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

bigfluffylemon wrote:Interesting hypothesis. I think though it might be confounded by a couple of factors - the first is that while theoretically the number of runs you can make in a game is unbounded, there are only ever 10 wickets you can take. Adding more bowlers can therefore result in diminishing returns. When you have three bowling specialists, adding a bowling allrounder probably is the most efficient. When you're getting to a fifth bowler, the relative value of their bowling and batting is likely to change. When you get to bowler number 6, their bowling is unlikely to be useful for anything more than a few overs to take the load off the specialists - there just aren't enough overs or wickets for six bowlers to all be valuable in most innings

Indeed, BFL. I did qualify that a bowler would have to take more wickets per match than innings he bats for the rule to apply, otherwise the opposite would happen, and batting average flips to become more important. So you couldnt have a bowler averaging 20 with bat and ball who only occasionally bowls, because unless his wicket taking numbers outweigh his innings, that batting average is going to be more useful. So, yeah.... it wasnt really a comment about filling the order with bowling allrounders, more a case of how to assess to different players worth. Having a 6th bowler who cant bat very well, I would imagine, is almost useless for a team.

The equation is probably also affected by batting and bowling order. Stokes bats down the order most of the time, so doesn't necessarily bat every innings. A batting allrounder who opens, or comes in at 3-4 (Kallis, say, or Watson) is going to get closer to batting every innings, so the value of their runs, and overs batted to protect the lower order, both go up.

Youd be suprised actually, Stokes ratio of batting innings is very high, he has hardly played a test where he has missed batting in two innings (93-94%). But generally the batting order shouldnt matter, just the amount of innings played (but that is naturally linked, obviously). Someone like Kallis obviously blows the whole analysis into another stratosphere, because you dont need to crunch numbers to show he was, at the very least, in the top 5 most naturally gifted players ever to play the sport.

It would be interesting to see a full analysis.

I have a lovely long train journey to take today, so this might keep me occupied haha.

294 isn't such a bad score for England these days and if Smith doesn't get in, could be handy. Well done to Jack Leach for his 80m stay.

For England.

Honestly. Mitch Marsh with a 5-fer. England not only get out cheaply, they get out cheaply to crap bowlers (see also Roston Chase, Tim Murtagh).

Two down already. Wonder if an opener has had a worse Ashes than Wee Davie before. Doubt anyone has who played all five Tests. Brearley?

Fewest runs for someone to play in all five Ashes Tests is Jack Iverson, the Aussie leggie, with three. In fifth place is James Anderson in 2017 with 8.

For a top seven bat, it's someone called Tommy Andrews for Australia in 1926, with 49. Third is Paul Collingwood with 8 in 2010-11. Didn't realise he did so badly. Fourth is Warner with 84.

Which makes him the worst opener. Second worst is Adam Lyth with 115. Bancroft is eighth in 2017. So Wee Davie needs 32 to go past Lyth for the worst Ashes series for an opener.

Might be the last of the wickets for a while with Labu and the Bleached Bradman together.

Warner is third worst total for an opener in any five Test series, worst since 1912.

Woakes seems to be operating as an afterthought in this series.

Gosh..... Early wickets followed by SS1 and SS2 digging in and then feasting off the England change bowlers

I didn't see that coming

Archer worked Labu over very well there. He had him well on the back foot for a couple of overs. A good wicket, denying Labu his customary half century.

Smith gets his half century!

The man's a run machine.

Wade out though. Could take wickets at the other end and leave Smith marooned on an unbeaten double ton.

I know that it's tempting to label Smith the second best ever, because he's doing it now and so we are more conscious of his phenomenon. But there has been a similar feeling of futility at bowling at many others over the years. Lara, Richards, SRT, Graeme Smith.

I put the last one in to see if Sussex is awake.

England looking like getting a first innings lead here. Curran doing well on his return.

About another 15 runs and Smith will have twice as many as the next highest scoring player in the series. In one fewer Tests. He averages 147 but I get the impression that most of his dismissals have been because he had enough runs already.

Plantain Pete Siddle hits Curran's hattrick ball for four.