Who is the best bowler ever to average over 30 in Test cricket?

[harsh.ag]

I never thought this thread would end up about Lee and Flintoff. Brilliant, CW, absolutely top-notch

 

[GIMH]

So a person who do well against australia should be doing better against weaker SL and NZ? BTW he bullied WI and Bangladesh. I'd take a bowler who can bully SL and MZ over a bowker who can bully the former two. FTR he averages roughly the same against AUS, SL and NZ.

So you think Freddie was ****? Oh ****. Might have to re-evaluate who my favourite ever cricketer is now that that all knowing Migara has spoken

 

[Migara]

Toughest opposition is highly subjective. For a hit the pitch bowler SL would be a graveyard. But for a swing bowler, it is like paradise. If you were a batsman in 2000s, ultimate challenge was Aus and SAF at SAF. But for a spinner it was India,

 

[Migara]

So you think Freddie was ****? Oh ****. Might have to re-evaluate who my favourite ever cricketer is now that that all knowing Migara has spoken

That will depend on what you think of Lee.

 

[GIMH]

He was decent

 

[Flem274*]

I'd take Lee if I needed an opening bowler, Flintoff if I needed someone to hit the deck hard and rough ****s up, but Lee wasn't half bad at that either.

Lee was probably the more consistently successful bowler despite Flintoff nearly always being good with the ball without running through teams. Flintoff had more memorable moments but when you're the hero-rounder of your team who is a star of home Ashes wins you're going to be remembered more than the guy who was the also ran to McGrath and Warne.

 

[the big bambino]

More hypotheticals..
If a player does well vs the toughest opposition and does average vs everyone else.. And another player does average vs the toughest opposition, but does well vs all others (assume 7 other opponents), resulting in the latter having a better record, who is the better overall player?

Go with the former every time. Those players are rare. The pool of players who can do well against weaker opponents is greater making up for the former's lack of success against them.

 

[viriya]

Go with the former every time. Those players are rare. The pool of players who can do well against weaker opponents is greater making up for the former's lack of success against them.

Why can't that player play well vs the lesser opponents? It might be that he just had 1 or 2 great spells vs the toughest opposition so it was a fluke, he's actually more average, which is shown by his record vs others. The Laxman of bowlers if you will. And I'm not saying Aus and Ban.. I'm talking just doing well vs Aus.. and average vs every other nation.. vs average vs Aus and doing well vs every other nation..one country vs 7 others.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why can't that player play well vs the lesser opponents? It might be that he just had 1 or 2 great spells vs the toughest opposition so it was a fluke, he's actually more average, which is shown by his record vs others. The Laxman of bowlers if you will. And I'm not saying Aus and Ban.. I'm talking just doing well vs Aus.. and average vs every other nation.. vs average vs Aus and doing well vs every other nation..one country vs 7 others.

I will not tolerate anyone calling Laxman average.

 

[OverratedSanity]

And why is VVS made out to be this guy who fluked some great knocks against Australia but didn't do anything vs everyone else? The only team against whom he didn't deliver the goods was England.

 

[viriya]

I will not tolerate anyone calling Laxman average.

I'm not saying he's average - just not on the level of some other greats. And the fact that he "failed" vs Eng, SA, Ban and Zim while doing well vs the best team of his time makes him a good example. The fact that he couldn't do as well vs the "weaker" opponents can't be considered a good thing - it's what held him back from the next level.

 

[viriya]

The classic comparison would be Dravid vs Laxman.

Dravid averaged 39 vs Aus and 56 vs the rest
Laxman averaged 50 vs Aus but 45 vs the rest

Who's considered the better overall player?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Dravid is better but not because of the reason you gave.

I couldn't give two ****s about a player's record against Bang/Zim. Failing against them is almost the same as averaging 100 against them, imo... Completely irrelevant.

Apart from those two and England, VVS was great against everyone. Not just Australia like you're making it out to be. Of course he's not at the level of Dravid/Ponting but your reasons aren't appropriate.

 

[viriya]

Dravid is better but not because of the reason you gave.

I couldn't give two ****s about a player's record against Bang/Zim. Failing against them is almost the same as averaging 100 against them, imo... Completely irrelevant.

Apart from those two and England, VVS was great against everyone. Not just Australia like you're making it out to be. Of course he's not at the level of Dravid/Ponting but your reasons aren't appropriate.

Great players cash in vs weaker opposition if given enough opportunities.

Averages of recent greats vs Ban & Zim:
Tendulkar: 97
Ponting: 79
Kallis: 125
Dravid: 86
Lara: 66
Sangakkara: 94

If you can't dominate weaker opposition, it's not irrelevant.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Great players cash in vs weaker opposition if given enough opportunities.

Averages of recent greats vs Ban & Zim:
Tendulkar: 97
Ponting: 79
Kallis: 125
Dravid: 86
Lara: 66
Sangakkara: 94

If you can't dominate weaker opposition, it's not irrelevant.

Really? That's your criteria for classifying who a great is ? I'd rate Lara and Tendulkar just as high if they hadn't got a run vs Bang/Zim. Dominating weaker opposition like West Indies/NZ in the 90s is an achievement. But bang/Zim are not "weaker opposition" . They're minnows. Joke cricket teams which don't deserve test status. Dominating them is not an achievement. Neither is failing against them a "failure". Runs/wickets against them add virtually nothing to a player's legacy.

 

[viriya]

Really? That's your criteria for classifying who a great is ? I'd rate Lara and Tendulkar just as high if they hadn't got a run vs Bang/Zim. Dominating weaker opposition like West Indies/NZ in the 90s is an achievement. But bang/Zim are not "weaker opposition" . They're minnows. Joke cricket teams which don't deserve test status. Dominating them is not an achievement. Neither is failing against them a "failure". Runs/wickets against them add virtually nothing to a player's legacy.

I'm not saying that's what makes them great - just that a great player dominates weak opposition. It's not irrelevant if a player can't dominate in those situations.
Also, Zim only became minnows after 2001. Andy Flower and Heath Streak were high quality players.

If Laxman had done as well as Dravid vs other opposition he would've been considered a greater batsman - averaging near 55.

 

[the big bambino]

Why can't that player play well vs the lesser opponents? It might be that he just had 1 or 2 great spells vs the toughest opposition so it was a fluke, he's actually more average, which is shown by his record vs others. The Laxman of bowlers if you will. And I'm not saying Aus and Ban.. I'm talking just doing well vs Aus.. and average vs every other nation.. vs average vs Aus and doing well vs every other nation..one country vs 7 others.

Quite obviously I was referring to a player's career in total. So if he had an otherwise ordinary record with one good spell he wouldnot be rated now would he? Anyway why do you introduce a hypothetical situation when the one being discussed is known? Flintoff was prominent in 2 ashes victories against great Aussie sides. So his performance is no fluke. I don't know why he didn't dominate lesser teams neither do I care. Plenty of others can do that whereas those who can compete with the best are rare.

And yes Laxman was not ordinary and neither was his record against Australia a fluke.

 

[viriya]

Quite obviously I was referring to a player's career in total. So if he had an otherwise ordinary record with one good spell he wouldnot be rated now would he? Anyway why do you introduce a hypothetical situation when the one being discussed is known? Flintoff was prominent in 2 ashes victories against great Aussie sides. So his performance is no fluke. I don't know why he didn't dominate lesser teams neither do I care. Plenty of others can do that whereas those who can compete with the best are rare.

And yes Laxman was not ordinary and neither was his record against Australia a fluke.

I thought the hypothetical was interesting.. I rate both Flintoff and Lee along the same line, maybe put Lee a little in front but not by much.
I never said Laxman was ordinary - just not as good as he would've been if he had done at least as well vs non-Aus opposition.

 

[the big bambino]

Fair enough. I'd give it to Flintoff as my preference. Laxman is a favourite of mine and I'm sure I'm just one of his fan club. Sometimes I day dream of he and Mark Waugh batting together.

 

[akilana]

Dravid is better but not because of the reason you gave.

I couldn't give two ****s about a player's record against Bang/Zim. Failing against them is almost the same as averaging 100 against them, imo... Completely irrelevant.

Apart from those two and England, VVS was great against everyone. Not just Australia like you're making it out to be. Of course he's not at the level of Dravid/Ponting but your reasons aren't appropriate.

Nah. He was far from great against SA and Pakistan.