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

[Coronis]

Respectfully, who gives a **** though?

Clearly @BazBall21 does, thats why I posted it in response to his post?

 

[shortpitched713]

Clearly @BazBall21 does, thats why I posted it in response to his post?

Sorry, I meant more generally in terms of it being a useful measure for bowler efficacy.

It simply doesn't matter in any effort to elevate their bowling records, other than as a historical curiosity that they managed to put up a low average with a particularly miserly, instead of attacking, approach.

 

[Coronis]

Sorry, I meant more generally in terms of it being a useful measure for bowler efficacy.

It simply doesn't matter in any effort to elevate their bowling records, other than as a historical curiosity that they managed to put up a low average with a particularly miserly, instead of attacking, approach.

I don’t really care. SR economy and average are all dependant on each other so I couldn’t give a ****.

Its similar anyway with batting SR’s for mine, there are times you’d rather a higher SR with lower economy and vice versa.

 

[shortpitched713]

I don’t really care. SR economy and average are all dependant on each other so I couldn’t give a ****.

I know this. And I'm arguing that average alone isn't the best indicator of your lead bowler's effectiveness, and that to be maximally effective, the lead bowler should have a low SR oriented approach, which matters.

So Goddard and Davidson were actually slightly reduced in their overall effectiveness to their team, because of their style.

 

[Coronis]

I know this. And I'm arguing that average alone isn't the best indicator of your lead bowler's effectiveness, and that to be maximally effective, the lead bowler should have a low SR oriented approach, which matters.

So Goddard and Davidson were actually slightly reduced in their overall effectiveness to their team, because of their style.

I mean thats your opinion. Like I said, similar to batsmen I don’t think a higher/lower strike rate is necessarily a bad thing.

 

[shortpitched713]

I mean thats your opinion. Like I said, similar to batsmen I don’t think a higher/lower strike rate is necessarily a bad thing.

It's not at all similar to batsmen due to variable resource utilization being more possible with bowlers, but anyway I'll stop beating this dead horse.

 

[Coronis]

It's not at all similar to batsmen due to variable resource utilization being more possible with bowlers, but anyway I'll stop beating this dead horse.

Well for me at least - taking two bowlers of similar quality - I’d rather Steyn on a bowling friendly wicket and rather Curtly on a batting friendly wicket.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Well for me at least - taking two bowlers of similar quality - I’d rather Steyn on a bowling friendly wicket and rather Curtly on a batting friendly wicket.

Actually the opposite is better.

 

[Coronis]

Actually the opposite is better.

If you say so.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

I'm not looking at it as a pure numbers and get the best average thing. I reckon frontline bowlers will have to be very close in average for simple numbers to work out.

But there are a bunch of advantages to the weaker bowlers striking faster anyway. Avoiding tiredness and injury is a big one. The weaker bowlers typically have the worst of conditions and bowl against set bats more etc. They wouldn't average the same bowling te extra overs at a bad time.

Obviously if you have something like a poor spinner and good quicks on a greentop you would rather the spinner is economical most of the time. But if the bowlers are reasonably comparable in effectiveness a worse bowler striking faster is going to be better pretty often.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Worth remembering Gavasker made runs in Australia against Aussie attacks which was arguably the worst Australian bowling attack in entire history. The only time he faced Lillee in a series, Gavasker averaged 19. Also not to forget a average of 28 in 5 match series while playing for World Xi in 1971-72.

For what it's worth, in that series only 3 matches were played; and while during his initial years in Australia he played a pretty weak bowling attack (with the exception of Thompson), during his last series he did played against an attack of McDermott, Reid and Hughes against whom he was also very successful. In England, he averaged over 41 and considering the openers tax, it should be around 45 and even barring his debut series which was against a weak bowling unit; he still averaged 54 against the likes of Marshall and Holding in West Indies. And during the '71 World Series, Gavaskar was a teenager just new to the stage; and given the Indian domestic pace quality at the time; I don't think too much blame can be put on him for not performing the first time he played quality pacers. Richards was also hugely unsuccessful in New Zealand, averaging just 19; and his records in domestic Carribbean cricket was lackluster for his status; being shy of 40.

 

[capt_Luffy]

He also never faced SL aka the minnows of his time.

For what it's worth Gavaskar averaged only 37 in 3 matches against Sri Lanka; so if anything, it brought his average down. Viv Richards in New Zealand on the other hand.....

 

[kyear2]

Sobers, Marshall, Richards, Lloyd, Holding.They all were really bad in NZ. Was it the bowling, the conditions, after Australia tours? What was it?

 

[kyear2]

For what it's worth, in that series only 3 matches were played; and while during his initial years in Australia he played a pretty weak bowling attack (with the exception of Thompson), during his last series he did played against an attack of McDermott, Reid and Hughes against whom he was also very successful. In England, he averaged over 41 and considering the openers tax, it should be around 45 and even barring his debut series which was against a weak bowling unit; he still averaged 54 against the likes of Marshall and Holding in West Indies. And during the '71 World Series, Gavaskar was a teenager just new to the stage; and given the Indian domestic pace quality at the time; I don't think too much blame can be put on him for not performing the first time he played quality pacers. Richards was also hugely unsuccessful in New Zealand, averaging just 19; and his records in domestic Carribbean cricket was lackluster for his status; being shy of 40.

Will look up the 54 average, as he only faced Marshall in the Caribbean in '83. And in that 5 test series only had one score above 35 and that was in Georgetown. Holding he also faced in '76

 

[Slifer]

For what it's worth Gavaskar averaged only 37 in 3 matches against Sri Lanka; so if anything, it brought his average down. Viv Richards in New Zealand on the other hand.....

Sunil averaged 37 in 3 tests in Sri Lanka. Overall, he averages 66.67 in 7 tests vs Sri Lanka. So no, his record vs Sri Lanka does not bring his average down. As for Viv in NZ he played a grand total of 3 tests there. Surely you understand that's too small of a sample size to draw conclusions.

 

[Slifer]

Will look up the 54 average, as he only faced Marshall in the Caribbean in '83. And in that 5 test series only had one score above 35 and that was in Georgetown. Holding he also faced in '76

He is lying through his teeth. Sunil played Holding and Roberts in '76 in the WI and averaged 55 which is commendable. He next toured the Caribbean in '83 and got royally owned, averaging 30. Admittedly that was against the 4 horsemen. But overall, against Holding and co, Sunil did not average 54 in the Caribbean.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I heard that Sunil loved it at the QPO

 

[kyear2]

I heard that Sunil loved it at the QPO

QPO and Bourda

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Sobers, Marshall, Richards, Lloyd, Holding.They all were really bad in NZ. Was it the bowling, the conditions, after Australia tours? What was it?

Holding thought NZ umpires were extremely biased.

 

[Coronis]

Holding thought NZ umpires were extremely biased.

Pfft. Garner, Greenidge and a plethora of others from other countries did perfectly fine in NZ. Making an excuse for a hole in his record (note: haven’t watched the video)