Mohammad Sami vs Ishant Sharma

[smash84]

lol....I would tend to agree.......

despite i**** sharma being quite **** I don't think he has performed as **** as Sami

 

[Xuhaib]

Sami was horrible and | am being nice to him by calling him horrible. Sure sometimes luck did not go his way and but nothing justifes a 51 bowling average he had the ability of bowling atrociously and worse then any fast bowler ever in atleast 90% of his spells.

 

[BackFootPunch]

Sami was horrible and | am being nice to him by calling him horrible. Sure sometimes luck did not go his way and but nothing justifes a 51 bowling average he had the ability of bowling atrociously and worse then any fast bowler ever in atleast 90% of his spells.

He actually averaged 52

But worse than any other fast bowler ever? I believe there are a couple of current Sri Lankan opening bowlers who present a quite compelling counter-claim.

 

[silentstriker]

lol....I would tend to agree.......

despite i**** sharma being quite **** I don't think he has performed as **** as Sami

The bowling average difference of 15 is certainly worthy of >>. That's 40% higher!

That's the difference between MS Dhoni and Rahul Dravid's batting average. At some point averages become significant, and 15 is well past that point.

 

[silentstriker]

And for smali - in terms of just numerical difference, the difference in average between Ishant Sharma and Imran Khan is about the same as the difference in bowling average between Ishant Sharma and Mohammad Sami. Would Imran Khan qualify as >> Ishant Sharma?

/Just sayin'

 

[smash84]

And for smali - in terms of just numerical difference, the difference in average between Ishant Sharma and Imran Khan is about the same as the difference in bowling average between Ishant Sharma and Mohammad Sami. Would Imran Khan qualify as >> Ishant Sharma?

/Just sayin'

Dude Imran is in the atmosphere of elite bowlers

While Ishant and Sami in the stratosphere of ****ness....

it doesn't work in a linear pattern. Being a pseudo scientist you should know that

 

[silentstriker]

What 'category' you decide put them in has got very little to do with how many runs you concede before you take a wicket?

 

[Manee]

The bowling average difference of 15 is certainly worthy of >>. That's 40% higher!

That's the difference between MS Dhoni and Rahul Dravid's batting average. At some point averages become significant, and 15 is well past that point.

Ishant's extremely terrible performance against the good line ups of South Africa, Australia and England has shown a massive deficiency and decline in his bowling that many suspect will lead to a ballooning of his bowling average. If it weren't for the series in West Indies, in which West Indies batted shockingly, he would not be in the Test squad anymore, imo.

 

[silentstriker]

And actually, it works exactly in a linear fashion. It's just the number of runs conceded divided by the number of wickets. If you're going to use averages (and maybe you don't, which is fine), then you can't use them except that way.

 

[Manee]

Dude Imran is in the atmosphere of elite bowlers

While Ishant and Sami in the stratosphere of ****ness....

it doesn't work in a linear pattern. Being a pseudo scientist you should know that

Nice point, well made.

 

[silentstriker]

Ishant's extremely terrible performance against the good line ups of South Africa, Australia and England has shown a massive deficiency and decline in his bowling that many suspect will lead to a ballooning of his bowling average. If it weren't for the series in West Indies, in which West Indies batted shockingly, he would not be in the Test squad anymore, imo.

Woulda Coulda Shouda. If you care about averages at all, 15 has to be very significant number after 35 and 45 Tests respectively - regardless of what criteria you want to use. Otherwise, you can't use averages for ANYTHING. Which is fine, if you don't want to, but you can't have it both ways.

 

[smash84]

What 'category' you decide put them in has got very little to do with how many runs you concede before you take a wicket?

My point was that sub 25 average bowlers would generally be clubbed to be roughly of the same quality.

Similarly bowlers with an average of 40 or more would probably be perceived to be of the same quality. Despite there being a huge difference in the number of the average but the perception of their bowling quality wouldn't seem that great.

 

[silentstriker]

Similarly bowlers with an average of 40 or more would probably be perceived to be of the same quality. Despite there being a huge difference in the number of the average but the perception of their bowling quality wouldn't seem that great.

That's a completely arbitrary distinction that is not based whatsoever in reality. You can call them both '****', which might be fine, but to say that a guy averaging 40 vs. 60 with the ball are equally bad simply does not make mathematical sense. That's like saying, yes, anyone sub 40 batting average is not that good. But a guy averaging 30 vs. 5 - your team is still getting a bunch of extra runs from the guy averaging 30 compared to 5. They may both be 'crap', but they are not equivalent.

 

[smash84]

I think my theory is true to the mark given the results of the survey so far......lol

I do think that Sharma is definitely the better test bowler though.

 

[Manee]

Woulda Coulda Shouda. If you care about averages at all, 15 has to be very significant number after 35 and 45 Tests respectively - regardless of what criteria you want to use. Otherwise, you can't use averages for ANYTHING. Which is fine, if you don't want to, but you can't have it both ways.

The common way for a comparison like this to take place is that someone would compare the career of Sami, with the assumption that it is unlikely he'll return, to one of two things:
a) The current performance of Ishant Sharma.
b) The expected career of Ishant Sharma.

For many, both a) and b) do not look good.

It is rare to take the career record of a player who is currently playing. Such a thing would result in people saying Anderson is a mediocre Test bowler.

I do not think I'm being an idiot here.

 

[smash84]

That's a completely arbitrary distinction that is not based whatsoever in reality. You can call them both '****', which might be fine, but to say that a guy averaging 40 vs. 60 with the ball are equally bad simply does not make mathematical sense. That's like saying, yes, anyone sub 40 batting average is not that good. But a guy averaging 30 vs. 5 - your team is still getting a bunch of extra runs from the guy averaging 30 compared to 5. They may both be 'crap', but they are not equivalent.

Straw man. When did I say that?

 

[silentstriker]

I think my theory is true to the mark given the results of the survey so far......lol

I do think that Sharma is definitely the better test bowler though.

Or maybe people may not put in that much stock in averages.

Straw man. When did I say that?

Right here:

Similarly bowlers with an average of 40 or more would probably be perceived to be of the same quality

 

[smash84]

did I say that both are equal?

What I am saying here is that people probably perceive the 40+ average bowlers to be of the same quality which is what the poll results point towards so far

 

[silentstriker]

did I say that both are equal?

What I am saying here is that people probably perceive the 40+ average bowlers to be of the same quality which is what the poll results point towards so far

So what you meant to say was that you don't necessarily disagree with Sharma >> Sami, its just that you disagree that people will see Sharma >> Sami?

 

[Prince EWS]

did I say that both are equal?

What I am saying here is that people probably perceive the 40+ average bowlers to be of the same quality which is what the poll results point towards so far

Maybe, but they shouldn't. If I played Test cricket I'd average over 70 but it wouldn't put me in the same bracket as Sami and Sharma. Statistics don't become less meaningful just because both players have been poor at this level of cricket; different degrees of rubbishness do exist.

To answer the question seriously - if both players retired right now then absolutely without doubt you'd have to say that Sharma had performed better across his Test career than Sami. However if I was asked to pick a bowler to play for me right now I'd pick Sami.