OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Also, Ballance>Root
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Are we really going to pretend that Tim Southee...
- Thread starter Howsie
- Start date
ohnoitsyou
International Regular
Southee will do at least at well in the UAE as Johnson did.
Valer
First Class Debutant
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
By watching how he does
ohnoitsyou
International Regular
It will be subjective, as it always is. Similar average but more wickets because of the third test.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'd be very disappointed if he doesn't do better tbh. Johnson gave it everything, and really was impressive, but for the conditions, I would say Southee is more suited and more proven. His cutter is amazing and I think he'll eat Shehzad and Hafeez for breakfast if he's on his game.
Valer
First Class Debutant
Truly the most unbiased of methods. Southee could take 35 wickets @ 11 but I could claim Johnson looked better.
ohnoitsyou
Fair enough. I wouldn't be surprised to see pitches do slightly more so I'm not sure how much it will tell us.
Spark
Global Moderator
It's really the only fair way to judge a bowler tbh. Bowling is so much more nuanced than just a wkts@average figure allows that it's really not actually that useful beyond the broadest analysis.
He'll get more LBWs at a bare minimum.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Ballance, Stokes, Neesham and Anderson in contention for emerging player. 3 Kiwis and a Zimbok, but don't be surprised when an England player gets it.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's not what I said at all.
It's the only way to judge performance because it's one series. Imagine if Johnson took one measly wicket less. He'd end up with 5 wickets at 36. A good series now suddenly turns into Ishant Sharma. There's no other way to judge performances over such short stretches than by watching the match.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Stokes? What the.... Have I missed some series where he scored two hundreds and took 20 wickets? ICC can be utterly lol sometimes.
Spark
Global Moderator
Perhaps it just says how few really standout players have emerged in the last year
Valer
First Class Debutant
A prediction that can be countered by I disagree unless the difference is large enough to show up in the stats anyway isn't particularly interesting.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't know about that. Braithwaite? Rahane?
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
no, the question you should be asking yourself is "30 OVERS OR 4 WICKETS????!!!!!11111?"I was talking about them IN THE SAME SERIES!!..30 OVERS or 8 MATCHES?...erm yeah no difference there!!..
which is a very easy question to answer. Just go 30x6/strike rate.
Last edited:
Spark
Global Moderator
Nah, look, it's incredibly common that a bowler's performance doesn't show up in the stats. In fact it's almost more common than the other way around. Either due to bad luck or because they were playing a certain important role that didn't entail running through a side - or, alternatively, they picked up a couple of cheap tail end wickets which meant very little but gave them "respectable" figures. Bowling figures are really a terrible way to do analysis in short sample sizes -- unless you're talking 80.15, of course.
It's not that they lack nuance or whatever, it's that they're often genuinely only weakly related to the actual quality of bowling delivered in the Test match.
Good example is MJ @ Perth. Took 2/150 in the match or something but he bowled damn, damn well, and it was really down to the cricketing equivalent of the random number generator that he didn't take more wickets - but people still tried to use 2/150 as evidence that he was tapering off, which was clearly not the case to anyone who had bothered to watch the actual Test.
Last edited:
Flem274*
123/5
What's the criteria?
I'd say we've had enough new players strut their stuff to be positive about. If there were lots of new guys showing their faces it would be a worrying sign for team stability around the world. If we look back past a one year cut off for emerging players it gets even better, and I think we should since someone with two years and 10-15 tests to their name is still emerging on the scene really.
Spark
Global Moderator
Oh yeah past the one year cut off it's great but if we look at strictly debuted this year (or maybe late last year), which I'm guessing is their criteria, then it cuts most of them out. Rahane, for example, would be ineligible under those conditions. Braithwaite too.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
So would Stokes I would think.