If you're saying two wickets is not a massive enough factor to override even a league of difference in batsmanship(which I don't think exists), I cannot agree with you.
Nah, That logic can be used to underrate the wickets taken by pretty much every bowler in a good bowling line-up.
Nah, it can't. Miller was an opening bowler who when needed to bowled long spells but didn't because of his back. He bowled important overs and took important wickets. It's big stretch to simply say "someone else would have done it". Or imagine trying to make that argument for someone like McGrath.
I strongly, strongly disagree re how you're subjective opinions swing from one side of the pendulum to another regarding two bowlers who had a low wpm. It's not to say that Kallis was in the class of the other but saying one took dire wickets while the other important ones in a generalizing sweep is just not on, IMHO.
You could look at the discrepency between averages for a better indication of why his wickets were valuable. That's 3 wpm at 22.97, was in fact at a better average than Lindwall.
I'd never dare to suggest that Kallis was half as good a bowler as Miller tbh. However, The value of a wicket is not told by the bowling average. The bowling average does not even hint at it.
But it's wrong, absolutely wrong. They're not even in the same class. Their bowling has completely different roles. It's not even close. Kallis' bowling can be replicated by the rest of the attack to the same standard, at least, that he brings. Miller's bowling cannot.
For obvious reasons, the value of their wickets are far apart - even if you weren't to use average or SR. So the first part of this post shouldn't need explaining. The value of Kallis' wickets =/= the value of Miller's.
Depends how good his bowling is.
Miller's WPI average was considerably better than 1.5 TBF.
But the replication would require the other bowlers to bowl 120 balls(Or whatever the average SR of the team is) per match to take the wickets, It's one thing saying Kallis' bowling is not match-winning, completely another to say it's not useful. 2-60 every Innings whether or not it can be replicated by another bowler is obviously useful and 2 more than either Ponting and Tendulkar manage. It certainly,for me,is a good enough reason to consider Kallis to be a better cricketer than both.
Kallis doesn't take 2/60 an inning; it's more like 1/33 (and even higher if you exclude minnows). He bowls 13 overs an inning. Useful, sure. Any more than that is a stretch. As a 4th/5th bowler taking those kinds of wickets at those figures really is not enough IMO to conclusively rate him above the likes of Tendulkar as a great cricketer. That's' all I am saying. I'd argue that with also his slip fielding it would probably make him superior to Tendulkar.
Yeah, Never meant this to become a debate on Miller, It was just my point that it's not necessary that every bowler with a low wpm is inherently a free-rider. Again I don't consider Kallis to be half as good a bowler as Miller was. I just did the error of of directly subtracting wpm/2. It's closer to 1.8 if WPI is calculated properly, Apologies.
You're 17, I'll let you off just this once.
You're 17, I'll let you off just this once.
I'll have to kill whoever started this trend in CC in the past 2 days.
Are you refering to things like; partnership breaker, dismissing a set batsman and ability to give the other bowlers a spell whilst maintaining the pressure?
Are you gonna walk over to that guys place, because you certainly can't drive out there
Haha, what trend? Do people keep bringing up your age? I haven't noticed it tbh.
