• 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.

Is Bumrah the best cricketer India has ever produced?

Is jasprit bumrah the best cricketer india has ever produced?

  • Total voters
    28
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
Victor Ian said:
This might hold up if you could remove a bowler from the innings, not to return, if you hit him for 6 or something.
Oddly, 4 to 6 bowlers bowl the same number of balls that batsmen face.
You could say bowlers have it easy because they can just play with their top order. Imagine if all 11 had to bowl!
Click to expand...
The comparison is 1 batsman vs 1 bowler.

The contribution with their primary skill towards the relatively balanced sides of the game (slightly more value towards batting because there is also fielding to consider on the other side) is going to be in favor of the full time bowler over the Specialist batsman.

Is this a devils advocate position you are taking or do you really think an individual batsman can consistently add as much value with the bat as an ace bowler like McGrath or Warne can with the ball?
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
Arachnodouche said:
I think I'm just reiterating Victor Ian, but 20 wickets a game to win is a cliche I never quite understood. Sure, ok, technically it is true - well, not if you run into a team like England happy to declare prematurely and let you chase down a score - but 20 wkts in a game won't do you any good if your batsmen can't outscore the opposition by >= 1. You can take fewer wickets and still win but you can never score fewer runs to win a game of cricket.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with the statement that bowlers are inherently more valuable to a team. The nature of the game implies a bowler can fail repeatedly over the course of a spell in terms of executing his skills and still only require the one decent delivery to get rid of the batsman. Whereas odds are a batsman has to be extraordinarily lucky and/or named Travis Head to survive making repeated bad decisions, hence making a technically solid batsman who minimizes errors an extremely valuable asset in his own right, as much if not more so than a bowler.
Click to expand...
You're ignoring that bowlers reduce runscoring as well, both by taking wickets and otherwise with bowling well enough to make scoring off them difficult more often. They play a big role in reducing the opposition's runs. Current England is no different to any other winning side in terms of taking 20 wickets and winning. That's exactly how they've won a lot of their recent games under Bazball, and why when their bowling was off here and there during 2021 they sucked.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Arachnodouche said:
I think I'm just reiterating Victor Ian, but 20 wickets a game to win is a cliche I never quite understood. Sure, ok, technically it is true - well, not if you run into a team like England happy to declare prematurely and let you chase down a score - but 20 wkts in a game won't do you any good if your batsmen can't outscore the opposition by >= 1. You can take fewer wickets and still win but you can never score fewer runs to win a game of cricket.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with the statement that bowlers are inherently more valuable to a team. The nature of the game implies a bowler can fail repeatedly over the course of a spell in terms of executing his skills and still only require the one decent delivery to get rid of the batsman. Whereas odds are a batsman has to be extraordinarily lucky and/or named Travis Head to survive making repeated bad decisions, hence making a technically solid batsman who minimizes errors an extremely valuable asset in his own right, as much if not more so than a bowler.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a fragile batting lineup inhibits your ability to win considerably more than a great attack is likely enhance those chances.

They still need a target to bowl at.
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
Fuller Pilch said:
No, because John Wright produced him so while the raw materials were Indian, the production was from NZ. When Wrighty trained and developed Bumrah he also did 2 other things:
(a) made him especially effective against the evil Aussies
(b) made him ineffective against the motherland
Click to expand...
Though in reality, it was the coaches in Gujarat way back then, so really this is a big(ly) win for Modi.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Arachnodouche said:
How though? Being an ATG bowler already puts you in rarefied company and especially so if you're Indian considering we have precisely...zero ATG bowlers (assuming Kumble's only ATVG)? If he's a legit ATG, you should have no hesitation in pegging him (not literally but ok if you wanna) as India's third greatest ever after Tendulkar and Gavaskar...or heck even joint greatest with both.
Click to expand...
If you have an ATG fast bowler, he would automatically rank above both since almost my definition, it means you won more Tests.

If you compare the value above replacement of a ATG fast bowler in India vs value above replacement of Tendulkar over the next guy when you're picking an all time side, Bumrah becomes very significantly more valuable.
 
H

HouHsiaoHsien

International Debutant
If Bumrah maintains this record for 80+ tests or close to 400 wickets I’ll vote for him over Sachin. Below that but a sample of 300+, he’ll be a top 7/8 bowler of all time still tho
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top