Saqlain Mushtaq, The most under-rated ODI bowler ever?

[Richard]

Wait a min, you agreed in the other thread that economy-rate is NOT the only thing.

A SR has to be massively superior to another to justify such a large increase in economy-rate.

EG, Brett Lee and Chris Harris. Good as Harris was, he wasn't quite as good as Lee because his ER was only .5 lower despite a difference in average of, what, 15 at least.

On the other hand, to call Lee a better ODI bowler than, for instance, Gavin Larsen would be stupid IMO.

 

[Richard]

It's Richard, you'll get used to him making those kind of statements...and then actually trying to defend them

No trying about it, pal...

 

[Richard]

I don't get why people keep stating the facts about when Mr X plays, they are more likely to win. If he bowls well, he bowls well, regardless of whether Pakistan win or not.

 

[C_C]

A SR has to be massively superior to another to justify such a large increase in economy-rate

No. I'd settle for proportionate increase of SR for increase in economy rate as being equal.

On the other hand, to call Lee a better ODI bowler than, for instance, Gavin Larsen would be stupid IMO.

Err. No. Lee >>>> Larsen.

 

[Prince EWS]

Um, any captain in the world would take an ER of 6 with an average of 20, rather than an ER of 2 and an average of 60.

Personally, I'd much rather have a bowler who produced 10-20-0 (and 10-20-1 once every three matches..) than 10-60-3 every game.

Really though, a good side a balance of both (to less extremes, most likely) to give the captain different bowling options throughout the game to adapt to the situation.

Picking a team full of genuine restricters wouldn't work, and neither would picking a team full of expensive wicket-takers.

 

[Richard]

No. I'd settle for proportionate increase of SR for increase in economy rate as being equal.

I'd not. ER is more important than SR so therefore the more ER goes up, SR has to increase more. I'd not want to give proportional figures or the starting-point for that, mind.

Err. No. Lee >>>> Larsen.

How, exactly? Larsen has one of the best ERs in the modern game. You could almost invariably rely on him to give you an economical spell. Lee will take superb figures sometimes and rubbish ones almost as often. It's consistency, not blowing hot-and-cold (as that loses matches as well as wins them) that counts, especially in ODIs.

 

[C_C]

I'd not. ER is more important than SR so therefore the more ER goes up, SR has to increase more

Fair enough then. I agree ER is more important. I'd ammend my previous comment to say ER and SR are proportional with ER counting as 10% more valuable than SR.

How, exactly? Larsen has one of the best ERs in the modern game.

And Lee is one of the best wicket-takers in the modern game. So it boils down to Lee's ER vs Larsen's SR. Ie, is larsen a better wicket taker than Lee is a container ? No, definitely not.
So its Lee for me.
And no, i'd rather have a blow-hot-blow-cold player who's 'hot' equals 10-0-45-5 and cold equals 10-0-60-0 than the consistent mediocrity of 10-0-40-1.

 

[Richard]

But Larsen was not such mediocrity, he regularly delivered spells of 10 for less than 30.

Which is why I picked him and not, for example, Mark Ealham, who was damn good, but just short of the top-drawer.

 

[C_C]

But Larsen was not such mediocrity, he regularly delivered spells of 10 for less than 30.

Which is why I picked him and not, for example, Mark Ealham, who was damn good, but just short of the top-drawer.

I'd still take lee coz as i said, both were/are very good at their dominant skill ( Lee = taking wickets, Larsen = containing) but Lee's secondary skill (containing runs) is at a better level than Larsen's secondary skill ( wicket-taking).

 

[thierry henry]

Gavin Larsen ftw! He'd be in my all-time NZ ODI side. He's the bowler Chris Harris wishes he was.

 

[Richard]

I'd still take lee coz as i said, both were/are very good at their dominant skill ( Lee = taking wickets, Larsen = containing) but Lee's secondary skill (containing runs) is at a better level than Larsen's secondary skill ( wicket-taking).

I'd say Larsen was a better container than Lee was wicket-taker, too. Especially bearing in mind the number of poor deliveries Lee has not-irregularly got wickets with...

 

[C_C]

I'd say Larsen was a better container than Lee was wicket-taker, too. Especially bearing in mind the number of poor deliveries Lee has not-irregularly got wickets with...

Err no. Lee is one of the best ever pure wicket-takers, Larsen was a very good economy bowler but not the most economical ever either. Overall, i'd say they are just about even in comparing their main roles-with slight advantage to Lee.

And i don't care if its a rank full toss that gets you a wicket- a wicket is a wicket is a wicket in my books so long as it isn't a glaring umpiring error.

 

[Richard]

Err no. Lee is one of the best ever pure wicket-takers, Larsen was a very good economy bowler but not the most economical ever either. Overall, i'd say they are just about even in comparing their main roles-with slight advantage to Lee.

Who was better than him in the modern era, then?

We're talking about an economy-rate of 3.76-an-over, here. That's serious top-drawer.

Every bit as much as Lee and the wicket-taking.

Only ones up there with him are Pollock, Adam Dale (who only played 30 games), Fraser, Ambrose, de Villiers, Murali, Walsh, Mullally, McGrath and Wasim. Larsen is near enough top-of-tree.

And i don't care if its a rank full toss that gets you a wicket- a wicket is a wicket is a wicket in my books so long as it isn't a glaring umpiring error.

Which comes as no surprise. Stats are not always a good indicator of performance. IMO a wicket with a rubbish ball can be taken with 50 handfuls of salt.

 

[C_C]

Only ones up there with him are Pollock, Adam Dale (who only played 30 games), Fraser, Ambrose, de Villiers, Murali, Walsh, Mullally, McGrath and Wasim. Larsen is near enough top-of-tree.

Thats a lot more people than in Lee's bracket for strike rate/wicket per match ratio.

IMO a wicket with a rubbish ball can be taken with 50 handfuls of salt.

Disagree.

 

[rodzilla1010]

Well according to their averages if saqlain and Murli bowled 25 overs each in an ODI

then Murli would have these stats 25/96/4
and Saqlain would have these 25/107/5

I would take 1 extra wicket by giving away 11 more runs.

 

[Ikki]

I don't get why people keep stating the facts about when Mr X plays, they are more likely to win. If he bowls well, he bowls well, regardless of whether Pakistan win or not.

Because if the player has favourable stats when his team wins, it is one indicator that shows how often he is influential in his team winning.

 

[Richard]

Well according to their averages if saqlain and Murli bowled 25 overs each in an ODI

then Murli would have these stats 25/96/4
and Saqlain would have these 25/107/5

I would take 1 extra wicket by giving away 11 more runs.

Except it doesn't work like that and everyone knows it. ERs and SRs vary game-by-game.

 

[Richard]

Thats a lot more people than in Lee's bracket for strike rate/wicket per match ratio.

Come on, then?

Disagree.

And that's about all there is to it, really.

 

[rodzilla1010]

Except it doesn't work like that and everyone knows it. ERs and SRs vary game-by-game.

I know, but the variance will eventually average out to those figures

 

[Richard]

Well... that's why the figures are what they end-up being but that means that you can't just say "he gets X-X-X every game".