DoG's Top 100 Test Bowlers Countdown Thread 100-1

[ankitj]

I would say, yes. Has 67 fivers!

 

[trundler]

Murali or Hadlee. Who will have more gold performances?

So Ashwin will appear ahead of Herath.

 

[Bolo]

Ya, got to be Murali. Not seeing hadlee beat Herath is a major surprise.

Does the way it's calculated favour spinners? Statistically this would make sense. Spinners best performances often come after quicks have failed. Taking 5/50 when the scoreline is 0/0 is way less impressive than 5/50 when it's 0/100, which would be more common for spinners.

 

[trundler]

Yeah Murali would have to have more because he has more fifers. If I had to guess, I'd have Hadlee 2nd. Single handedly won so many games. Unless Australian teams of the 80s don't count as quality opposition. Would be understandable of course.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ya, got to be Murali. Not seeing hadlee beat Herath is a major surprise.

Does the way it's calculated favour spinners? Statistically this would make sense. Spinners best performances often come after quicks have failed. Taking 5/50 when the scoreline is 0/0 is way less impressive than 5/50 when it's 0/100, which would be more common for spinners.

If anything I think the formula underrates spinners be a use it values SR significantly. Spinners inherently have slightly higher SRs.

 

[Bolo]

If anything I think the formula underrates spinners be a use it values SR significantly. Spinners inherently have slightly higher SRs.

Yes, it does on SR. Im questioning whether it overates on gold-bronze performances specifically. Perhaps it's compensating for the strike rate issue. Overates is a strong word anyway. Within the bounds of statistics, it's deserved.

 

[ankitj]

Yeah Murali would have to have more because he has more fifers. If I had to guess, I'd have Hadlee 2nd. Single handedly won so many games. Unless Australian teams of the 80s don't count as quality opposition. Would be understandable of course.

DoG said only 2 bowlers have more gold performances than Harbhajan's 9. Hearth has 11 and if the other bowler is Murali then Hadlee can at most have 9 gold performances.

 

[trundler]

It is almost certainly going to be Murali. Just thought Hadlee would have more, is all.

 

[Days of Grace]

Can you definitely tell that Australia or England in 1887 was as strong as Pakistan on debut? Asking whether Afghanisthan or Hongkong is as strong as teams of 70s is a stupid question TBH. We are only worried about the quality of the debut teams, not about the quality of the debut team in relation to the other teams playing durin that time.

I think we have no way to absolutely compare the quality of debut teams across the eras. That is why I suggest that everybody should start with the same mark.

I made the best formula I could after trying different variations. No formula is going to please everyone. I think relatively speaking Australia and England were stronger when they debuted then when South Africa etc. made their debuts at later dates. Whether they were stronger than Pakistan in 1952 in a direct comparison I don't know. But we are talking about two completely different eras.

Anyway, I have no wish to get into a 20-page argument with you on this. If you think Spofforth’s 7-fer in 1882 to create the Ashes was against the same strength of opposition as Brigg’s 8-fer in South Africa in 1889 then fair enough.

 

[bagapath]

I think hadlee murali and ambrose will have nine gold performances each; and warne will have 10

 

[Bolo]

I made the best formula I could after trying different variations. No formula is going to please everyone. I think relatively speaking Australia and England were stronger when they debuted then when South Africa etc. made their debuts at later dates. Whether they were stronger than Pakistan in 1952 in a direct comparison I don't know. But we are talking about two completely different eras.

Anyway, I have no wish to get into a 20-page argument with you on this. If you think Spofforth’s 7-fer in 1882 to create the Ashes was against the same strength of opposition as Brigg’s 8-fer in South Africa in 1889 then fair enough.

I don't think he's arguing the RSA 89 case, but rather the Pak, or even the Zim case. These teams were almost certainly stronger than any 1800s team.

But there is no way to statistically show this, with stats being based only on who you can play. And this is a stats analysis. Im not sure whether the way you have done it is correct, but I have no objections on the methodology

 

[Slifer]

I think hadlee murali and ambrose will have nine gold performances each; and warne will have 10

I think otherwise. The quality line ups during warnes time were imo: RSA, India and Pakistan. Murali would have the same teams plus Australia, with Australia being markedly stronger than any team warne faced. Ditto Ambrose. In an exercise like this, I'd expect to see Walsh closer to or even higher than an Ambrose. Put in excellent performances vs all comers and especially in/vs india.

 

[Brian Lara]

I know I shouldn’t be considering the sheer volume of wickets he has, but I’m shocked Walsh is so far above Roberts and holding

 

[TheJediBrah]

Can you definitely tell that Australia or England in 1887 was as strong as Pakistan on debut? Asking whether Afghanisthan or Hongkong is as strong as teams of 70s is a stupid question TBH. We are only worried about the quality of the debut teams, not about the quality of the debut team in relation to the other teams playing durin that time.

I think we have no way to absolutely compare the quality of debut teams across the eras. That is why I suggest that everybody should start with the same mark.

You don't have to take this so seriously. This is just one guy's effort at standardising player ratings. No one is claiming that it is the definitive be all and end all of the best players, just like the "Cricket web votes" thread, just because a player comes out on top doesn't mean they are the definitive best player ever. If Murali doesn't win it's not a slight against him.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I know I shouldn’t be considering the sheer volume of wickets he has, but I’m shocked Walsh is so far above Roberts and holding

I think Walsh is underrated because he is always up against Ambrose when people consider him, and Amby was better.

 

[Slifer]

You don't have to take this so seriously. This is just one guy's effort at standardising player ratings. No one is claiming that it is the definitive be all and end all of the best players, just like the "Cricket web votes" thread, just because a player comes out on top doesn't mean they are the definitive best player ever. If Murali doesn't win it's not a slight against him.

Awta

 

[Burgey]

You don't have to take this so seriously. This is just one guy's effort at standardising player ratings. No one is claiming that it is the definitive be all and end all of the best players, just like the "Cricket web votes" thread, just because a player comes out on top doesn't mean they are the definitive best player ever. If Murali doesn't win it's not a slight against him.

How could you possibly think Migara would be worried about a perceived sleight to a Sri Lankan player?

 

[smash84]

How could you possibly think Migara would be worried about a perceived sleight to a Sri Lankan player?

He should be worried about sleights tbf

 

[Days of Grace]

No.24

Muttiah Muralitharan (Sri Lanka) 815

Quality Points: 700
Career Points: 115

 

[stephen]

Wait, WHAT?

OK this isn't right somehow.