Who is the best fast bowler in the world right now - Tests

[Outswinger@Pace]

Oh, dear me! Statsguru is being gang raped brutally in this thread.

 

[marc71178]

My whole argument about economy rate was against stephen and GingerFurball was trying to say that strike rate > economy rate which I was pointing out is wrong.

No, all you have shown is that a bowler with a lower average will concede fewer runs per wicket than a bowler with a higher average.

 

[BlazeDragon]

No, all you have shown is that a bowler with a lower average will concede fewer runs per wicket than a bowler with a higher average.

Economy rate and strike rate are both equally important. A bowler with an equivalent economy rate to Steyn's strike rate and and equivalent strike rate to Steyn's economy rate would be just as useful to the team as Steyn.

Okay let me just settle this right now. Among the two of them if the economical bowler bowls less overs then the strike bowler wins. But if the economical bowler bowls more overs then strike bowler loses. However if they both bowl an equal amount of overs then its a draw and they end up with the same statistics. Hence why economy rate and strike rate are both just as important.

 

[Darth018]

What do people find so hard to understand about this?

The strike bowler will save more time while the economical bowler will save more runs if you bowl both type of bowlers the equal amount of overs. Both are just as important to the team. Its good to have a balance between both which McGrath clearly has the advantage over Steyn.

Btw, I don't know why McGrath vs Steyn was being debated. Steyn is seriously getting overrated here now. I mean say he is miles ahead of Anderson and Zaheer all you want but comparing him to the likes of McGrath and Donald already is really pushing it.

 

[stephen]

Talk about misrepresentation of my points.

1) I never argued that McGrath was better than Steyn
2) I said that one could argue that Steyn is more valuable to his team than McGrath was to his. Given McGrath had Warne and Gillespie in his team (for the most part) and Steyn only has Morkell, this is probably the case.
3) All of this talk about bowling the bowlers for longer or shorter individually is really irrelevant unless you take their wickets into context. Yes, if a high-econ bowler does not take wickets then bowling them for longer spells is far worse than bowling a lower-econ bowler. Conversely, if the higher-econ bowler is taking wickets at a low average they are helping their team more by reducing the amount of overs that the higher-averaging bowlers are being exposed to the batsmen.

In none of this was I arguing against McGrath's greatness, or even that Steyn is in the same league as McGrath. All I was saying is that if you are the lowest averaging bowler on your side, your economy is irrelevant and your strike rate is more important.

If you fail to comprehend why then please go and read the original post where I demonstrated why this is the case. And perhaps learn a bit more about mathematics.

 

[stephen]

Finally, it's easy to forget that each team has at least 4 bowlers who get a bowl (barring unusual circumstances). They are not all of the same quality. Your lowest averaging bowler striking faster means that the lower quality bowlers get less exposure to the top batsmen, which helps the team by reducing the opposition's ability to score off the poorer bowlers.

 

[zaremba]

Oh, dear me! Statsguru is being gang raped brutally in this thread.

Could we avoid using this expression please?

 

[BlazeDragon]

3) All of this talk about bowling the bowlers for longer or shorter individually is really irrelevant unless you take their wickets into context. Yes, if a high-econ bowler does not take wickets then bowling them for longer spells is far worse than bowling a lower-econ bowler. Conversely, if the higher-econ bowler is taking wickets at a low average they are helping their team more by reducing the amount of overs that the higher-averaging bowlers are being exposed to the batsmen.

It would be the the same if the lower-economy bowler is taking wickets at a lower average.

 

[marc71178]

btw, anderson isnt fit to lick steyns boots, include fans are full of face palm on this one, he really isn't.

if anderson does something worthwhile against pakistan in uae then we will talk about a comparison, steyn has vicious 90mph swinging yorkers in dry conditions, what does jmmykins have?

he is a vampire, disappear in the sun.

AWTA - what a terrible winter he's had.

 

[GIMH]

The gap between Steyn and Anderson nowhere near as big as some suggest, IMO. If Anderson debuted when Strauss became captain people would have a completely different perception. Top class.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Steyn still the best, Anderson closing the gap but you would still choose Steyn over him. The interesting one is Vernon Philander, could be the best of the lot but needs a bigger timeframe before we can call that one. Certainly made an astonishing start to his career.

 

[uvelocity]

he's had everthing go his way so far in regard to conditions and opposition though

 

[Mike5181]

I'd take Philander over Anderson. After watching him over here I don't think he's a fraud.

 

[ankitj]

It's a close run thing. Can't choose between Steyn and Ishant.

 

[Burgey]

Lol. Zaheer now rightly seen as a two year flash in the pan or what?

 

[Cabinet96]

I'd take Philander over Anderson. After watching him over here I don't think he's a fraud.

The conditions Anderson has been bowling in recently are so much tougher than the conditions Phillander has been bowling in.

The Numbers Game: Dale Steyn v James Anderson | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo Steyn has done marginally better over the last couple of years, and I still think he's better than Anderson, but not by a big margin.

I reckon Broad is probably up there as well now and is probably the 3rd or 4th best fast bowler around at the moment IMO.

 

[Burgey]

The conditions Anderson has been bowling in recently are so much tougher than the conditions Phillander has been bowling in.

The Numbers Game: Dale Steyn v James Anderson | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo Steyn has done marginally better over the last couple of years, and I still think he's better than Anderson, but not by a big margin.

I reckon Broad is probably up there as well now and is probably the 3rd or 4th best fast bowler around at the moment IMO.

Stop trolling.

 

[Pothas]

Jimmy has been so so good this winter, has totally proven himself over the last two years. Is
he as good as Steyn? No but I think he will at the very least comfortably go down as the best English fast bowler since Willis and Botham.

 

[Burgey]

Jimmy has been so so good this winter, has totally proven himself over the last two years. Is
he as good as Steyn? No but I think he will at the very least comfortably go down as the best English fast bowler since Willis and Botham.

Crack field that....

 

[Cabinet96]

Stop trolling.

Can't argue with his performances over the last 9 months tbh. And over the last 2 and a half years his performances have been more than respectable http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/10617.html?class=1;spanmin1=07+Aug+2009;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Who would you consider better anyway Burgey?