subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I believe this has been a subject of debate here. Some posters dont mind equating a fifer and tenfer roughly with a ton and double ton as the bowling milestone counterpart. Others seem to reckon they are not really relevant. Obvious issue is that there are only a total ten wickets to be taken, yet on the flip side if the innings stretches there are opportunities to take more expensive fifers as well.
In the threads, I noted the following points come up:
- While there are less benchmarks on fifers for ATGs, most ATGs crossing 300 wickets would be expected to gave at least 20 or so fifers in the kitty and three tenfers
- Ashwins and other bowlers often get flak for a lack of fifers in SENA or foreign conditions, indicating lack of adaptability perhaps
- Lone gun bowlers like Hadlee and Murali may not get too much credit for their high fifer/tenfer ratio as less bowling competition
- Quality spinners have an advantage in racking up large numbers of fifers due to longevity
- On the flipside, bowlers like Garner are rated among the top 10 even frequently despite only a handful of fifers and no tenfer at all
- ATGs like Ambrose and McGrath have only three tenfers in their long careers, which doesnt lower them in anyones estimatation, yet someone like Lillee takes 7 tenfers in just 70 tests but doesnt get any credit for that
So in view of the above, what role do fifers and tenfers have as a stat tool in assessing bowlers, and why should average, strikerate and wicket/match be better metrics?
In the threads, I noted the following points come up:
- While there are less benchmarks on fifers for ATGs, most ATGs crossing 300 wickets would be expected to gave at least 20 or so fifers in the kitty and three tenfers
- Ashwins and other bowlers often get flak for a lack of fifers in SENA or foreign conditions, indicating lack of adaptability perhaps
- Lone gun bowlers like Hadlee and Murali may not get too much credit for their high fifer/tenfer ratio as less bowling competition
- Quality spinners have an advantage in racking up large numbers of fifers due to longevity
- On the flipside, bowlers like Garner are rated among the top 10 even frequently despite only a handful of fifers and no tenfer at all
- ATGs like Ambrose and McGrath have only three tenfers in their long careers, which doesnt lower them in anyones estimatation, yet someone like Lillee takes 7 tenfers in just 70 tests but doesnt get any credit for that
So in view of the above, what role do fifers and tenfers have as a stat tool in assessing bowlers, and why should average, strikerate and wicket/match be better metrics?
