Find a better bowler peak (min 33 Tests) than this (protip, you can't)

[RossTaylorsBox]

Warne with 0 wickets against Australia too.

 

[Burgey]

Warne with 0 wickets against Australia too.

Better strike rate and average though

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Better strike rate and average though

Go to a maths class. His average and S/R is undefined.

 

[Burgey]

As opposed to the other two, whose average and S/Rs are woeful.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Reminds me of a certain Warne.

First theorem of CW : Any thread given enough time would turn into Murali v Warne.

Self-fulfilling prophecy?

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

For me the best peak is Marshall‘s and Imran, maybe Marshall’s even more so. For 40 odd tests, took nearly 6 wickets per match, despite bowling in some of the most highly competitive attacks ever, and performed everywhere. Imran also, I’d rate higher than Waqar, cause he had great performances in Aus, Eng, Ind and at flat pitches at home(most of his dismissals were bowled, so can’t apply the Pakistani home umpiring bias to him anyways).

 

[srbhkshk]

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

So I've long thought that Waqar at his peak was quite possibly the greatest ever, now I'm just going to put it out there as a challenge to anyone else as I'm genuinely interested. Can you find a bowler who performed better, over a minimum of 33 Tests, than this statline for an ace strike bowler?

Ave: 19.15
SR: 36.0 ?!

Rules are it must be a contiguous period, so no omitting any Tests during the period. Also nice if it doesn't have a career break in it as well but not essential, as long as it is a contiguous run of Tests.

Also please spare me your Barnes and Lohmanns' for this exercise and let's keep it to bowlers in the living memory of at least someone on this forum.

This is not 33 matches, but (40 innings + 5 years) and Waqar had the 8th best peak here.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/thr...at-least-40-innings.88915/page-3#post-4865804

 

[_00_deathscar]

Also please spare me your Barnes and Lohmanns' for this exercise and let's keep it to bowlers in the living memory of at least someone on this forum.

That BMAC guy is hella old though

 

[ataraxia]

That BMAC guy is hella old though

Only 42

 

[shortpitched713]

This is not 33 matches, but (40 innings + 5 years) and Waqar had the 8th best peak here.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/thr...at-least-40-innings.88915/page-3#post-4865804

Okay, so taking out the super old fogeys, the ones of relevance are Imran, Lock, Laker, Murali, and Underwood. Will dig a bit, and see which of them have a good comparison in a 33+ match criteria window when I get a chance, but it's a great place to get a start. Some others further down might be worth a shout as well. Thanks!

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Richard Hadlee 1984-1988
33 Tests , 191 wickets @ 18.15
SR is 43.90 , Economy 2.48

Also averaged 30 with the bat in this period

 

[shortpitched713]

Imran says hi

View attachment 37922

Incredible. This definitively passes Waqar. I know Imran had an incredible bowler peak, just never thought it was THIS good.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Richard Hadlee 1984-1988
33 Tests , 191 wickets @ 18.15
SR is 43.90 , Economy 2.48

Also averaged 30 with the bat in this period

Didn't minnow-bash at all either, unlike Waqar.

 

[shortpitched713]

Murali says hi too.
View attachment 37923

Strike rate far inferior to Waqar's with a similar averge, but it's a good shout. Peak Murali was something else.

 

[shortpitched713]

Richard Hadlee 1984-1988
33 Tests , 191 wickets @ 18.15
SR is 43.90 , Economy 2.48

Also averaged 30 with the bat in this period

I'd probably take Waqar's superior strike rate here, but it's definitely very comparable.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

The reason why I rate Marshall’s peak ahead, of Hadlee and Murali would be he was taking wickets per match at a rate as much as Hadlee, if not more, in a much more competitive attack than either Hadlee or Murali, and unlike Murali, he performed in all conditions

 

[mr_mister]

Australia were supposed to be pretty good from 89 onwards IIRC and they couldn't beat the WI until 1995

Fair, but in my mind that's mainly thanks to things like Lara's 277 and Ambrose's 7-1

My overall point re Burgeys original point is that he was probably picturing Waqar running through Keith Arthurton, Junior Murray and Phil Simmons calibre batsmen

 

[TheJediBrah]

Fair, but in my mind that's mainly thanks to things like Lara's 277 and Ambrose's 7-1

My overall point re Burgeys original point is that he was probably picturing Waqar running through Keith Arthurton, Junior Murray and Phil Simmons calibre batsmen

Even those guys while not great, are not really minnows either

 

[Victor Ian]

Strike rate far inferior to Waqar's with a similar averge, but it's a good shout. Peak Murali was something else.

Getting into strike rate, when Murali bowled his overs he might have been taking his wickets at a quicker rate per time. How long did waqar take to bowl an over? How long did Murali take?
Entertainment is more about time rather than balls.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, and if I'd made a thread saying his peak was the greatest of all time you could rightly point it out instead of bringing it up here for the standard abominable arsewipe reasons which no one else can understand.

Why are you describing your posts?