• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Debate thread for 2024 ranking of bowlers poll

S

subshakerz

International Coach
howitzer said:
Hadlee has the disadvantage of playing a lot more outside his best decade and a bit though. From the beginning of the tour of England in 1978 up to the end of his career he struck at 48.4 with an economy of 2.46. Given he didn't miss many Tests over that time that's basically a full career for most ATGs.
Click to expand...
I don't mind using this argument as long as we apply to other ATGs. Plenty of others played outside their best decade.
 
H

howitzer

State Captain
subshakerz said:
Are we seriously already considering Bumrah in the top 30 bowlers ever?
Click to expand...
Some are. He just doesn't have the relative longevity for me to put him that highly though. If he can consistently get himself on the park for about the next year and a half and keep up his standards in doing so then he'll definitely be in my top 30 though.
 
S

subshakerz

International Coach
howitzer said:
Some are. He just doesn't have the relative longevity for me to put him that highly though. If he can consistently get himself on the park for about the next year and a half and keep up his standards in doing so then he'll definitely be in my top 30 though.
Click to expand...
I think as a modern bowler he needs at least 200 or so wickets to qualify
 
H

howitzer

State Captain
subshakerz said:
I think as a modern bowler he needs at least 200 or so wickets to qualify
Click to expand...
A lot of it depends on who you play for and how many Tests they play. A current English cricketer who averages 20ish (I wish) would need at least 300 imo due to our levels of Test spam. A Kiwi would need a lot less. Currently India and Australia kind of occupy a middle ground where I would want a genuinely good bowler to have 250+ wickets to genuinely start considering them an ATG. The tail end of my top 30 doesn't have ATGs though. I feel like Bumrah would need about 200-220 at the current level to make it.
 
S

subshakerz

International Coach
howitzer said:
A lot of it depends on who you play for and how many Tests they play. A current English cricketer who averages 20ish (I wish) would need at least 300 imo due to our levels of Test spam. A Kiwi would need a lot less. Currently India and Australia kind of occupy a middle ground where I would want a genuinely good bowler to have 250+ wickets to genuinely start considering them an ATG. The tail end of my top 30 doesn't have ATGs though. I feel like Bumrah would need about 200-220 at the current level to make it.
Click to expand...
My bottomline for an ATG is 300 and a regular great is 200. But Bumrah is way too early...
 
H

howitzer

State Captain
subshakerz said:
My bottomline for an ATG is 300 and a regular great is 200. But Bumrah is way too early...
Click to expand...
I believe you have a somewhat shorter list of ATG's than me which is just personal differences. I have somewhere in the range of 15-18 ATG pace bowlers depending on my mood which I believe is more than you.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
CricAddict said:
What do CWers rate higher in test bowling, a better strike rate or a better economy rate?
Click to expand...
For the ATGs and GOAT candidates we generally discuss, I go with SR, but very marginally though.

It's the opposite if you're a 4th or 5th stock bowler, where I think ER is marginally more important.

Maths or something, innit.
 
S

subshakerz

International Coach
shortpitched713 said:
For the ATGs and GOAT candidates we generally discuss, I go with SR, but very marginally though.

It's the opposite if you're a 4th or 5th stock bowler, where I think ER is marginally more important.

Maths or something, innit.
Click to expand...
Here's the deal with SR:

Within a certain range, SR doesn't matter as much as long as your ER is good. Because it doesn't matter if it takes one or two extra overs to get a wicket as long as runs aren't being scored.

However, beyond a certain SR and it does have a net loss on overall wicket penetration even with a good ER as the case can be with Ambrose and Wasim.

Guys like Steyn and Rabada have super SRs but high ERs, which often translates into either penetrative spells or short expensive spells.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
subshakerz said:
Here's the deal with SR:

Within a certain range, SR doesn't matter as much as long as your ER is good. Because it doesn't matter if it takes one or two extra overs to get a wicket as long as runs aren't being scored.

However, beyond a certain SR and it does have a net loss on overall wicket penetration even with a good ER as the case can be with Ambrose and Wasim.

Guys like Steyn and Rabada have super SRs but high ERs, which often translates into either penetrative spells or short expensive spells.
Click to expand...
All you're saying is blah, blah, blah, I don't understand maths.

Average is literally just SR and ER multiplied together and then just divided by 6 to account for 6 ball overs ( I think one of the measures doesn't take into account extras, so you'll be slightly off doing a calculation from career stats this way, but that's basically all it is).

What this means is that for two players with the same average, they are sacrificing SR for ER, or vice versa. There's no "goldilocks range" in which you're getting benefits of more penetration without conceding more runs (except that you just have a much lower average than the one you're comparing with anyway).

So by saying, I don't like this guy because his SR is too low and ER too high, you're saying you don't like your strike bowlers, to well... strike.
 
M

ma1978

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
Again, we don't know how the rest of his career will be. Figures can be spoiled.
Click to expand...
That’s not relevant.

If Laker can play 40 something tests at a certain degree of effectiveness, and Bumrah can do the same, they have created equal value. Even if Bumrah doesn’t play at the same level of effectiveness for say the next 40 tests, as long as he’s above average, it should take nothing away from the 40 tests of equivalent value to Laker.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
A similar nonsensical argument is also used against Sehwag or Gilchrist as bats, because somehow high SR good, really high SR bad??!
 
S

subshakerz

International Coach
shortpitched713 said:
All you're saying is blah, blah, blah, I don't understand maths.

Average is literally just SR and ER multiplied together and then just divided by 6 to account for 6 ball overs ( I think one of the measures doesn't take into account extras, so you'll be slightly off doing a calculation from career stats this way, but that's basically all it is).

What this means is that for two players with the same average, they are sacrificing SR for ER, or vice versa. There's no "goldilocks range" in which you're getting benefits of more penetration without conceding more runs (except that you just have a much lower average than the one you're comparing with anyway).

So by saying, I don't like this guy because his SR is too low and ER too high, you're saying you don't like your strike bowlers, to well... strike.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you are contradicting me. I said SR and ER are connected. I didn't mean a goldilocks range but my point is that we can't ignore a high SR as a matter of penetration for players of roughly the same average and ER, like Ambrose and McGrath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top