Best bowler of 1990s

[Fiery]

Here is the ODI list

I'll combine the 2 when I have some time

 

[stephen]

Aww ! Waqar Younis wins it !!
Look at his strike rate . Damn !

Look at his economy.

 

[FRAZ]

Look at his economy.

To win a test match I may sacrifice 20 odd runs (an average quota of his bowling in an innings) to get some extra wickets .. huh !!

 

[FRAZ]

Here is the ODI list

I'll combine the 2 when I have some time

Damn!!! Saqlain for me here !!!

 

[stephen]

To win a test match I may sacrifice 20 odd runs (an average quota of his bowling in an innings) to get some extra wickets .. huh !!

My point is that you cannot just look at one statistic and make a claim that a player is the best because of that. For example you cannot say that because Akram took the most ODI wickets in the 90s he was clearly the best ODI bowler of the 90s. He may very well have been the best ODI bowler in the 90s but that should be qualified by other evidence.

Waqar had an incredibly good strike rate in the 90s and was indeed one of the best bowlers of the era. In fact I would put him in the top 5 easily. I still think that Warne made the biggest overall impact on the era more for his sheer genious than his statistics.

My order:

1. Warne
2. Ambrose
3. Akram
4. Waqar
5. Donald

 

[Richard]

Here is the ODI list

I'll combine the 2 when I have some time

Don't bother, ODIs and Tests are totally different games. No point trying to blur the two together.

I can't conceive anyone would dub anyone other than Wasim Akram the best ODI bowler of the 1990s really. Best death-bowler going around, and one of the best at the start too.

 

[Fiery]

Don't bother, ODIs and Tests are totally different games. No point trying to blur the two together.

I can't conceive anyone would dub anyone other than Wasim Akram the best ODI bowler of the 1990s really. Best death-bowler going around, and one of the best at the start too.

Aren't we trying to decide who was the best bowler in the 90's? I took this to mean both forms.

Anyway, ot of the serious contenders, Akram took the most wickets, Donald has the best average and Ambrose the best economy rate

Overs Runs Wkts Ave Econ
Akram 4060 12731 568 22.41 3.14
Warne 4991.2 14156 563 25.14 2.84
Younis 3238 12273 548 22.40 3.79
Kumble 4680.2 14202 508 27.96 3.03
Donald 3239 10536 490 21.50 3.25
Ambrose 3879.2 10361 469 22.09 2.67
Walsh 4039.2 11805 432 27.33 2.92
Walsh 4039.2 11805 432 27.33 2.92
McGrath 3234.1 9731 413 23.56 3.01
Murali 3644.2 10997 404 27.22 3.02

 

[Richard]

You can't have a best bowler in "both forms" because they're totally different.

I took it to mean Tests, especially given the identity of the thread-starter, but there's no reason not to do Test and ODI lists.

And where on Earth have you got those stats from?

 

[Fiery]

You can't have a best bowler in "both forms" because they're totally different.

I took it to mean Tests, especially given the identity of the thread-starter, but there's no reason not to do Test and ODI lists.

And where on Earth have you got those stats from?

Why not? It's cricket. Test cricket is cricket. ODI cricket is cricket. What's wrong with combining the 2 to see who is the best allround bowler for both forms? I got them from Cricinfo

 

[Richard]

Why not? It's cricket. Test cricket is cricket. ODI cricket is cricket. What's wrong with combining the 2 to see who is the best allround bowler for both forms?

Because there is no combination - some bowlers are good at one form and poor at the other. The best Test bowlers have little to do with the best ODI bowlers. Ergo, they need different best-ofs.

I got them from Cricinfo

Well they're totally wrong.

 

[Fiery]

Well they're totally wrong.

No they're not. Explain

 

[Fiery]

Because there is no combination - some bowlers are good at one form and poor at the other. The best Test bowlers have little to do with the best ODI bowlers. Ergo, they need different best-ofs.

Stop being difficult. There is nothing wrong with combining the 2 stats to see who the best bowlers were for both forms included. Go away

 

[Richard]

No they're not. Explain

I can't be arsed to look at the averages and strike-rates because I don't know them that well, but all the economy-rates are way too low, I don't even need to look-up the actual figures to tell you that.

Stop being difficult. There is nothing wrong with combining the 2 stats to see who the best bowlers were for both forms included. Go away

There's plenty wrong with it. It's like trying to say "who's the best rugby player" by combining Union and League. The two are so different as to make it a pointless exercise. You're the one being difficult by insisting similarity where there is difference.

 

[Fiery]

I can't be arsed to look at the averages and strike-rates because I don't know them that well, but all the economy-rates are way too low, I don't even need to look-up the actual figures to tell you that.

Single Rolleyes posts tell no-one anything of note. What I said is quite true - it's wholly pointless to try to blur the two games together. A single Rolleyes in no effective refute.

You're wrong. I've simply added the runs scored against each bowler for both forms and divided by the number of overs they've bowled in total.

 

[Richard]

Haha oh right. Even more pointless then. Test and ODI statistics are so impossibly different as to render any combination... well, it's like trying to make apple-and-orange squash really. Horrible concoction.

Tests and ODIs are different games - very different games. They need different stats. Simple as. This is no longer the 1970s and 1980s when the two were actually similar in some way.

 

[Fiery]

There's plenty wrong with it. It's like trying to say "who's the best rugby player" by combining Union and League. The two are so different as to make it a pointless exercise. You're the one being difficult by insisting similarity where there is difference.

God you're like a sore tooth. Rugby and league players play different sports!!!! Cricket is a sport!!!! The players play different formats of that sport!!!!!!!!! And you wonder why you drive everyone bonkers here.

Bye

 

[Richard]

Test and ODI cricket are different formats of cricket - very different formats.

Union and League are different forms of rugby - very different formats.

Same story. In neither case can the formats be blurred together. You'll get nothing of interest if you try to.

And I don't drive "everyone" bonkers, just a small few.

 

[Dan]

I must agree with Richard here

Ergo: GOD IS SMART

 

[Smudge]

Test and ODI cricket are different formats of cricket - very different formats.

Union and League are different forms of rugby - very different formats.

I've had this argument with you in the past, so I don't know why I'm bothering again.

The first part of that quote is correct.

The second part isn't. Union and league are completely different sports - not different formats of the same sport.

 

[Richard]

There's as much difference between the two of the one as there is between the other two.

Both have in their title "cricket" or "rugby", hence even though one is controlled by two govorning-bodies and one a single one, they are directly comparable.