• 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

Line and Length

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
OverratedSanity said:
No they're not. Under the assumption that bowling average remains constant, we're debating whether ER or SR is preferable to be lower/higher.

I know how math works bc, everyone with a brain knows the three are inter related.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone was questioning your mathematics (in full to avoid math v maths debate), the ER or SR aspect is dependent on the bowlers' roles. Both are important depending on circumstances. Also bowlers can work in pairs, one tying up an end while the other attacks.
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
Sure, but we've seen in recent series the issues with prioritizing good ER numbers over SR. Namely the debate over England's bowling lineups and how they need to be structured to help them win games.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
TheJediBrah said:
That's virtually universally true though. Saying having a lower SR is better than a lower ER is not. They're both simple, but they're not both accurate
Click to expand...
I don't see a whole lot of difference between 'x is true, because it is almost always true' and 'y is true, because it is true the vast majority of the time'. Especially when y leads to x.

Anyway, SR is the difference between Donald/Steyn and Pollock. There would be little to split them on otherwise.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
TheJediBrah said:
It does though. Keeping runs down can be important for a lot of reasons. It's the reverse of the "high strike rate batting has intrinsic value".

A player like Sehwag is more valuable than his average alone suggests because of the affect it has on the game. Field placings, bowlers, his batting partner, morale etc. A low ER bowler has intrinsic value for the opposite reason. You can keep tighter fields, gives you more freedom from the other end, pressure on the batsmen. The list goes on.

"High SR is better because you need to take wickets" is overly simplified
Click to expand...
This is basic cricket logic and it is weird that it is being debated against.

Anyone who watched McGrath in his career can attest to the pressure he created just by building up to a wicket and keeping things in control.

For some reason, CW seems to fetishize low SR bowlers like Steyn, etc. but the reality is that he was the most hittable and loose of any ATG.

I tend to think what is the situation when the bowlers is not taking wickets and in the case of a low ER bowler, the situation is still under control. It doesn't matter as much if he takes an extra over to get a wicket.

Also as mentioned, low SR bowlers like Waqar, Rabada and Steyn tend to bowl less overs per test for whatever reason.
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
yeah, I don't see why Bumrah shouldn't be in this list. Shane Warne was in the top 5 wisden cricketers of the century barely 6-7 years into his career (which I didn't agree with obv) despite being absolute shite against the best spin playing team of the era. But Bumrah's body of work up to this point absolutely puts him into the top 30 bowlers of all time.
 
Last edited:
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I didn't vote for bumrah, but he's not that far off at this point. He's already at 159 wickets, which is about what Ian bishop managed in his whole career, post injury phase included. He's clearly shown his effectiveness barely changes no matter which conditions he bowls in. Even if he falls off massively , he'll end up with 200+ wickets at a low 20s average.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
smash84 said:
yeah, I don't see why Bumrah shouldn't be in this list. Shane Warne was in the top 5 wisden cricketers of the century barely 6-7 years into his career (which I didn't agree with obv) despite being absolute ****e against the best spin playing team of the era. But the body of work up to this point absolutely puts him into the top 30 bowlers of all time.
Click to expand...
That was ridiculous
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
At that point, there hadn't been a spinner anywhere near Warne's quality for over half a century, so I kind of get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top