Economical Bowlers

[Line and Length]

Sometimes a bowler is used for reasons such as tying up an end rather than as a wicket taking option. This is particularly applicable to the traditional, longer form, of cricket.

In Test cricket the Top Ten bowlers in terms of economy (minimum 10 Tests) are:

William Attewell (E) 1.31
Trevor Goddard (SA) 1.64
Bapu Nadkarni (I) 1.67
Bert Ironmonger (A) 1.69
John Watkins (SA) 1.74
Ken Mackay (A) 1.78
Anton Murray (SA) 1.79
Gerry Gomez (WI) 1.82
Polly Umrigar (I) 1.87
Dick Barlow (E) 1.87

Of these, Ironmonger had by far the best strike rate (63.44) ahead of Barlow (72.23) and Gomez (90.27)

Nadkarni holds the record for the most consecutive maidens in a Test when he had 21 in a row in his figures of 32-27-5-0

Barlow is interesting in that his batting was a 'exciting' as his bowling. Nicknamed "Stonewaller" he holds the world first-class record for the lowest score by a batsman carrying his bat. Against Nottinghamshire in 1882 he batted through the innings and made 5 not out when Lancashire were dismissed for 69.

Moving to ODIs, the economy rates are understandably higher than in Tests. Once again the 10 game minimum applies.

Joel Garner (WI) 3.09
Bob Willis (E) 3.28
Richard Hadlee (NZ) 3.30
Michael Holding (WI) 3.32
Simon Davies (A) 3.37
Andy Roberts (WI) 3.40
Curtley Ambrose (WI) 3.48
Malcolm Marshall (WI) 3.53
Angus Fraser (E) 3.54
Mike Whitney (A) 3.55

Of these, Roberts (35.89) has the best strike rate ahead of Garner (36.50) and Holding (38.54).

I find it significant that both lists are devoid of current or near current players. I wonder to what extent that is due to more user-friendly wickets and bat technology or to a different approach to to the game. I believe the latter might be the case in the ODIs but there can be no denying the quality of the quicks listed.

I'll leave this at this stage before venturing into T20 and the related economy rates and maidens.

 

[kingkallis]

Well, when it comes to ODI, the real attacking approach was started by Greatbatch, Tendulkar and Jayasuriya.

I personally rate bowlers like Shaun Pollock, Glenn McGrath more than the bowlers of 80s when it comes to economy.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There's probably an fairly easy extrapolation to make to compare a bowler's ODI economy rate with the average rate across his era.

Need a lot of data, but the maths is fairly simple.

Interesting to see old Slasher in L&L's OP. He'd be up there with Dick Barlow as another example of a "dry" player. His sobriquet famously an ironic reference to his stoic batting style.

 

[trundler]

Economy rates by decade in ODIs

1970s - 3.93
1980s - 4.38
1990s - 4.58
2000s - 4.89
2010s - 5.24

 

[Line and Length]

Economy rates by decade in ODIs

1970s - 3.93
1980s - 4.38
1990s - 4.58
2000s - 4.89
2010s - 5.24

That speaks for itself!

 

[Migara]

Sometimes a bowler is used for reasons such as tying up an end rather than as a wicket taking option. This is particularly applicable to the traditional, longer form, of cricket.

In Test cricket the Top Ten bowlers in terms of economy (minimum 10 Tests) are:

William Attewell (E) 1.31
Trevor Goddard (SA) 1.64
Bapu Nadkarni (I) 1.67
Bert Ironmonger (A) 1.69
John Watkins (SA) 1.74
Ken Mackay (A) 1.78
Anton Murray (SA) 1.79
Gerry Gomez (WI) 1.82
Polly Umrigar (I) 1.87
Dick Barlow (E) 1.87

Of these, Ironmonger had by far the best strike rate (63.44) ahead of Barlow (72.23) and Gomez (90.27)

Nadkarni holds the record for the most consecutive maidens in a Test when he had 21 in a row in his figures of 32-27-5-0

Barlow is interesting in that his batting was a 'exciting' as his bowling. Nicknamed "Stonewaller" he holds the world first-class record for the lowest score by a batsman carrying his bat. Against Nottinghamshire in 1882 he batted through the innings and made 5 not out when Lancashire were dismissed for 69.

Moving to ODIs, the economy rates are understandably higher than in Tests. Once again the 10 game minimum applies.

Joel Garner (WI) 3.09
Bob Willis (E) 3.28
Richard Hadlee (NZ) 3.30
Michael Holding (WI) 3.32
Simon Davies (A) 3.37
Andy Roberts (WI) 3.40
Curtley Ambrose (WI) 3.48
Malcolm Marshall (WI) 3.53
Angus Fraser (E) 3.54
Mike Whitney (A) 3.55

Of these, Roberts (35.89) has the best strike rate ahead of Garner (36.50) and Holding (38.54).

I find it significant that both lists are devoid of current or near current players. I wonder to what extent that is due to more user-friendly wickets and bat technology or to a different approach to to the game. I believe the latter might be the case in the ODIs but there can be no denying the quality of the quicks listed.

I'll leave this at this stage before venturing into T20 and the related economy rates and maidens.

ODI stats needs standardization for the era.

That will show Garner, Pollock, McGrath, Ambrose, Wasim and Muralitharan were extremely economical.

 

[trundler]

Ankitj did something like that once. I'll try to dig it up.

 

[Tom Flint]

Bumrah odi 4.55

 

[ankitj]

Ankitj did something like that once. I'll try to dig it up.

Did I?

 

[ankitj]

This is interesting: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21286973/stats-best-odi-bowlers-eras

 

[trundler]

Did I?

You had a bowling rating/ranking system didn't you? Pollock came out on top.

 

[Shady Slim]

ODI stats needs standardization for the era.

That will show Garner, Pollock, McGrath, Ambrose, Wasim and Muralitharan were extremely economical.

interesting point to standardise based on era but at the risk of sounding like a clown where does the standardisation stop? ie you could if you had the time and the computer skills standardise down to find economy relative to the tests that player played in only which surely is the logical conclusion

 

[ankitj]

You had a bowling rating/ranking system didn't you? Pollock came out on top.

Not me

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Cameron Cuffy at one point in his odi career had an economy rate just above 3.

I believe it was the lowest ER for any bowler in ODI at that point.

 

[Line and Length]

interesting point to standardise based on era but at the risk of sounding like a clown where does the standardisation stop? ie you could if you had the time and the computer skills standardise down to find economy relative to the tests that player played in only which surely is the logical conclusion

I agree. Trying to "standardise" career statistics based on an era is a futile exercise. We just have to accept that different eras produced different peaks and troughs. These peaks and troughs are due to a variety of factors as I noted in my opening post. If we want a level playing field when discussing players from a certain era, it can only be achieved by looking at players from that particular era.

Carrying the "standardisation" theory to its extreme, do we adjust batting averages so that Bradman can be compared to greats from another era?

 

[Migara]

A agree. Trying to "standardise" career statistics based on an era is a futile exercise. We just have to accept that different eras produced different peaks and troughs. These peaks and troughs are due to a variety of factors as I noted in my opening post. If we want a level playing field when discussing players from a certain era, it can only be achieved by looking at players from that particular era.

Carrying the "standardisation" theory to its extreme, do we adjust batting averages so that Bradman can be compared to greats from another era?

The ODI game has evolved much faster than tests. Or you may have to conclude bolwers of yesteryear was better and batters of current era is the best, which we know is not the truth.

 

[stephen]

Standardisation is necessary to compare across eras in ODI cricket. 80s ODIs were very different from 00s ODIs.

 

[stephen]

The first 40 years of ODI cricket evolved very quickly. Just like the first 40 years of tests evolved. It's hard to compare WG Grace was to Jack Hobbs or Spoffoth to Larwood.

But ODI cricket has had a lot of rule changes and equipment improvements on top of tactical and skill evolution.

 

[Line and Length]

The ODI game has evolved much faster than tests. Or you may have to conclude bolwers of yesteryear was better and batters of current era is the best, which we know is not the truth.

A fair comment and one that deserves closer inspection. How and why have ODIs evolved so much faster? Firstly, the tactics have definitely changed. Openers are expected to take advantage of the field restrictions and score at a far quicker pace than when the limited over game began. The development of bat technology has also been a huge factor in the modern game. This, together with the preparation of more batsmen friendly pitches (to add to crowd appeal) has swung the pendulum very much in favour of the current batsmen.
Having said that, the economy rate of ODI bowlers listed in my opening post contains some pretty special names - albeit almost exclusively fast bowlers.

 

[Line and Length]

Moving on to T20 Internationals and bowlers' economy rates, we find a number of players from what might be called "second tier" cricketing nations. Because of that I have increased this list to a Top 15 with a qualification of a minimum of 500 balls to be bowled.
As International T20s didn't come into vogue until 2006, I don't see any reason for standardisation or comparison of eras.

The most economical bowlers in this form are:

Daniel Vettori (NZ) 5.70
Imad Wasim (P) 5.97
Sunil Narine (WI) 6.01
Adam Zampa (Aus) 6.12
Rashid Khan (Afg) 6.14
Samuel Badree (WI) 6.17
Harbhajan Singh (Ind) 6.20
Ahmed Raza (UAE) 6.28
Roelof van der Merwe (NL/SA) 6.28
Mohammad Naveed (UAE) 6.35
Saeed Ajmal (P) 6.36
Graeme Swann (E) 6.36
Johan Botha (SA) 6.37)
Trent Johnston (Ire) 6.42
Ajantha Mendis (SL) 6.45

Of these, the best strike rate belong to Rashid Khan (12.3) followed by Swann (15.8), van der Merwe (16.5) and Saeed Ajmal (16.8)
T20 matches, by their nature, see very few maidens bowled. The most career maidens bowled in T20 Internationals is 7 by Jasprit Bumrah (Ind) followed by Nuwan Kulasekara (SL) with 6. Economy-wise these two have rates of 6.66 and 7.45 respectively.

While maiden overs in T20s are rare, it is even rarer to have a 20th over yield no runs. This has been achieved 4 times

The first was by Jeetan Patel (NZ) v West Indies in 2008.
In 2010 Mohammad Amir (P) v Australia in 2010 delivered a memorable final over. 5 wickets fell, including 2 run outs, as Australia slumped from 5 for 191.
Last year debutant Navdeep Saini (Ind) performed the feat against West Indies and Janak Prakash of Singapore did the same against Qatar in an ICC World T20 Qualifier.