cnerd123
likes this
But then it's a question of sample size - do we consider how they played over X number of Tests indicative of their overall quality as a bowler? Plenty of bowlers have great stats when you reduce the sample size. What if this bowler just strung together a few good performances when in good form in helpful conditions, and then never played Tests again and so never got found out for his limitations?I love your work with these things MM, but I always find it ridiculous when people exclude players from such things due to a low number of Test matches played. Obviously the reason why Cowie, and others such as Procter, played such a low number of Tests was due to external factors. It's not like he was dropped and couldn't break back into the team or something.
So then you need to expand your evaluation criteria - don't just look at the handful of Tests, look at their record and performances in domestic cricket. Well, now, we've opened a whole can of worms haven't we. Is everyone's FC record now brought into consideration? What about great FC bowlers who never played Tests? Do they get equal footing? Is Vince van der Bijl now in contention? Bart King? And lets not forget the discussion we are going to have about trying to evaluate the quality of domestic cricket - the opposition, the pitches, etc. And what about the players who were great domestically but didn't perform at Tests and got dropped? Maybe Pankaj Singh would have Philander-esque figures right now if India didn't drop him after two games - after all, check out his Ranji stats.
The counter to this is obviously "Oh we should watch footage of bowlers, actually see them bowl, that tells us whose good or not" - I agree with this wholeheartedly, but I don't have access to a complete archive of footage for all these bowlers, especially those that played before the 50s. At best I'm finding highlight reels, or snippets from an ODI here or a Test there. I'm not getting complete information on how they put together their spells, what skills they have, how they sustain their intensity throughout the day. Not only that, but I lack the time required to sit and watch all the footage - whose going to do that work? And as it is cricket has evolved so much - watch old grainy footage of cricketers in the 30s and they really don't look all that more impressive than club cricketers today. You now have to figure out how talented they are relevant to their peers, which means watching all the footage of all their peers, and now you're also back to stats diving in an attempt to place them and their skills in context to the era they're playing in...
Sometimes you just want to nip all this craziness in the bud and just put a minimum number of Tests required, and limit evaluation purely down to performances within those Tests they've played.