The Statistician in me - 2

Playing cricket for 5 days at a stretch is a great effort on its own but in my opinion it is the bowlers who toil hard for success. Taking cue from my previous post, I dug into the number of balls bowled and here are the top ten bowlers who have actually bowled the most in test cricket over the years.

Few Inferences

1. A clear distinction in strike rates and number of wickets between Warne and Kumble emerges. Somehow Warne has accumulated more wickets in less time. But this could be because his major scalps are against the English and South Africans, while Kumble played most of his matches against Sri lanka, Pakistan and Australia.
2. There is a huge gap after Warne in terms of numbers in balls, it is a big difference but again can be attributed to the fact most other bowlers are pace bowlers as the spinners do the bulk of bowling 
3. It was exciting to find pace and spin bowlers in equal numbers at the top ten and a comforting fact that genuine fast bowling is not a dying art! In another 5-6 years we can hopefully find the likes of Broad, Steyn adorn the list.

Another distinctive feature of interest is the strike rate which i was able to place it in a chart,


The graph is a revelation on its own and I was amazed at the strike rate of the bowlers.

McGrath's strike rate at lower 50s and next best is Murali at 55. So in my opinion, McGrath to have sustained such an awesome strike rate over a long period is really great. No one could match McGrath's wicket frequency. Though Murali's strike rate can be argued against most matches being played at home or spin favoring pitches but the strike rates of Harbhajan or Kumble who have also played under similar conditions is no threat. I think Murali does justice heading the pile in both wickets and strike rates.

All these bowlers are top class performers, it is just that few bowlers are a shade better than rest. The first table was just a curiosity look up and I think an inference "the more you bowl, the more the chance of you picking up a wicket" is justified from the data! From the strike rate data it is pretty clear, an intelligent bowler is more important in a match than a bowler who bowls like a machine. The impact is distinct and conclusive

​