Best bowler of 1990s

[Smudge]

Rugby. Union. And. League. Are. Completely. Different. Sports.

Rugby union and rugby union sevens are the same sport and different format. That's the best comparison. And even then, sevens is played with few players, which is an obvious difference from the full version.

 

[Richard]

Rugby. Union. And. League. Are. Completely. Different. Sports.

So, then, what is it that makes this definition?

 

[Smudge]

If you can't work that out for yourself, you're a lost cause.

 

[Athlai]

So, then, what is it that makes this definition?

Similar to cricket and baseball style difference as opposed to cricket to cricket. Though not as extreme admittedly.

Rugby sevens is closer to union than League is. While the method of scoring is the same (cross the line with the ball put it down) the general way the game is played is entirely different, league has a stop start sets of six play, union just goes and goes.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Donald included on poll.

 

[Ikki]

And why can't you combine the stats? Same players and the same distinctions: low averages and SR are important.

 

[Richard]

The requirements for getting such things are wildly different. In Tests the best way to bowl economically is to bowl down leg-side; in ODIs that's the best way to be as expensive as possible.

Tests and ODIs are totally different games. There's any number of different requirements, enough to make combined stats relevant to precisely nothing.

 

[Athlai]

Theoretically you could play a Test in exactly the same way as an ODI though, it'd just last longer. You would likely lose the match as it isn't the best way to play but it's a lot closer than your rugby comparison. You couldn't cross League and Union over as the rules are entirely different.

Though TBH I don't see too much relevance in combining a bowlers two records in the different forms of the game. Some are great Test bowlers yet no so hot ODI bowlers and vice versa, and the amount played differs so much from man to man it's not a fair test.

 

[Richard]

Theoretically you could play a Test in exactly the same way as an ODI though, it'd just last longer. You would likely lose the match as it isn't the best way to play but it's a lot closer than your rugby comparison. You couldn't cross League and Union over as the rules are entirely different.

You couldn't, though - as I said, you could bowl down leg-side every delivery and a ODI innings would last forever because it'd be wide after wide, you could complete a Test (though it'd be the most boring ever) by doing so. Equally, in a Test you can at any time put every fielder on the boundary; you can't in a ODI because every ball would be a no-ball.

There might not be as many rule-changes between a limited-over and limitless-over game as there is between Union and League, but there are some, and those are more than enough to make the distinction.

 

[Ikki]

The requirements for getting such things are wildly different. In Tests the best way to bowl economically is to bowl down leg-side; in ODIs that's the best way to be as expensive as possible.

Tests and ODIs are totally different games. There's any number of different requirements, enough to make combined stats relevant to precisely nothing.

So? They're different for every bowler. Not one and not the other. Hence it is consistent and there is no problem to combine them.

 

[Fiery]

You still arguing this Richard? It's bowling ffs. It requires exactly the same physical mechanics in both formats. The object is to try and dismiss the batsman or, if this fails, stop them scoring runs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having combined stats. Nobody takes much notice of them really but perhaps they should more.

 

[Richard]

So? They're different for every bowler. Not one and not the other. Hence it is consistent and there is no problem to combine them.

There is a problem to combine them, though - you're combining records from two different games.

 

[Richard]

You still arguing this Richard?

Why on Earth wouldn't I be? An hour or two isn't going to change my view on the matter - nor a lifetime, in fact.

It's bowling ffs. It requires exactly the same physical mechanics in both formats. The object is to try and dismiss the batsman or, if this fails, stop them scoring runs.

The physical mechanics and the aim of a spell of bowling are two totally and completely different things. It doesn't matter in the slightest that the physical mechanics are the same. In ODIs, the important thing is to stop the scoring; in Tests, it's to dismiss. The rules are different, impacting on how difficult this is to do. There's no point trying to project one game onto another.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having combined stats. Nobody takes much notice of them really but perhaps they should more.

No, perhaps they should less.

 

[Ikki]

There is a problem to combine them, though - you're combining records from two different games.

There is no problem. All the players have their 2 different records combined so that means that whatever disadvantage/advantage there is to be had is had by all.

 

[Richard]

So? Some players are good at one form and not the other. It makes no sense to assess a Test bowler by his ODI exploits or vice-versa.

 

[Ikki]

So? Some players are good at one form and not the other. It makes no sense to assess a Test bowler by his ODI exploits or vice-versa.

That's exactly the whole point. One may not be as good in one as the other. That's why combining them gives overall who is better in both.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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?

Yes,whenever I start a thread about batsmen/bowlers/allrounders,it should be taken as being about Tests unless I mention the word ODI.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

So? Some players are good at one form and not the other. It makes no sense to assess a Test bowler by his ODI exploits or vice-versa.

I agree,because people like Marshall,Walsh will stand nowhere if we start doing combined lists.TBH,combined lists idea makes really no sense.And ODIs are for fun & not meant to be taken seriously.

 

[Richard]

That's exactly the whole point. One may not be as good in one as the other. That's why combining them gives overall who is better in both.

It doesn't, though - someone being better in ODIs doesn't make any difference to how good they were in Tests. Likewise, someone being better in Tests doesn't make any difference to how good they were in ODIs.

There is no "overall". It's one, or it's the other.

 

[Ikki]

It doesn't, though - someone being better in ODIs doesn't make any difference to how good they were in Tests. Likewise, someone being better in Tests doesn't make any difference to how good they were in ODIs.

There is no "overall". It's one, or it's the other.

I am not talking about how good they were in only tests. But how they were in both - overall. It makes plenty of sense to combine the stats if you are looking at both. But BP, evidently, wanted just tests.