2008, 13:53 GMT)

I think this is a excellent article. It shows who are truly the great bowlers. It has already came in my mind that Zaheer khan would top the list.

Posted by Ravishankar on (March 21, 2008, 14:31 GMT)

- Good analysis. But, why are you penalising bowlers for picking up tailenders /batsmen with low averages. Afterall, its not their fault. Why dont you limit the analyses to wickets by batting order. That is, consider only wickets upto No.7 Bat. Discarding all rest of the wickets?

Posted by Nikhil Pradhan on (March 21, 2008, 3:51 GMT)

Nice article. but a good bowler has to be selected on the number of top order wickets he gets.but he should also get early wickets so that the other team is under pressure from the start. Whats the use in mopping the tail and get 4-5 wickets when the top order has already scored 400 runs. Its of no help.

Posted by Oz Parvaiz on (March 21, 2008, 0:58 GMT)

Tremendous article. The problem with statistics, however, is that it captures performance over time, essentially averaging out greatness over a number of years. Therefore, the peak of a player is not captured (unless you're Bradman of course). For instance, not matter how many wickets Warne has taken, or how high Marshall ranks on your list, I don't know anyone in history that can match Lilee and Imran between 1980 and 1984. Imran took 40 wickets in a series in India for God's sake. He could make the ball bounce and swing on quicksand (ask Gavaskar if you don't believe me). I have personally never seen any bowler dominate with speed, variation and swing the way these two did during that time period. Maybe Marshall was more effective for a longer period of time, but nobody was as good as Imran and Lilee at their peaks ... not Akram, not Warne, not Holding, not anyone. If it wasn't for Lillee's back and Imran's shin they would have captured 500 long before Hadlee.

Posted by Dhammachintak Neel on (March 20, 2008, 20:16 GMT)

The problem, as highlighted here, is that the good bowlers tend to "also" get the lower order wickets. In that case, the average isn't the best way out. On the contrary, "slabs of batsman's averages" should be considered. For eg., BQI for for those wickets having batting average between 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, 60-70, 70-80,80-90, 90-100. Also, the batting average should be considered for only those batsmen who have played atleast 'x' no. of matches (say 30) so that the average gives a rather real picture. Now for each of the slabs, have a weightage. Eg. 10-20 has weightage 0.1 and 90-100 has a weightage of 0.9. Thus, summation of product of weightage and BQI over all slabs gives a far better picture.

Posted by Atul Bhogle on (March 20, 2008, 14:23 GMT)

Very interesting analysis and some very good comments. While it is true that statistics can never give you a 'correct' picture, the beauty of Cricket is lies in such statistical games which can give us the only realistic chance of pitting players against each other regardless of the era they played in.

While the suggestion to consider only the batsman's average upto the point of the match is correct, I think the same should apply to bowlers also. This way we would be rewarding bowlers who were match winning material right from their first match. This would pit a bowler of X caliber against a batsman of Y caliber, and only then is comparison possible.

Though s match by match statistic of such a comparison would have too much data, a consolidated list would be interesting to compare against what we already have.

Posted by Greg Brown on (March 20, 2008, 12:26 GMT)

I think a better calculation would be to compare the number of runs/wicket conceded to a particular batsman compared to that batsman’s average/wicket.

So for example if a bowler dismisses Bradman 3 times in his career he would expect to be hit for 300 runs while taking those wickets. The bowler would gain a point for every run less then 300 conceded to Bradman, and lose a point for every run more than 300. Any runs conceded to batsmen where no wicket is taken is points added to the total.

An average bowler should have a score of zero, with better than average bowlers having negative scores.

We could also see who particular bowlers have had the most success against. I suspect that Atherton would be a good source of points for McGrath!

Posted by Muhamad Ajmal on (March 20, 2008, 6:43 GMT)

I believe we can check a bowler's capability during a test match but in this way we can't decide whether he take top class wickets,but how often he take the the wickets of clss batsman with his own art not when he made 100+ & got out with any silly selection of short playing. if i have a fair view of the past then I will found 2 bowlers with the capability to get the batsman when ever he want then there w/b 2 names 1 is great Waseem Akram & 2nd is legendary S.warne & if I look at the present bowlers then there is no name except all the time great Murli & new chap from Pak. Asif.

Comments have now been closed for this article

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Anantha Narayanan
Anantha spent the first half of his four-decade working career with corporates like IBM, Shaw Wallace, NCR, Sime Darby and the Spinneys group in IT-related positions. In the second half, he has worked on cricket simulation, ratings, data mining, analysis and writing, amongst other things. He was the creator of the Wisden 100 lists, released in 2001. He has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket, and worked extensively with Maruti Motors, Idea Cellular and Castrol on their performance ratings-related systems. He is an armchair connoisseur of most sports. His other passion is tennis, and he thinks Roger Federer is the greatest sportsman to have walked on earth.

All articles by this writer