maybe having a great attack would have diminished his chances on bowling on good wickets because his strike bowlers would have taken most of the wickets. he's generally asked to bowl a lot of overs on flat wickets when wickets don't come easily which would spoil his record. can't prove anything but just opinions.
Yeah. Either way, there's little in it statistically, except for that SR. So I guess we have to go by the opinions of those who watched both as bowlers.
And thats a fact
Hmm.. you also have to take into account the fact that batsmen would probably play the strike bowler more circumspectly as opposed to the 2nd change bowler, so that makes it a bit harder for Sobers to get his wickets. For example, Flintoff and Kallis have similar bowling stats but Flintoff is considered the superior bowler by a comfortable margin.
I so agree with that. That's one reason why I have a thing against Akram. Even when Waqar was at his best, Akram sometimes didn't throw the ball at him. Waqar's could have been an even more sensational career but for his bowling partner.And thats a fact
Especially Waqar > Akram. The politics ( Yes!!! Akram knows it better than anybody else ) and injuries did not let him become the 1st fast bowler to cross the 500 wickets barrier.
.
You hope to get around a difference of 7% with home/away argument?
That really shouldn't matter in rating the batsman, unless for aesthetic purposes, since runs are runs. Kevin Pietersen is a classic (misleading) example where people tend to give too much weightage to his performance against leading bowlers, IMO.Good work. Do you think, instead of taking the entire career average of the batsman as his wicket value, it is possible to take the career average of the batsman in that match in whichthe bowler took his wicket? Just kidding. Way too much work
Is it possible to do this sort of analysis on batsmen? Mean bowling average of the opposition attack (weighted with respect to the percentage of total match overs they bowled in that match).
I wish Player Vs. Player stats were available for all cricket matches. That would tell us how many runs a batsman scored off the leading bowlers in his career, or whether he cashed in on lesser ones and saw off the good ones. We would also know the actual value of the wicket tacken by the bowler (that is, how many runs a bowler conceded to a top batsman before getting him out).
Taking average at the time of dismissal may be inaccurate in one way. If a batsman who averages 40 scored 100 runs in each innings of a series, then the bowler who got him in the first innings will get less credit than that who got him in the last one. Not fair may be. And given the fairly large sample sizes we are working with, I think these effects are cancelled out.Good work. Do you think, instead of taking the entire career average of the batsman as his wicket value, it is possible to take the career average of the batsman in that match in whichthe bowler took his wicket? Just kidding. Way too much work
Is it possible to do this sort of analysis on batsmen? Mean bowling average of the opposition attack (weighted with respect to the percentage of total match overs they bowled in that match).
I wish Player Vs. Player stats were available for all cricket matches. That would tell us how many runs a batsman scored off the leading bowlers in his career, or whether he cashed in on lesser ones and saw off the good ones. We would also know the actual value of the wicket tacken by the bowler (that is, how many runs a bowler conceded to a top batsman before getting him out).
It doesn't have to overturn anything; although it probably will. Their records home and away contrast a lot and their respective homes play a great deal in the ease of bowling. Sri Lanka is arguably one of the best places to bowl spin and Australia one of the worst. Murali's average jumps more than 8 points away from home; whereas Warne is even better away than at home.You hope to get around a difference of 7% with home/away argument?
Anyway, this is not Murali vs Warne thread. We can discuss this on the official thread
I'd be shocked if that didn't even out over a large sample of data.
And yet when I made the dead track argument for Pak(SC) fast bowlers,I got a typical response:bowlers adapt to and bowl best in the conditions they grow up in!
These bowlers are going to face countless batsmen who are going to have of varying degrees of form in matches played and most of them won't come to average their career average against every bowler so it's unlikely it will. For some bowlers the batsmen will average highly, for others they wont.
And in that thread it was repeatedly pointed out to you that whilst Warne will have done as well as he could have, adapting to that condition; he STILL did better away. Whereas with the Pakistani bowlers...they did better at HOME than away; so they were disadvantaged away more than anything.
Well, that is essentially the same as saying, any statistical exercise is pointless, isn't it?
It depends what the statistical exercise is trying to prove. This is showing how bowlers did with respect to the batsmen they faced. But only takes into account their finishing overall average. So the critique is particularly relevant as these stats tries to look at the quality of wickets taken; when it doesn't look at the quality of the wicket taken when it was taken.Well, that is essentially the same as saying, any statistical exercise is pointless, isn't it?
I disagree BTW, I think these variables will even out for everyone over the course of a career.. nearly every ATG bowler will have high-averaging batsmen who struggle against their style of bowling and hence pick up those high-value wickets cheaply at some stage.
