Am I the only one here who rates Sunil Gavaskar slightly above Viv Richards in Test?

[Adorable Asshole]

So do we concur that Don Bradman was the Zac Crawley of his era?

Don't ever compare Zac to that hack, my dear.

 

[BazBall21]

There's a big argument that if you favour batsmen who score quickly, you should favour economical bowlers who make scoring fast more difficult.

 

[pbkettle]

Yes - on findings from applying my proposed model to standardise all-time Test batting averages, Gavaskar comes 46th and Viv Richards 53rd.

 

[BazBall21]

Both have very long careers though.

 

[Coronis]

There's a big argument that if you favour batsmen who score quickly, you should favour economical bowlers who make scoring fast more difficult.

Goddard and Davidson the only fast bowlers after the 1800’s to take 100 wickets and have an economy below 2.00

 

[shortpitched713]

Goddard and Davidson the only fast bowlers after the 1800’s to take 100 wickets and have an economy below 2.00

Respectfully, who gives a **** though?

 

[BazBall21]

WI pitches before the 70s were very flat.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

WI pitches before the 70s were very flat.

Explains why Weekes and walcott have big gaps between home and away

 

[shortpitched713]

Respectfully, who gives a **** though?

My thoughts from the Waqar thread go well here:

Also, I highlight the incredible SR for a reason.

I've always felt if your'e the best, ace bowler for your team (which Waqar clearly was in this period) your goal needs to be to have as low of a strike rate as possible. There's no mathematical or logical reason to argue for a goldilocks SR zone like you could with something like batting SR for maybe an opener needing to bat to the situation or consolidate. If you're the ace your job is to take wickets as often a possible, and you should leave the run restriction approach to your fellow support bowlers.

It's a reason I really rate the great SA strike bowlers of their time Steyn and Donald so highly as well. They understood the assignment, and had no chill when it came to attacking the opposition batsmen.

It's also a reason I can't rate Murali or Warne as the absolute best (even though their strike rate is far superior to a typical spinner), though the have greater wicket hauls and longevity, they simply could never strike at the rate of the very top seam bowlers in cricket history, and this matters if you're the go to bowler for your team.

 

[shortpitched713]

There's a big argument that if you favour batsmen who score quickly, you should favour economical bowlers who make scoring fast more difficult.

The opposite of this is true for the very best bowlers on a team, for the reason I describe above. Basically, in the run total optimization problem, your best bowlers need to strike, and your lesser more "support" bowlers need to restrict, as a general rule.

 

[shortpitched713]

I think when judging batsmen, and trying to make sense of SRs in doing so, we tend to mistake the nature of Test cricket. Yes, it is an attrition battle, but that is not the only aspect of it. It is also decided by major moments in a match, moments which can be seized by the truly top tier All time bats.

Yes, all the all time bats have nice, pretty averages, and could accumulate the runs, but to make an outsized impact beyond the runs, a batsman needs to be capable of seizing and dominating those moments with attacking cricket. I'm not just blindly saying "high SR good", for any old Test match slogger. I'm looking at the ability of the very best batsmen to access the ball striker, destroyer gear (+points if he can do it in less than ideal batting conditions) and turn the match. We can all see the footage of Lara and Viv before him doing just that. And it's why they rank toward the top of the tree for me.

 

[shortpitched713]

All that said, the modern opener tax is very real, so Gavaskar just pips Viv for mine.

 

[BazBall21]

The opposite of this is true for the very best bowlers on a team, for the reason I describe above. Basically, in the run total optimization problem, your best bowlers need to strike, and your lesser more "support" bowlers need to restrict, as a general rule.

Tbh if someone averages very low then it's very likely that they strike a lot. I look at strike rate more with batsmen than I do with bowlers.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Tbh if someone averages very low then it's very likely that they strike a lot. I look at strike rate more with batsmen than I do with bowlers.

Walsh Pollock and Davidson probably the exceptions. Anderson during his peak as well

 

[shortpitched713]

Walsh Pollock and Davidson probably the exceptions. Anderson during his peak as well

None of which were able to help their team quite as much as true ATG strike bowlers did.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

None of which were able to help their team quite as much as true ATG strike bowlers did.

Yea lower WPM

 

[Bolo.]

The opposite of this is true for the very best bowlers on a team, for the reason I describe above. Basically, in the run total optimization problem, your best bowlers need to strike, and your lesser more "support" bowlers need to restrict, as a general rule.

Your list of best bowlers isn't just limited to the top of the tree. If your frontline bowlers strike slowly they are tiring each other out, aging the ball, allowing bats to get their eye in, and forcing you to bowl more of your typically significantly worse non-fronliners.

If you have an ATG plus 3 decent bowlers, you still want the decent bowlers striking faster most of the time.

 

[kyear2]

Your list of best bowlers isn't just limited to the top of the tree. If your frontline bowlers strike slowly they are tiring each other out, aging the ball, allowing bats to get their eye in, and forcing you to bowl more of your typically significantly worse non-fronliners
If you have an ATG plus 3 decent bowlers, you still want the decent bowlers striking faster most of the time.

Fully agree with this, the ability to strike quickly, while hopefully not leaking too many runs, is the hall mark of a true difference maker.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Tbh if someone averages very low then it's very likely that they strike a lot. I look at strike rate more with batsmen than I do with bowlers.

Generally, yes - but as always Shardul Thakur does his own thing. Not that he averages particularly high in either tests or ODI but it’s higher than his average would suggest and more in line with a late teens/early 20s averaging bowler. Hence the high economy rate…

Any others like him?

 

[shortpitched713]

Your list of best bowlers isn't just limited to the top of the tree. If your frontline bowlers strike slowly they are tiring each other out, aging the ball, allowing bats to get their eye in, and forcing you to bowl more of your typically significantly worse non-fronliners.

If you have an ATG plus 3 decent bowlers, you still want the decent bowlers striking faster most of the time.

Hmm, not sure that's how the math works though for support bowlers. At least 1 or 2 or these in a 4 man attack will have a worse overall average than your best bowlers. You want these bowlers to be giving up as few runs as possible for when the better bowlers come in. This is especially true if you don't have an alien spinner, and or reverse swing specialist, those old ball overs probably should be somewhat restrictive in nature, otherwise you'll have to deal with bigger totals in many circumstances I think.

Might be different though if you have significant part timer overs though, along with the 4 man Specialist attack, in which it's even more incumbent on the part timers to try and keep things tight for when the main bowlers come on, and might be less important for those 3/4 bowlers to do so.