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

[rodzilla1010]

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".

He doesnt get X_X_X every game but he is a much better wicket taker than murli than murli is a run container. I just wanted to show the effect of Murli's better econ to Saqlain's better avg and strike rate

25 overs 96 runs for 4 wickets
25 overs 107 runs for 5 wickets

You sais earlier that Murli econ is so superior to Saq that Saq's SR and Avg become irrelevent.

Well now you tell me which figures would you choose out fo these? I think those 11 runs become irrelevent when think about getting an extra wicket

 

[Richard]

Because it's not about that.

Saqlain is more likely to bowl an expensive spell than Murali. Saqlain is likely to take a few more wickets in, say, 4 spells (40 overs) than Murali.

That combination makes Murali the better bowler where I'm standing.

 

[rodzilla1010]

Because it's not about that.

Saqlain is more likely to bowl an expensive spell than Murali. Saqlain is likely to take a few more wickets in, say, 4 spells (40 overs) than Murali.

That combination makes Murali the better bowler where I'm standing.

OK if you take a sample of 40 overs then murli would have figures of 40/153/7 and Saqlain of 40/171/8...( the wicket for murli were 6.63 and saq was 7.80, rounded off)

Basically the thing is that murli gives away 10 less runs every 20 overs and Saqlain take 1 more wicket. Therefore, it comes down to the fact that would you like 15 less runs or 1 extra wicket?

I would rather take the wicket

 

[Richard]

Even then it's not that simple. What if the wicket was a meaningless gift in the 47th over?

Given that both are death-bowlers the economy-rate comes into it even more so. Wickets matter little at the death, economy matters hugely.

Wickets aren't always especially valuable in one-day games.

 

[rodzilla1010]

Even then it's not that simple. What if the wicket was a meaningless gift in the 47th over?

Given that both are death-bowlers the economy-rate comes into it even more so. Wickets matter little at the death, economy matters hugely.

Wickets aren't always especially valuable in one-day games.

LOL, wickets arnt valuable in ODI cricket.

You say economy matter hugely, the difference in the econ of murli and saqlain is of 4 runs every match. I dont think 4 runs every 10 overs make a huge difference.

BTW a wicket even in the 47th over makes a big difference. What if that wicket is of a #6 batsman and after he gets out a tail ender come in? You would be bowling 20 balls to a bowler rather than a batsman. That Valuable

 

[Richard]

If you get a number-six batsman out a tail-ender doesn't often come in... most number-eight batsmen these days are pretty useful at worst...

And how many times do I have to say it's not as simple as 4 runs per every 10 overs? That's not how career records work - a difference of 0.4-an-over in a career economy-rate is massive, absolutely massive. Whereas the difference between, say, 10 overs for 34 and 10 overs for 38 isn't huge.

 

[rodzilla1010]

If you get a number-six batsman out a tail-ender doesn't often come in... most number-eight batsmen these days are pretty useful at worst...

And how many times do I have to say it's not as simple as 4 runs per every 10 overs? That's not how career records work - a difference of 0.4-an-over in a career economy-rate is massive, absolutely massive. Whereas the difference between, say, 10 overs for 34 and 10 overs for 38 isn't huge.

if an econ of .4 is massive then a better strike of 6 balls and a better average of 2 runs is massive too.

The only thing you got going for murli is a .4 econ, which evetually is 4 runs every 10 overs everything else saq is making him taste dust

 

[silentstriker]

Garner has a ridiculous econ rate of 3.09 in ODI.

 

[Richard]

if an econ of .4 is massive then a better strike of 6 balls and a better average of 2 runs is massive too.

The only thing you got going for murli is a .4 econ, which evetually is 4 runs every 10 overs

No! It's not! It's a much, much better economy-rate!

A far bigger difference than a small 2 runs in average.

 

[Richard]

Garner has a ridiculous econ rate of 3.09 in ODI.

Well... yeah, he does.

Not sure exactly what you're pertaining to, though...

 

[rodzilla1010]

No! It's not! It's a much, much better economy-rate!

A far bigger difference than a small 2 runs in average.

dude, i should have ignored your argument but now that i am in a convo i dont tink we are going anywhere....

the last attempt i will make is that i will just lay every thing straight, and make a stat if both bowler had the same number of overs bowled

saqlain-...
1461 overs 6275 runs 288 wickets
Murli
1461 overs 5595 runs 243 wicket

now take your pick...mine is still saqi

 

[silentstriker]

Well... yeah, he does.

Not sure exactly what you're pertaining to, though...

Nothing, just throwing it out there.

 

[Richard]

dude, i should have ignored your argument but now that i am in a convo i dont tink we are going anywhere....

the last attempt i will make is that i will just lay every thing straight, and make a stat if both bowler had the same number of overs bowled

saqlain-...
1461 overs 6275 runs 288 wickets
Murli
1461 overs 5595 runs 243 wicket

now take your pick...mine is still saqi

And mine's Murali.

Leave it at that, hey?

 

[rodzilla1010]

And mine's Murali.

Leave it at that, hey?

yeah, that doesnt mean you are right

 

[Richard]

Nope, indeed it don't - there ain't no right and wrong in these situations.

 

[rodzilla1010]

Nope, indeed it don't - there ain't no right and wrong in these situations.

yeah true..when it comes to these type of players the thin line is personal preference and opinion.

 

[marc71178]

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

Since when was 1999 the modern era?

 

[Richard]

Well... I've never heard anyone's modern era where it wasn't...

My modern era is post-1970.

In Test-cricket, that is.

 

[C_C]

Well... I've never heard anyone's modern era where it wasn't...

My modern era is post-1970.

And post 1970, you will find a lot more people with superior ER than Larsen's compared to superior strike rate/wicket per match ratio than Lee.

Therefore, it can be argued that Lee was a better wicket taker than Larsen was a container.

 

[a massive zebra]

Garner has a ridiculous econ rate of 3.09 in ODI.

But he played in a much lower scoring era where 200 was a decent score. Richard Hadlee and Bob Willis have similar economy rates IIRC.