• 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.

Better player : Bumrah or Headley ?

Bumrah vs George Headley

  • Total voters
    28
  • This poll will close: .
Migara

Migara

International Coach
Coronis said:
So Gilchrist is truly the GOAT.

Since there is only one keeper, he is 6 times as valuable as a batsman (maybe 3 times as valuable as Bradman) and 4 times as valuable as a bowler.

Good to know.
Click to expand...
We have toa assume impact of keeping is equal to batting and bowling. If we all agree on the case, yes, I'd say GOAT.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Migara said:
Once again you are piss poor with comprehension. I will dumb down this.

Assume you have to do 100 units of work for a win.

We consider 50 of them is done by bowlers and 50 by batsmen.

Bowlers on average have access to 12.5 units of work (or impact to show for). Batsmen has only 8.3 in average. This would have been even if there was 4 bowlers and 4 batsmen working together.

So bowlers have difficult work, and they are more valuable to the side. That is only due to the playing conditions of the game. To even out the bias of playing conditions we adjust worth of a batsmen by x 1.5
Click to expand...
Man had you just said a batsman is 1.5x as valuable as a bowler; I would had said you're over simplifying too much, might had a chuckle and moved on. But you're not just saying bowlers are worth 1.5x more; but also that to equal that out we should give batsmen a 1.5x boost. I am sorry, that's just dumb.
 
Migara

Migara

International Coach
capt_Luffy said:
Man had you just said a batsman is 1.5x as valuable as a bowler; I would had said you're over simplifying too much, might had a chuckle and moved on. But you're not just saying bowlers are worth 1.5x more; but also that to equal that out we should give batsmen a 1.5x boost. I am sorry, that's just dumb.
Click to expand...
You are just putting words in my mouth and expect a conversation. Where did I say batsman is X times valuable as a bowler? Whole argument is on impact. You keep on ranting about a value. Even trees have more intellect.
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
Migara said:
It is very simple. There are 4 bowlers and 6 batsmen working for a win. If we assume the contributions of batting sum and bowling sum over long run is equal, bowlers will have a larger chunk of the impact. It has to be adjusted before comparison.

If you want to measure impact of McGrath compared to Tendulkar, you need to consider what 1.5 Tendulkars would have done (or Tendulkar batting three times per match). Otherwise even Bradman will be down and under compared to middling bowling all rounders.
Click to expand...
Objectively correct.
 
Silver Silva

Silver Silva

International Regular
smash84 said:
This is not how it works though.

You can have as many bowlers that you want. But there are very large diminishing returns to having more than 4. That doesn't mean that bowlers are 1.5 times more valuable than batsmen.
Click to expand...
The 1.5 value could come from the fact that 20 wickets is needed for a win in Test cricket in a normal setting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top