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

[Zinzan]

Funny because I've never seen any one bash Australian cricketers and anything Australian and intentionally under-rate them like Zinzan, it's quite perplexing.

Probably about 75% of your posts

Lol you're such an obvious troll, and to be fair on you, a self admitted one.

 

[thierry henry]

Full concept shown below. I can math out an example too, but it should be pretty intuitive:

That's a useful analysis in terms of "what style of bowling is most useful in a certain scenario", but it doesn't pull me very strongly in any particular direction in terms of assessing what sort of bowler is better overall. I suppose you could say that e.g. an economical spearhead in a weak attack is really just stat padding because his approach isn't ideal for his team. But couldn't you equally say that his style would be ideal in a stronger attack and he was let down by his teammates?

Taking a relatively economical bowler like McGrath for example, do we say "his style would have been less optimal in a weaker attack" or "he cleverly decided to bowl just the right style for a strong attack"? Feels like 6 vs a 1/2 doz innit.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lol you're such an obvious troll, and to be fair on you, a self admitted one.

Lol you're such a a tragic misanthropist, and to be fair on you, a self admitted one.

 

[thierry henry]

Zinny and TJB, I think you're both Pretty Cool Guys ftr

 

[TheJediBrah]

Zinny and TJB, I think you're both Pretty Cool Guys ftr

I half agree

 

[Athlai]

Fr though, if you think pointing out that Murali feasted on minnows more than most bowlers, which is an objective fact, is "bashing" him, you're either ignorant of the facts or just trying to be needlessly inflammatory

Murali feasted on minnows but it was hardly just minnows he feasted on.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Murali feasted on minnows but it was hardly just minnows he feasted on.

Outside of Burgey's schtick I don't think I've ever seen anyone say otherwise

 

[honestbharani]

I'm generalising here, but no other cricketing fans seem to in unison bash Murali and intentionally under-rate him like Australia fans, it's quite perplexing. Seems to be generally well respected & regarded as a champion elsewhere.

Its not all of them, just the idiotic insecure and/or racist ones.

 

[shortpitched713]

That's a useful analysis in terms of "what style of bowling is most useful in a certain scenario", but it doesn't pull me very strongly in any particular direction in terms of assessing what sort of bowler is better overall. I suppose you could say that e.g. an economical spearhead in a weak attack is really just stat padding because his approach isn't ideal for his team. But couldn't you equally say that his style would be ideal in a stronger attack and he was let down by his teammates?

Taking a relatively economical bowler like McGrath for example, do we say "his style would have been less optimal in a weaker attack" or "he cleverly decided to bowl just the right style for a strong attack"? Feels like 6 vs a 1/2 doz innit.

It's not a style thing per se. McGrath's average was so low, that he's better as a spearhead than 99% of bowlers in Test history, even if he doesn't possess the absolute lowest strike rate. But at the fringes it can be a useful tool to separate between otherwise equally good averaging bowlers, in similar quality attacks. And generally, we're only talking about the very best bowlers anyway, so a lower SR can never really be "bad", can it?

 

[honestbharani]

At the risk of being a raw averages dullard, I just can't get behind the whole focus on strike rates thing. Fundamentally cricket is a score more runs/concede less runs game. As a bowler your job is to take the most wickets while conceding the least runs. If anything, being a good bowler usually goes hand-in-hand with being hard to score off, which lends itself to a comparatively poor strike-rate and good economy rate when compared to average. There is nothing intuitively right-feeling to me about applauding someone more for getting to the same place faster, and certainly not for getting to a worse place faster (i.e. getting wickets faster but conceding MORE runs).

If only runs weren't relative in a given game based on what the opponents have scored, right?

 

[honestbharani]

Lol you're such a a tragic misanthropist, and to be fair on you, a self admitted one.

Its nice you learned something from me after all these years.

Very proud of these "no, you" posts.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Its not all of them, just the idiotic insecure and/or racist ones.

*Indian Nationalist has entered the chat*




(ie. "no u")

 

[honestbharani]

Its not all of them, just the idiotic insecure and/or racist ones.

*Indian Nationalist has entered the chat*

Exhibit A.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Can you not HB this thread any more than you already have

 

[thierry henry]

If only runs weren't relative in a given game based on what the opponents have scored, right?

I'm not sure how this relates to my post?

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not sure how this relates to my post?

I meant averages also dont give a proper picture given its relative to the scores being made each game. Basically, almost all cricket numbers are driven by context and the stats almost never capture the context. So beyond pretty general conclusions, its hard to go by only one stat, whatever that maybe.

 

[thierry henry]

It's not a style thing per se. McGrath's average was so low, that he's better as a spearhead than 99% of bowlers in Test history, even if he doesn't possess the absolute lowest strike rate. But at the fringes it can be a useful tool to separate between otherwise equally good averaging bowlers, in similar quality attacks. And generally, we're only talking about the very best bowlers anyway, so a lower SR can never really be "bad", can it?

I'm not sure I follow. Isn't the theory/logic that where a bowler is much better than his teammates, it's better if he is "good SR/bad ER" and takes his wickets faster. Why are we then saying this is an absolute positive without reference to the attack he is in? Or are you saying that because elite bowlers are invariably better than their teammates, it is therefore invariably preferable for elite bowlers to be good SR/bad ER? I guess that makes sense.

 

[thierry henry]

I meant averages also dont give a proper picture given its relative to the scores being made each game. Basically, almost all cricket numbers are driven by context and the stats almost never capture the context. So beyond pretty general conclusions, its hard to go by only one stat, whatever that maybe.

Well yes but that's just a truism, in explanation of a snarky comment, when neither post rebutted anything I said?

Anyway sorry I said anything I'm not going down this rabbit hole

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm generalising here, but no other cricketing fans seem to in unison bash Murali and intentionally under-rate him like Australia fans, it's quite perplexing. Seems to be generally well respected & regarded as a champion elsewhere.

It's not that baffling honestly. Australian fans give him more of a hard time because he's looked at as Warne's main competitor and rival. Of course, there are people from other countries who've raised doubts about his action, but its not a coincidence at all that the loudest voices (even here on CW) come from Aussie fans.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I meant averages also dont give a proper picture given its relative to the scores being made each game. Basically, almost all cricket numbers are driven by context and the stats almost never capture the context. So beyond pretty general conclusions, its hard to go by only one stat, whatever that maybe.

This all goes without saying