subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I don't mind using this argument as long as we apply to other ATGs. Plenty of others played outside their best decade.
-
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
- Thread starter CricAddict
- Start date
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Are we seriously already considering Bumrah in the top 30 bowlers ever?
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.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I think as a modern bowler he needs at least 200 or so wickets to qualify
We are considering the likes of Laker and Verity
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.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
My bottomline for an ATG is 300 and a regular great is 200. But Bumrah is way too early...
They came from an era when less Tests were played. They built up time related longevity without the higher concentration of Tests. Laker was dropped on a number of occasions though and I do think he has been somewhat overrated in this poll.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Apples and oranges and you know it. Bumrah could break down tomorrow and have a horrible rest of career half.
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.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
I think 150 wickets is sufficient to be rated in the mid 30s
But his body of work today - which is all we can assess - is very similar to Verity and Laker
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Again, we don't know how the rest of his career will be. Figures can be spoiled.
shortpitched713
International Captain
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.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
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
International Captain
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.
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.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Bumrah
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??!
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
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.