• 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.

30 Test hundreds

stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm not saying that Warne was in any way a poor bowler, only that McGrath was a top-order annihilation machine.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
stephen said:
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

McGrath was such a beast. Look at his dismissals of top order batsmen. Around 40% of his victims.
Click to expand...
stephen said:
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Compare McGrath to Warne. Warne had a much higher proportion of wickets of batsmen batting 4 or lower.
Click to expand...
Why does the proportion matter when Warne's volume of wickets is so high? He took 380 top 6 wickets to McGrath's 377. Just because he took tailend wickets on top of those doesn't make him worse. It's almost as if taking lower order wickets is a negative.

It's exactly what people overlook when looking at spinners. Wrapping up the lower order and ending stubborn middle/lower order partnerships when the pacers are tired and want to put their legs up is a big part of their job and what makes them invaluable.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
OverratedSanity said:
Why does the proportion matter when Warne's volume of wickets is so high? He took 380 top 6 wickets to McGrath's 377. Just because he took tailend wickets on top of those doesn't make him worse. It's almost as if taking lower order wickets is a negative.

It's exactly what people overlook when looking at spinners. Wrapping up the lower order and ending stubborn middle/lower order partnerships when the pacers are tired and want to put their legs up is a big part of their job and what makes them invaluable.
Click to expand...
It's not a negative per se, but it's still more impressive for a higher proportion of your wickets being specialist batsmen.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not really a relevant stat.

It's not the average against each bowler at all, it's Ricky Ponting's average score (against all bowlers) in innings where he was dismissed by that specific bowler

Ponting made a lot of runs against Agarkar in the 1999/2000 series, just happens that the one time in his career where Agarkar got him out, he didn't make any.
 
Last edited:
Victor Ian

Victor Ian

International Coach
indiaholic said:
I think that query considers only the cases where Ponting got out to Steyn.. Won't count the instances where he survived.
Click to expand...
Well, that's pretty crap then. I just tested him against Shaddat hossain - avg 21. Played 3 innings against him for a total of 60 runs and once out. In the innings he got out he only scored 15 (not 21). How do they derive this stats page?

edit: ahhh - the innings where he was out to shaddat he scored 21, of which 15 came from shaddat. That is really misleading.
 
Victor Ian

Victor Ian

International Coach
TheJediBrah said:
Not really a relevant stat.

It's not the average against each bowler at all, it's Ricky Ponting's average score (against all bowlers) in innings where he was dismissed by that specific bowler

Ponting made a lot of runs against Agarkar in the 1999/2000 series, just happens that the one time in his career where Agarkar got him out, he didn't make any.
Click to expand...
yeah - just read yours after i posted mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top