_00_deathscar
International Regular
And Wasim was never #1.
-
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.
(Stats Video) Most days spent as #1 Batsman & Bowler in Test Cricket
- Thread starter StatsLance
- Start date
a massive zebra
International Captain
Based on peak rating, Wasim isn't even among the top 75 bowlers ever. He was also outside the top 5 in the world rankings for about 75% of his career.
All Time ICC Test Bowling Rankings : Best Ever Test Bowlers
ICC Player Rankings
www.relianceiccrankings.com
Quite surprising given his undoubted talent and ability to do almost everything with the ball. Having said that, obviously ICC ratings are purely statistically based and while many of his peers rated Wasim as the best bowler they ever faced, the stats just don't back it up. Wasim's WPM is relatively mediocre for an ATG and a high proportion of his wickets were tailenders.
Don't get me wrong - a test average of under 24 and the one time world record for ODI wickets shows he certainly was a fine bowler. But there were a number of bowlers in his own era who got better players out more often and more cheaply (Marshall, Hadlee, Ambrose, McGrath, Donald).
Some say he could bowl 6 different balls an over with perfect control and without a noticeable change in action or wrist position. But if another player with less variety can get better players out more frequently with a single lethal delivery (Waqar's in swinging yorker?), then the latter bowler is actually going to win you more matches.
Some of Wasim's contemporaries, such as McGrath, Ambrose and Waqar, were able to run through the top order of quality batting lineups on a fairly regular basis. Wasim did this a few times, such as against Australia at Melbourne in 1990 and Karachi in 1994. But he did so very rarely, and unlike the bowlers mentioned above, you really need to search far and wide to find such examples. Despite the imperious reputation he appears to hold amongst his peers, Wasim simply was not as consistently destructive.
He certainly had a massive box of tricks and was one of the most skilled exponents of swing bowling ever seen. But at the end of the day, a number of his contemporaries who could NOT do all that and did NOT possess that skill level were more effective matchwinners.
Last edited:
ankitj
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Notice Akram was never #1. This has always been an interesting quirk for me. Subcontinent fans consider him greatest fast bowler of all time but he was never ranked #1 in his own time.
Edit: and also what AMZ said. His rating is much worse than I would expect.
Edit: and also what AMZ said. His rating is much worse than I would expect.
Victor Ian
International Coach
Apart from the very beginning, was there ever a period where another batsman was even close to Bradman? He had a bit of a dip I think before a revival at the end.
a massive zebra
International Captain
This video shows Bradman's career from about 1:45 to 2:30:
Not really. The next best were Sutcliffe and Hammond at the beginning of his career, Hammond and Headley in the middle, and Hutton at the end. These guys were all averaging around 60 at their best, which of course is about what we would expect of the best batsman in the world at other times in history, but leagues below Bradman. The only mid career dip I can think of was due to Bodyline in 1932/33 and ill health in the first half of the 1934 Ashes tour, but he was still averaging 50+ through this period.
Last edited:
On a pedantic note: across the Bodyling series and the first 3 Tests in 1934, Bradman's average was 44.08.
In the rankings, Sutcliffe was briefly ahead of Bradman during the Bodyline series, and Hammond and Headley were very close behind during the 1936-7 series (885/883/863).
One period in the rankings is puzzling me: in May 1934, Bradman's rating was 909. As noted, he was unwell at the start of the 1934 tour, and in the first 3 Tests he scored 29 & 25, 36 & 13, 30. However, each of these mediocre performances pushed his rating up (to 918/927/932) - and they weren't especially low-scoring matches (in the 3rd, England scored 627-9d and 123-0d, Australia 491 and 66-1). What's going on here? (For comparison, Woodfull scored 26 & 2, 22 & 43, 73, and his rating dropped from 744 to 719).
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
What have you done
ankitj
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nah, just overrating Trueman. His away record is problematic.
a massive zebra
International Captain
Not correct. Trueman was #1 in 1963 and his peak rating of 898 was higher than Lindwall.
An away average of 26 is hardly problematic.
Last edited:
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Fazal right at the top for a bit too. Just looking at his longevity and SR, Trueman looks like he towered over contemporaries like McGrath or Steyn but he wasn't even #1. Lindwall probably comes out looking less effective because he played with a lot of all rounders, played past his best and Aussie roads in the 50s were just so lifeless.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah ok makes more sense. The graphic didn't show that. Still would've expected him to dominate.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Alan Davidson definitely seems to be an under rated cricketer. Always been a draft favorite of mine.