Shady Slim
International Coach
dunno if i used "countenanced" right but it sounds ?
-
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.
The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
BTW I checked long back on Waqar's career after 1994 or so. His strike post that initial burst was still around 52 which is ATG level. That he didn't take many fivers or that many wpm may be down to him not getting to bowl enough overs. I have heard theories about Akram denying Waqar chance to bowl often. Don't know how true that is.
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
Pretty much this. It is not stressed enough how difficult it is to pick 5 wicket hauls with **** support (unless they are playing minnows of course). You need to break through the top order first before getting a chance to pick up easier wickets down the order.
_00_deathscar
International Regular
For seamers, for me, it's <24 and a 4 or higher WPM, obviously there may be a couple of exceptions to the rule here and there.
For spinners <27 and probably a 4.5 or higher WPM, again there may be exceptions.
And just because you qualify doesn't mean you're an ATG either, mitigating circumstances.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
you'd never looks at wpm, surely? only bowling averages could give you an accurate depiction of a bowler's talent.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I wouldn't. Wpm doesn't objecetively tell you anything about how good a bowler is. It's far more reliant on other factors outside their control. It's more of an interesting little stat you just look at for fun. No one's going to be saying "bowler x is better than bowler y because of wpm". That would be dumb.
not really. Having to "work harder" for each individual wicket is virtually irrelevant in the context of wpm when it's massively outweighed by the other, contrasting factors previously mentioned (bowling more overs, less other good bowlers etc).
One argument I would accept is that playing in a weaker side can potentially mean that you don't have access to the full 20 wickets as much as playing in a stronger team. That would be a much weightier contribution to the balance than having to possibly work harder.
Last edited:
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
This but unironically
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I mean, he's admitted to not liking Indian players in general because of the BCCI or media hype or whatever, which is fair enough, but not sure what the deal is with Murali. Sri Lankan players are massive underdogs fighting against a corrupt board, lack of pay, lack of high profile series and so many disadvantages. Guess it's just a matter of disliking anyone who's considered as good or better than the Australian counterpart.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I have nothing against Murali. All I'm saying is that he had the perfect storm to take a lot of wickets on average. Is there anything you disagree with?
And disliking the BCCI and the way they throw their weight around does not constitute me hating Indian players. I do think that the BCCI have worked very hard to ensure their players aren't embarrassed often and because of that their batsmen in particular aren't as good as their statistics suggest.
The flipside of that is that Indian pace bowlers are probably better than their stats suggest.
And disliking the BCCI and the way they throw their weight around does not constitute me hating Indian players. I do think that the BCCI have worked very hard to ensure their players aren't embarrassed often and because of that their batsmen in particular aren't as good as their statistics suggest.
The flipside of that is that Indian pace bowlers are probably better than their stats suggest.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Just about all of your biased false takes in that post, for starters....
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
You forget to list having ridiculously high strike power whilst bowling back breaking spells, occupying one end essentially all day without any drop in input which would require insane fitness and skill.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
They weren't but they also didn't play in every match. And nor were they in Lillee's class as a bowler (Thommo was for a while but not his whole career).
For the majority of Hadlee and Steyn's career they didn't have much up the other end. Morkel was feared but never that good (until the very end). Hadlee notoriously had rubbish bowlers up three other end.
As far as spinners go, Murali, Warne, Kumble, Herath, Ashwin, Shah, Grimmett and O'Reilly all took more wpm than Marshall. Other than one or two, most of those guys didn't have much in the way of support but had strong batting lineups.
Last edited: