Rank your Top 20 Bowlers of the modern era

[BlazeDragon]

It's because zaheer takes out more openers than anyone else (particularly lefties)
Top order + middle order proportion of wickets tells you more as to the sort of wickets a bowler's picked though.
Steyn's express so you'd expect him to run through the tail, and therefore he's more likely to have a greater proportion of tailenders as his wickets.

edit zaheer wag though

But the stats provided here were just the top order and tail though. What are Steyn's stats for middle order (4-7) then?

 

[smash84]

% of wickets of batsmen (8-11)

Younis 35.4%
Akram 35.0
Steyn 33.2
Walsh 31.4
Fraser 29.9
Pollock 29.5
Akhtar 28.7
Bishop 28.6
Gough 28.4
Ambrose 27.7
Lee 26.8
Donald 26.1
McGrath 25.2
Hoggard 25.0
Srinath 24.2
Gillespie 23.9
Ntini 23.6
Vaas 22.8
Zaheer 20.3
Bond 17.2

hmmm........your list seemed suspect to me b/c i had seen Waqar's stats.......his 8-11 wickets are 29.2% not 35.4. I think you picked the wrong number for Waqar

HowSTAT! Wickets by Batting Order Graph

 

[Ikki]

Ikki do you really honestly believe that Murali's action has absolutely nothing to do with him being ranked lower?

Maybe some, but I don't know who? I don't think anyone who considers him a chucker would logically think him a great player. By that I mean, I doubt many people say "he's an awesome bowler but because he chucks I rate him less". I think it's a bit more emotive than that and people who think he is a chucker disregard his bowling in general.

I know this sounds radical because high profile match performances receive lot of attention and admiration. But think about it, when pressure applies uniformly, everyone is at a similar disadvantage. And in course of the match someone is going to score lot of runs or someone is going to take wickets. It's not like because there is pressure, the base case is no one is expected to score anything substantial and no one is expected to take a lot of wickets.

Match saving hundred is a different case altogether. The pressure is not uniform on all players of both sides. In Mohali last year when India needed 80 odd runs with 2 wickets in hands, pressure was higher on Laxman than on Mitchell Johnson. So Laxman's knock deserves extra kudos.

I don't think it does apply uniformly - who knows how to gauge that anyway. Just because there is pressure on both teams doesn't make the performances there equal to any other performance - i.e. final vs regular ODI. Players will generally perform worse and it ranges. It can mean worse bowling and batting averages for those matches/series. Which makes comparison with series that do not have these characteristics troublesome - for they do not follow with that same pressure.

Your 2nd paragraph is the perfect logic to refute your position in pretty much every other instance.

Australia, especially in Warne's era, was pretty much always expected to win. Whether that was against SL, SA or WI. If a team lost to Australia, people shrugged their shoulders - because how often did teams beat them anyway? If Australia lost a series there were massive inquisitions and/or droppings. Losing the Ashes was like the holocaust.

Although I don't like this argument as it sounds like I am making an excuse for Warne having to perform under pressure. I think the best retort to Murali being better than Warne against England, in England, is the fact that he never played a 5 test series. In fact, he only ever played 1 3 test series. Also, performance-wise - with regards to the context of the matches - I think Warne was superior. Just look at Murali's series in 06 vs Warne's in 05. The former is statistically better but I think very few people would argue it was better than the latter. Warne's series in 05 was one of the greatest series by a bowler ever.

 

[smash84]

Maybe some, but I don't know who? I don't think anyone who considers him a chucker would logically think him a great player. By that I mean, I doubt many people say "he's an awesome bowler but because he chucks I rate him less". I think it's a bit more emotive than that and people who think he is a chucker disregard his bowling in general.

Actually that was precisely what i had in mind

 

[Ikki]

Actually that was precisely what i had in mind

Not sure how that logic works. It's not like "well he doesn't have as good a bouncer, so I rate x over y". I think when you think someone chucks you don't rate them at all - it's a bit of a black and white issue. If you do think they chuck, it taints everything they do.

So with that, I'd have to say; no. No I don't think people rate him less because of it. I think they wouldn't rate him at all if they thought that was the case.

 

[weldone]

Not sure how that logic works. It's not like "well he doesn't have as good a bouncer, so I rate x over y". I think when you think someone chucks you don't rate them at all - it's a bit of a black and white issue. If you do think they chuck, it taints everything they do.

So with that, I'd have to say; no. No I don't think people rate him less because of it. I think they wouldn't rate him at all if they thought that was the case.

While your point is perfect, I shall explain my point with a simple example.

Suppose 10 people out of 100 think he chucked.

So these 10 people don't rate him at all.

Out of the other 90, 45 rate Warne higher, and 45 rate Murali higher.

So, out of the 100 people, 55 rate Warne higher, and 45 rate Murali higher.

So overall, Murali is rated slightly below Warne.

Is this consistent with your point?

 

[smash84]

I think weldone has put forward my point quite succinctly

 

[Ikki]

Is this consistent with your point?

I can see how the above works...sure. Would have to see the voting to see for sure though.

TBF though, I simply don't think they rate him as high anyway. I haven't read much about it, at least. Whereas with Warne you hear from many that he is the greatest bowler of all time (or up there), let alone spin bowler.

 

[smash84]

yes but Warne is not rated the greatest for his away record. Warne was my favorite player to watch (after Wasim) because of the way that he played the game. He always had you at the edge of your seats. The way he would set up the batsmen, his variety, the mind games. He was such a mesmerizing cricketer.

 

[vcs]

yes but Warne is not rated the greatest for his away record. Warne was my favorite player to watch (after Wasim) because of the way that he played the game. He always had you at the edge of your seats. The way he would set up the batsmen, his variety, the mind games. He was such a mesmerizing cricketer.

I agree with all of what you have said, but it's very hard to find any logic for rating him the greatest bowler of all time. Would be surprised if any expert seriously said that.

 

[Ikki]

yes but Warne is not rated the greatest for his away record. Warne was my favorite player to watch (after Wasim) because of the way that he played the game. He always had you at the edge of your seats. The way he would set up the batsmen, his variety, the mind games. He was such a mesmerizing cricketer.

I'm not saying he was. Nor that Murali's is why he isn't. I am just saying in those prestigious lists with former pros as panelists I didn't get the impression that they thought of Murali that high, whereas with Warne they did.

 

[ankitj]

I don't think it does apply uniformly - who knows how to gauge that anyway. Just because there is pressure on both teams doesn't make the performances there equal to any other performance - i.e. final vs regular ODI. Players will generally perform worse and it ranges. It can mean worse bowling and batting averages for those matches/series. Which makes comparison with series that do not have these characteristics troublesome - for they do not follow with that same pressure.

It cannot mean worse bowling and batting performances simultaneously (quantitatively speaking and not qualitatively). That is mathematically impossible. A situation (pressure match, pitch condition etc) that applies to everyone cannot disadvantage both batsmen and bowlers at once in terms of numbers they will finish with. You can't have a pitch that hurts both the batting average and bowling average. You'd have an argument if you say bowling becomes relatively harder in pressure games when compared with batting. I would disagree with that but it will not be logically inconsistent.

Your 2nd paragraph is the perfect logic to refute your position in pretty much every other instance.

Australia, especially in Warne's era, was pretty much always expected to win. Whether that was against SL, SA or WI. If a team lost to Australia, people shrugged their shoulders - because how often did teams beat them anyway? If Australia lost a series there were massive inquisitions and/or droppings. Losing the Ashes was like the holocaust.

Although I don't like this argument as it sounds like I am making an excuse for Warne having to perform under pressure. I think the best retort to Murali being better than Warne against England, in England, is the fact that he never played a 5 test series. In fact, he only ever played 1 3 test series. Also, performance-wise - with regards to the context of the matches - I think Warne was superior. Just look at Murali's series in 06 vs Warne's in 05. The former is statistically better but I think very few people would argue it was better than the latter. Warne's series in 05 was one of the greatest series by a bowler ever.

Again, you have an argument that is not logically inconsistent even though it's debatable. And I am not in mood to debate, only in mood to point out logical inconsistencies

 

[vcs]

It cannot mean worse bowling and batting performances simultaneously (quantitatively speaking and not qualitatively). That is mathematically impossible. A situation (pressure match, pitch condition etc) that applies to everyone cannot disadvantage both batsmen and bowlers at once in terms of numbers they will finish with. You can't have a pitch that hurts both the batting average and bowling average. You'd have an argument if you say bowling becomes relatively harder in pressure games when compared with batting. I would disagree with that but it will not be logically inconsistent.



Again, you have an argument that is not logically inconsistent even though it's debatable. And I am not in mood to debate, only in mood of pointing out logical inconsistencies

If anything, pressure would be harder to deal with for batsmen.. bowlers can theoretically bowl a **** over and come back, though a poor start could cost them very dearly against elite batsmen (see Zaheer in WC '03 final). Batsmen don't have that margin.

 

[Ikki]

It cannot mean worse bowling and batting performances simultaneously (quantitatively speaking and not qualitatively). That is mathematically impossible. A situation (pressure match, pitch condition etc) that applies to everyone cannot disadvantage both batsmen and bowlers at once in terms of numbers they will finish with. You can't have a pitch that hurts both the batting average and bowling average. You'd have an argument if you say bowling becomes relatively harder in pressure games when compared with batting. I would disagree with that but it will not be logically inconsistent.

I didn't say that. I said "generally and it ranges". Which bowler or which batsman ends up performing is guesswork. Maybe one bowler will bowl near his career ratios and another 10% worse.

Strictly, mathematically, players perform just like any match - they take wickets and make runs. Still, the pressure to do so is much higher in these matches. Again, I think it is disingenuous to not take that into account.

Again, you have an argument that is not logically inconsistent even though it's debatable. And I am not in mood to debate, only in mood to point out logical inconsistencies

Lots of things are debatable but some aren't worth debating because they're generally well-founded on one side and not so much on the other. I think that para is generally on point.

 

[ankitj]

If anything, pressure would be harder to deal with for batsmen.. bowlers can theoretically bowl a **** over and come back, though a poor start could cost them very dearly against elite batsmen (see Zaheer in WC '03 final). Batsmen don't have that margin.

I fully agree. Pressure affects bowlers much less. You don't hear of a spell "under immense pressure" (EDIT: unless it is due to a personal condition like trying to hold on to a place in team) whereas you hear of knocks "under immense pressure". And for this reason, I have always believed that bowlers' stats (talk of tests strictly) are more analyzable than batsmen's stat. The whole thing about value of a batsmen like Laxman who flourishes under pressure doesn't come into equation when talking of bowlers.

 

[bagapath]

I agree with all of what you have said, but it's very hard to find any logic for rating him the greatest bowler of all time. Would be surprised if any expert seriously said that.

ikki's signature used to have so many quotes on this. the number of match turning spells from Warne certainly make him a candidate for that title. oh, yeah. murali could be called that too.

 

[Lostman]

I think the best retort to Murali being better than Warne against England, in England, is the fact that he never played a 5 test series. In fact, he only ever played 1 3 test series. Also, performance-wise - with regards to the context of the matches - I think Warne was superior. Just look at Murali's series in 06 vs Warne's in 05. The former is statistically better but I think very few people would argue it was better than the latter. Warne's series in 05 was one of the greatest series by a bowler ever.

Even by your standards this is laughable.

 

[vcs]

ikki's signature used to have so many quotes on this. the number of match turning spells from Warne certainly make him a candidate for that title. oh, yeah. murali could be called that too.

Yeah.. well, I've teased Ikki about those quotes before. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Warne, but I'd say there are a clutch of fast bowlers comfortably ahead of him vying for that title.

 

[Ikki]

Even by your standards this is laughable.

So Murali's performance against England in 06 was better than Warne's Ashes in 05?

LOL, I've heard it all now.

Yeah.. well, I've teased Ikki about those quotes before. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Warne, but I'd say there are a clutch of fast bowlers comfortably ahead of him vying for that title.

One of them - arguably the best of them - says it's Warne, so there

 

[Lostman]

So Murali's performance against England in 06 was better than Warne's Ashes in 05?

LOL, I've heard it all now.

Well considering he had better Average, SR, Econ, Yes.
Those are generally the parameters I use to judge bowlers, but I am curious to know what you use other than one series being "The uber cool ASHES".