Analysing Australia’s Test cricket winners: The bowlers

By matth / Roar Guru

It is a fundamental truth of Test match cricket that bowlers win matches.

Batsmen give their teams the opportunity to win, however bowlers generally must take 20 wickets across two innings within five days for a team to claim victory. Another way to look at it is that batsmen can stop a team from losing but bowlers make a team win.

This is also the fundamental difference between red-ball and white-ball cricket. In limited-overs cricket the aim is to score more runs than the opposition within a set allocation of deliveries, whereas in Test cricket the aim is to take 20 wickets within a set allocation of time, while conceding less runs than the opposition. Therefore in limited-overs cricket, batsmen win matches – but in Tests, the bowlers hold the key.

So bowlers are pretty important people. In this series I will examine which Australian bowlers have contributed most towards winning matches for their country.

See my previous series of articles looking at batting performances in wins and also which players have actually won the most matches.

There are four basic measures available when evaluating career bowling performances:
• Strike rate, being the average number of balls bowled for each wicket taken.
• Economy rate, being the number of runs conceded per over.
• Bowling average, being the number of runs conceded for each wicket taken. This measure effectively combines strike rate and economy rate.
• Wickets per Test. This underused and very basic measure tells us on average how many of those 20 wickets required are picked up by a particular bowler.

I will primarily be using bowling average and wickets per Test in this analysis. Where a bowler’s strike rate or economy rate provides an additional insight they will also get a mention.

(Hamish Blair/Getty Images)

What I’m interested in here is to see who have been most valuable bowlers to Australia in winning Test matches, which of course is what the game is all about. Therefore, each bowler’s career has been split into wins, losses and draws. A bowler who, for example, takes six wickets per Test in wins at a bowling average of 20 will be extremely valuable.

Bowling statistics have been affected significantly more than batting numbers by changes to the game throughout history. Bowling averages and strike rates before World War I are markedly better than more recent numbers. Then from around 1920 to 1970 economy rates were much lower and strike rates much higher than modern times. In the past 40 to 50 years strike rates have dropped but economy rates have risen significantly as batsmen became more aggressive and covered pitches became less variable.

Interestingly, batting averages have not been affected as much by these trends, for the simple reason that batting average does not measure scoring speed, while the bowling average is affected by economy rates. Scoring rates have risen faster than strike rates have improved, leading to generally higher bowling averages.

So a straight list of the best bowling averages tends to favour pre-WWI bowlers. Add covered pitches, changes to LBW and no-ball laws, restrictions on leg-side fielders and pink balls, and comparisons over time become problematic.

To get around this, in addition to presenting the bowling average and wickets per Test in wins for each bowler, I will compare their bowling average to the performance of their fellow bowlers in those actual Test matches and provide a peer difference percentage. This added measure will tell us how well a bowler performed compered to his teammates of the era in exactly the same matches and conditions. This is of course still not a perfect comparison, and likely favours standout bowlers in weaker teams, but between the raw numbers and peer comparison maybe some insights will reveal themselves.

For this first article I will provide a review for one bowler as an example of how all of this works. Let’s have a look at ‘Billy the Kid’, Craig McDermott, who was an attack leader for Australia during the underwhelming mid 1980s and into the 1990s, retiring just as Australia overtook the West Indies as the number one Test nation.

Craig McDermott
27 wins (38.6 per cent of all matches), 18 losses and 25 draws. Wins average 22.74 (peer difference: +2.48 per cent). Wins wickets per match 4.85

These numbers show that on average in wins Craig McDermott took just under a quarter of the wickets available and gave up just under 23 runs to do so. This average is only 2.5 per cent better than other bowlers in those matches, who achieved a collective bowling average of 23.32.

(Shaun Botterill/Allsport UK/Getty Images)

What this means is that McDermott was not head and shoulders above his peers in wins. For example, Pat Cummins is currently just under 18 per cent better than his peers in wins. That is very good considering who Cummins’ peers actually are.

Where McDermott does shine is in strike rate, which in wins was 48.1, pretty much a wicket every eight overs. This was 14.67 per cent better than his peers, who had a collective strike rate of 56.36. So in wins McDermott likely struck early and often, while giving up some runs, to allow time to take the required 20 wickets, while his peers took longer to get their wickets but kept it tight.

Obviously bowlers perform worse in losses, otherwise teams wouldn’t lose. For our McDermott example his average in losses was 33.6 with 3.67 wickets per Test. The players either side of McDermott on the list of averages in losses (minimum five losses) are 1990s brilliant beanpole Bruce Reid and solid Shane Warne offsider Tim May. McDermott’s figures here are actually better than they look. His comparison to peers rises to a 6.8 per cent better bowling average and a whopping 18 per cent better strike rate (i.e. 62.7 versus 76.6). So McDermott was pretty good in losses. In fact, that strike rate is the ninth best for all Australian bowlers to have played in at least ten losses.

Bowlers tend to have similarly less impressive performance in draws, where 20 wickets have likely not been taken in the match. McDermott averaged 32.43 (slightly better than in losses) and captured 3.76 wickets per Test. His closest neighbours here are the Bowlologist Damien Fleming and Mister two-for-22, Richie Benaud. McDermott’s performance in draws is very good. His average, strike rate and wickets per Test are all top ten all-time for Australian bowlers (minimum ten draws) – seventh, fourth and fifth respectively. The only bowlers to play in at least ten draws with better strike rates are Jeff Thomson, Brett Lee and Bruce Reid.

This analysis points to McDermott being a very good, if slightly expensive, strike bowler who took wickets regularly enough to allow his teams time to win matches.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

Over the next four articles I will delve into some of our most famous bowlers, splitting them into four fairly arbitrary categories.
• The spinners: Shane Warne, Bill O’Reilly, Clarrie Grimmett, Richie Benaud, Stuart MacGill, Hugh Trumble, Ashley Mallett and Nathan Lyon.
• The attack leaders: Dennis Lillee, Glenn McGrath, Ray Lindwall, Garth McKenzie and Alan Davidson.
• The tearaways: Jeff Thomson, Brett Lee, Mitchell Johnson, Mitchell Starc and Keith Miller.
• The modern pace masters: Josh Hazlewood, Pat Cummins, Ryan Harris, Jason Gillespie, Stuart Clark and Peter Siddle.

Which tweaker was out most valuable player in wins? Watch out for the spin bowlers coming soon.

The Crowd Says:

2020-11-10T06:15:33+00:00

All day Roseville all day

Roar Guru


Batting averages and scoring rates over time- https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1138684/who-are-the-fastest-scorers-in-test-history

AUTHOR

2020-11-10T04:21:12+00:00

matth

Roar Guru


So pretty stable since 1920, with higher scoring rates offset by better bowling strike rates

2020-11-10T02:36:41+00:00

All day Roseville all day

Roar Guru


Hi matth, Averages by era- 1877-1889 19.31 runs per wicket. 2.31 runs per over. 50.00 balls per wicket. 1890-1914 25.82 runs per wicket. 2.81 runs per over. 54.98 balls per wicket. 1920-1939 32.96 runs per wicket. 2.69 runs per over. 73.33 balls per wicket. 1945-1979 31.69 runs per wicket. 2.51 runs per over. 75.50 balls per wicket. 1980-2000 31.88 runs per wicket. 2.85 runs per over. 66.93 balls per wicket. 2001-2020 33.59 runs per wicket. 3.23 runs per over. 62.28 balls per wicket.

AUTHOR

2020-11-08T23:41:48+00:00

matth

Roar Guru


Interesting. so really we are simply talking about the pre 1920 lower batting and bowling averages as correlating and everything else is comparable? In both batting an bowling it must means higher socring rates offset by lower balls per wicket.

2020-11-08T09:17:29+00:00

All day Roseville all day

Roar Guru


Hi matth and JGK, Here's an analysis of tailenders' batting contributions- https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/28900198/anantha-narayanan-late-order-batsmen-contributing-team-scores-more-today-past? In summary, pretty much unchanged over 143 years.

AUTHOR

2020-11-07T21:51:17+00:00

matth

Roar Guru


The next article analyzing our great spin bowlers is out now: https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/11/08/analysing-australias-test-cricket-winners-the-spinners/

AUTHOR

2020-11-07T12:33:48+00:00

matth

Roar Guru


I think where we got to is that Top 6 batting averages are fairly static but the averages of 7-11 are higher —> higher bowling averages. But no one has really done the math

2020-11-07T11:54:41+00:00

DaveJ

Roar Rookie


Interesting Matt - I think it’s the case that runs per wicket have remained about the same since the 20s, dipping in the 50s and 80s a bit if memory serves, but a similar order of magnitude. But isn’t it the case as JGK says, that runs per wicket = aggregate bowling average = aggregate batting average? Perhaps what you are getting at is that batting averages of the top 6 are better in recent years? Which would suggest that tail end averages are actually worse to balance it out? But not sure how it applies to bowling averages. Or am I missing something?

AUTHOR

2020-11-07T08:38:24+00:00

matth

Roar Guru


Thanks DP.

AUTHOR

2020-11-07T08:38:07+00:00

matth

Roar Guru


Fair call and well thought out JGK. It’s interesting. We know that batting averages have basically remained stable since about 1920. Bowling averages have move a bit more. The tailender theory might be part of the reason? My thought was that the movement in scoring rates and strike rates affect bowling averages more, but also the mix of what makes them up. But you are correct in pointing out that batting average might also have this effect as they are a combination of scoring rate and number of balls faced before losing their wicket, sort of the reverse of economy rates and strike rates reported for bowlers. I honestly never thought it through like that before! So in other words, take all that with a grain of salt. Bowlers still wins tests though! And I don’t just say that because I batted at 11.

2020-11-07T08:31:04+00:00

DP Schaefer

Roar Rookie


Looking forward to it Matt, I admire the research effort you put into your work. Cheers

2020-11-07T08:27:06+00:00

JGK

Roar Guru


Interestingly, batting averages have not been affected as much by these trends, for the simple reason that batting average does not measure scoring speed, while the bowling average is affected by economy rates. Scoring rates have risen faster than strike rates have improved, leading to generally higher bowling averages. Not sure about the logic here. Bowling and batting averages are two sides of the same coin. If scoring rates have increased then all other things being equal, batting and bowling averages have to be the same. And of scoring rates are increasing relatively faster than strike rates are falling, that must mean that batsman are scoring more runs before they get out which must mean higher batting averages. For what it's worth, I think one of the reasons why bowling averages are higher is because tail end batsmen are better. Haven't done any research on that though.

AUTHOR

2020-11-07T07:20:06+00:00

matth

Roar Guru


Doesn’t help his wickets per test opportunities but he does ok

2020-11-07T07:06:22+00:00

JGK

Roar Guru


Rhino’s only problem under this analysis is that for a chunk of his test wins he’ll go ahead to head with Mitchell Johnson in his All Time Great phase.

AUTHOR

2020-11-07T06:25:50+00:00

matth

Roar Guru


I’d also add that the best averages actually seem to be when you have at least a pair of great bowlers, keeping the pressure on, rather than a lone wolf in a weak team. McGrath/Warne Lillee/Thomson O’Reilly/Grimmett Davidson/Benaud Lindwall/Miller Their raw numbers are all better than, say Garth McKenzie who had little support at times, so had to be both the strike bowler and the workhorse.

AUTHOR

2020-11-07T06:23:18+00:00

matth

Roar Guru


Hi Dave, we definitely have to be careful of team comparison for exactly the reason you identify. I did mention it briefly in the article. That’s why peer comparison can only be one measure, along side the raw averages. Home vs. Away is another measure I’d be interested in looking at sometime in the future. I also agree regarding economy rates snd I discuss that as well. Bowling Averages have changed over time more than batting averages, and because the bowling average is effectively a combination of economy rate snd strike rate, it’s components have moved as well. For example Keith Miller and Pat Cummins have similar averages but Miller has a much better economy rate and Cummins has a much better strike rate. It’s actually much easier to use batting averages as a fairly definite measure to compare, because it isn’t affected by changing strike rates, whereas the bowling average is affected. What does all this mean? Not sure :stoked: . But it’s still fun to look at.

AUTHOR

2020-11-07T06:17:23+00:00

matth

Roar Guru


He doesn’t get an analysis of his own, there are too many great bowlers, but he does get a mention once or twice. He performs particularly well in one result type.

AUTHOR

2020-11-07T06:16:16+00:00

matth

Roar Guru


Thanks Tiger. I’m enjoying this one.

2020-11-07T05:13:14+00:00

DaveJ

Roar Rookie


Another interesting series Matth. Definitely sheds some light, but we have to be careful about how far we take comparisons with teammates. Obviously a bit different if you are Richard Hadlee compared to his teammates compared to say Michael Holding compared to the likes of Roberts, Garner, Marshall and Croft. Actually that might be an interesting exercise itself. Would add to the point that economy rates have risen significantly in the last 40 years as batsmen became more aggressive and covered pitches became less variable – also, bigger bats (with bigger sweet spot) have surely added to scoring rates in Tests, as have shorter boundaries (a bit).

2020-11-07T04:51:12+00:00

Paul

Roar Guru


I thoroughly enjoy reading your pieces Matt and this one is another beauty. I really like the comparison around draws and losses. In the example of Billy, he was clearly still bowling to take wickets in what turned out to be lost causes. That can't be an easy thing to do, especially as a fast bowler. No room for big Merv? :happy:

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar