Debate thread for 2024 ranking of bowlers poll

[CricAddict]

That would be a dumb comparison. Davidson's 44 tests were over 11 years. He had a similar career length as Waqar just didn't play as many Tests

What was the main reason for him playing so few tests? Injury? Don't know about it and so genuinely asking.

 

[Line and Length]

Fewer Test series played in the late 40s early 50s

 

[CricAddict]

Fewer Test series played in the late 40s early 50s

4 tests an year looks so less considering there were no other formats too at that time. But if that is the only reason, he should definitely not be penalized for it. He can't do anything about the schedule.

 

[CricAddict]

yeah look i like Ashwin and i like @CricAddict but idk how he’s better equal to Donald as a bowler

on the other hand if this is because subs thinks Ashwin is a club standard bowler then by all means i endorse this counter rating him high to make up for it

Yeah, I retract that statement. Agreed that Donald and Garner are definitely better than Ashwin. The under-rating led to the over-rating as you have rightly mentioned.

 

[shortpitched713]

That would be a dumb comparison. Davidson's 44 tests were over 11 years. He had a similar career length as Waqar just didn't play as many Tests

Sucks to not play Tests, I guess. Should have Test spammed like the English. Because we're not just counting 1 Test as if it were 2, that's just silly.

 

[shortpitched713]

4 tests an year looks so less considering there were no other formats too at that time. But if that is the only reason, he should definitely not be penalized for it. He can't do anything about the schedule.

So penalize more modern players instead, who have more substantial records (and greater probabilities to mess up those vaunted in country X stats as well)?

 

[Coronis]

So penalize more modern players instead, who have more substantial records (and greater probabilities to mess up those vaunted in country X stats as well)?

If in doubt, always penalize modern players.






Or you know, penalize neither. But nobody agrees on that.

 

[CricAddict]

Looks like another overrated bowler whose rep is entirely Bradman will soon be voted in.

Grimmett? Or someone else?

 

[CricAddict]

Grimmett? Or someone else?

I guess it is not rep based on Bradman's words but the bowler rep against him. Might be Bedser then.

 

[TheJediBrah]

So penalize more modern players instead, who have more substantial records (and greater probabilities to mess up those vaunted in country X stats as well)?

Bro what is this logic? You don't have to "penalize" anyone. Even just using this "country X stats" metric you've brought up, playing more Tests isn't a disadvantage. It doesn't just give a player more chance to "mess up" the stats, it also does the opposite and gives them more chance to fix those stats.

 

[shortpitched713]

Bro what is this logic? You don't have to "penalize" anyone. Even just using this "country X stats" metric you've brought up, playing more Tests isn't a disadvantage. It doesn't just give a player more chance to "mess up" the stats, it also does the opposite and gives them more chance to fix those stats.

Sorry, it doesn't have to do with number of Tests, it has more to do with number of countries for more modern players. That's held against them if they have even one country in which they do poor, whereas players in the past simply didn't have as many countries in which they had to maintain their nice, clean averages.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Sorry, it doesn't have to do with number of Tests, it has more to do with number of countries for more modern players. That's held against them if they have even one country in which they do poor, whereas players in the past simply didn't have as many countries in which they had to maintain their nice, clean averages.

That's just stats nerds here. No one worth listening to actually cares.

 

[Line and Length]

Sorry, it doesn't have to do with number of Tests, it has more to do with number of countries for more modern players. That's held against them if they have even one country in which they do poor, whereas players in the past simply didn't have as many countries in which they had to maintain their nice, clean averages.

Nor were there as many minnows/developing nations to boost these "nice clean averages". Bradman played over 70% of his Tests in Ashes series where he averaged a shade under 90.

 

[CricAddict]

Nor were there as many minnows/developing nations to boost these "nice clean averages". Bradman played over 70% of his Tests in Ashes series where he averaged a shade under 90.

Every era did have a minnow. NZ, SA, India, Pak, SL etc all started as minnows before they developed to strong test nations.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nor were there as many minnows/developing nations to boost these "nice clean averages". Bradman played over 70% of his Tests in Ashes series where he averaged a shade under 90.

^correct. @shortpitched713 everything you're bringing up as a disadvantage for modern players is from certain points of view just as much, if not more, an advantage for them

Every era did have a minnow. NZ, SA, India, Pak, SL etc all started as minnows before they developed to strong test nations.

also England

 

[CricAddict]

also England

When? thought they were decent since the start.

 

[TheJediBrah]

When? thought they were decent since the start.

Nah a guy on debut made 165* against them

 

[Line and Length]

Every era did have a minnow. NZ, SA, India, Pak, SL etc all started as minnows before they developed to strong test nations.

True. A classic example being one from Bradman's era. Walter Hammond played less than 40% of his Tests in Ashes series. The other 60%+ were against nations developing as cricketing strengths.

 

[subshakerz]

Following our latest round of voting two bowlers, who have divided opinion more than most, have been added to our list. Both Ashwin and Anderson have their fans and detractors. I say this without wishing to enter debates on their standings. What I do find interesting is that, over the past 24 months, both have produced figures better than their overall averages. This would suggest that both might improve their standings on the 2 polls (pacers and spinners) conducted in 2022. Strangely only one achieved that.
In Anderson's case, he has retained his 19th spot on the pacers' rankings, having moved ahead of Roberts but being overtaken by Cummins.
On the other hand, Ashwin has jumped from 11th to 6th spot on the spinners' rankings, moving ahead of Grimmett, Tayfield, Kumble, Underwood and Gibbs.
Judging by some of the comments here, and earlier votes, there are those who believe Ashwin is underrated and warrants an even higher rank.
Personally, and having included Ashwin in my last voting round, I think his position is about right (I rated Grimmett above him).

Neither have Anderson or Ashwin done anything really different to justify increasing their rankings since last time. But because Anderson doesn't have a hype brigade behind him, we are able to analyse him more objectively.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Neither have Anderson or Ashwin done anything really different to justify increasing their rankings since last time. But because Anderson doesn't have a hype brigade behind him, we are able to analyse him more objectively.

Ashwin got his rank..... Now move on.