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

[Days of Grace]

I think the bowlers are perfect at a 4:1 ratio

Bowler A: Ave 22.50 S/R 60.00
Bowler B: Ave 25.00 S/R 40.00

Have basically the same points.

It seems that for batsmen

Batsman A: Ave 50.00 S/R 40.00
Batsman B: Ave 45.00 S/R 80.00

Having the same points seems very similar and kind of a nice mirror on the bowlers.

 

[Starfighter]

I think 9:1 is way too low.
For instance, Gilchrist's influence on the game as a pure batsman is much higher than what his batting average alone would suggest. If it is someone at the top of the order, like Sehwag or Warner, their impact is immense; demoralising the bowlers up front and paving the way for the accumulators to put up a big score at leisure.

'Demoralising the bowlers up front' is something only needed in the modern, slow over-rate game. Imagine if you were in the sixties and you knew you were going to be bowling to Ken Barrington until after lunch tomorrow. You'd rather someone who played their shots and got out. You are missing the context of certain changes in the game. Strike rate was less important when a slow day was 115 overs, and even less important in timeless matches. In timeless matches longer you batted the more tired the opposition got, the worse the pitch got (or rain came along) and the better your chances of winning. You only needed to accumulate steadily without risks, and unless you had supreme technical ability and confidence trying to Sehwag it would more likely hinder you team. Why should old players be penalised for playing the game the way that worked best then just because it seems wrong in a presentist interpretation?

 

[OverratedSanity]

The problem I have with strike rate for batsmen is that players are rewarded in a roundabout way for not surviving and getting out quickly. Sehwag would've been a much more valuable overseas batsman if he averaged the same mediocre 30 odd but took longer to score those runs. Batting time is a bigger asset in the majority of test match situations than scoring quickly afaic.

 

[ankitj]

Youtube rather smartly showed this video in suggestions:

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOyW9TY1t6g" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">

#8 vs. #9. What characters

 

[OverratedSanity]

'Demoralising the bowlers up front' is something only needed in the modern, slow over-rate game. Imagine if you were in the sixties and you knew you were going to be bowling to Ken Barrington until after lunch tomorrow. You'd rather someone who played their shots and got out. You are missing the context of certain changes in the game. Strike rate was less important when a slow day was 115 overs, and even less important in timeless matches. In timeless matches longer you batted the more tired the opposition got, the worse the pitch got (or rain came along) and the better your chances of winning. You only needed to accumulate steadily without risks, and unless you had supreme technical ability and confidence trying to Sehwag it would more likely hinder you team. Why should old players be penalised for playing the game the way that worked best then just because it seems wrong in a presentist interpretation?

It's not even a question of eras really. I don't see higher strike rates necessarily being more valuable in today's game either.

 

[Days of Grace]

But strike-rates are more valuable for bowlers than batsmen because bowlers need to take wickets within a certain time frame to win a match, right?

 

[Borges]

But strike-rates are more valuable for bowlers than batsmen because bowlers need to take wickets within a certain time frame to win a match, right?

Yes.

 

[Starfighter]

It's not even a question of eras really. I don't see higher strike rates necessarily being more valuable in today's game either.

I mostly agree. I think scoring somewhat faster than older eras is advantageous, but just look at the low proportion of drawn matches and how many games seem to finish halfway through the fourth day. Batsmen aren't utilising anywhere near the time available, even with the slow ball-by-ball progression of the modern game.

 

[Starfighter]

But strike-rates are more valuable for bowlers than batsmen because bowlers need to take wickets within a certain time frame to win a match, right?

Here's a point I've raised quite a bit. A bowlers' strike rate is partially dictated by the batsmen they're bowling to. Many wickets are due to batsman errors to a perhaps somewhat better than average delivery (if that) rather than by producing a very good ball, and the less risks a batsmen takes the worse the bowler's strike rate will be together with their own. So I've never considered bowling strike rate that valuable unless it can be contextualised and tend to place little weight on it.

 

[Borges]

On second thoughts, I wouldn't mind it at all if strike rates were completely ignored (or almost completely ignored) in a statistical analysis.
Would be glad that two of my favourite batsmen - Barrington and Gavaskar - are not being rated lower because of their strike rates.
And a bit sad that Trumper wasn't being rated high enough.

 

[bagapath]

I mostly agree. I think scoring somewhat faster than older eras is advantageous, but just look at the low proportion of drawn matches and how many games seem to finish halfway through the fourth day. Batsmen aren't utilising anywhere near the time available, even with the slow ball-by-ball progression of the modern game.

Well, thats exactly why you need slow scoring batsmen who do not allow a match to finish on the fourth day but bat out the last two days and secure a draw for their team.

 

[stephen]

Why are we talking about the cricketing underclass in a bowlers thread?

 

[Borges]

Why are we talking about the cricketing underclass in a bowlers thread?

We are talking about strike rates for batsmen because DoG had specifically asked for feedback on it.

 

[Days of Grace]

No.7

Malcolm Marshall (West Indies) 926

Quality Points: 815
Career Points: 111

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qah1cmxVDB8

Career: 1978-1991
Wickets: 376
Gold Performances: 7
6/37 vs. India at Kolkata 1983 (15.10)
7/53 vs. England at Leeds 1984 (15.95)
7/80 vs. New Zealand at Bridgetown 1985 (16.09)
6/32 vs. England at Lord's 1988 (15.85)
7/22 vs. England at Manchester 1988 (18.36)
5/34 vs. India at Port of Spain 1989 (15.34)
6/55 vs. India at Port of Spain 1989 (15.01)
Silver Performances: 11
Bronze Performances: 12

Overall Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 21.10 (20.95) 47.54 (46.77) 5.32 (rank 8)
50 Innings Peak Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings (1984-1988): 17.42 40.59 7.34 (rank 5)
Non-Home Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 21.86 50.83 4.96 (rank 16)
Quality Opposition Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 20.14 44.62 5.62 (rank 6)

The great Malcolm Marshall is seen by many as the greatest fast bowler of all-time, so I was a little disappointed when my analysis only placed him at no.7. However, considering that the highest-ranked fast bowler on this list has a rating of 964 points, he is not too far away. He has a superb record, ranking in the top 20 in all the criteria. From the time he played India in 1983 before meeting them again in 1989, he played in 54 test matches, taking 292 wickets at 19.49 (19.23) with a PPI of 6.32. He had all the skills and a complete record. The only thing he is missing out on compared to the bowlers ahead of him in this list are more wickets, a slightly better PPI, or playing in a more batsmen-friendly era. The first two are due to the competition he faced for wickets and the latter is of course no fault of his own.

 

[Burgey]

U wot m8?

 

[Starfighter]

Woah... that's... the most unexpected yet. Thought he was nailed on for top four or five.

 

[stephen]

Malcolm Marshall didn't play in a batsman friendly era because he was the unfriendliness the batsmen faced. .

 

[harsh.ag]

The rankings betrayed us.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Woah

 

[stephen]

Steyn is going to get a massive era adjustment and McGrath will get half of that. Hadlee will have the best PPI for a quick. Warne and Murali may end up 1 and 2 (both get large era adjustments). The main question is where Barnes sits.

We may rate Marshall but he played in a team of champions in an era where batsmen who could stand up to those champions successfully could be numbered with one finger (AB). He's still the greatest Windies quick in this countdown. And the guys ahead of him are inarguably some of the greatest to have ever played.

This analysis places Marshall as the 4th greatest modern quick.

Nobody could seem to agree what Barnes was.

Warne and Murali are the two greatest spinners.

So really, saying he's 7th here isn't saying he's the 7th best quick. It's saying that he's 4th best. And statistically that may be true.