Is Jasprit Bumrah an ATG test bowler?

[sayon basak]

Grant Flower is the GOAT btw. 58.77 and 15.12 in wins.

What about Kane Williamson?

 

[Prince EWS]

What about Kane Williamson?

He has a 100% win rate as captain in wins.

 

[Randomfan]

Kumble has better average in wins than Warne
Flower had better average in wins than Lara

You win more matches against weaker teams and in favourable conditions. Completely useless in determining who was a better match winner.

I wasn't listing avg in away wins. You can pick up 2 wickets at 20 and gets counted in win stats. I was talking about outsized efforts like 5-fers in wins. You took a 5-fer and if your team wins then you did have result changing 5-fers. Yes, there will be 3-fers with impact but it will be true for all bowlers. 5-fers is just a short cut and a good one. There is a reason that among the top 5 in history, we are seeing usual suspects like Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath, Steyn in pacers list. Random bowlers are not showing up in top 5 list.

Kumble has 4 5-fers in away wins and Warne has 12. Yes, Warne did have a better team to win often, but if we are going into discussion on who had more impact away from home in changing the result then answer is clearly Warne. Other factors like away avg, 5-fers in away etc can be looked to say which bowler did better.

I wouldn't use tons in wins in test for batsmen the same way 5-fers in win for bowlers. You have to take 20 wickets pretty much all the time to win tests. You win test by taking 20 wickets cheaper than your opposition. In shorter formats, it's other way around. You can win by scoring more than opposition without taking any wicket in the match. You can't win tests without takign a single wicket. Relative importance of batsmen and bowlers are different in winning longer formats versus shorter formats.

Batsmen and bowlers, both are important, but relatively, bowlers will win you tests more often than batsmen with outsized efforts. It's other way around in shorter formats. That's the reason, India won rarely tests in sena before bowling became good for sena conditions, but won won plenty in shorter formats due to good batting.

Again these are just short cuts, but a good one. It shoudn't be used to start ranking players without looking at their over all career record.

 

[Coronis]

When he's done you're going to be sick of winning.

Oh, you don’t know me at all! I love a slow batsman. And who doesn’t love a good left arm orthodox.

 

[ankitj]

That is a good reason but not the most important reason imo.

One could bash already won matches and boost his average in winning matches, but that wouldn't mean he won the match. But the metric cannot account for that.

Most important reason is that no one walks onto the field to play in a win or a loss; match result happens after the fact. So it can have to impact on performance. It's the conditions, opposition and match situation that can impact performance and test a player.

 

[honestbharani]

Most important reason is that no one walks onto the field to play in a win or a loss

 

[ankitj]

pretty mental that bumrah's worst ever away test match series average (31.66) is better than the career average of a lot of really rocksolid bowlersView attachment 44237

Bumrah's worst bowling average in a calendar year is 27.07.

 

[Rob Wesley]

One aspect in which Bumrah is well ahead of the rest is his record away from home excluding minnows.

In modern era, the minnows would usually be referred for West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Bumrah’s record is great against them but if you look at away record excluding these minnows and compare him with other greats of this era, he still stands out in all aspects:-

Bumrah 145 wickets, Avg 21
Cummins 111 wickets, Avg 26
Rabada 96 wickets, Avg 29
Steyn 135 wickets, Avg 28
Anderson 230 wickets, Avg 30

As we can see, he is comfortably ahead of rest in the most important parameter of greatness, i.e. away record vs non minnows and hence his greatness should no longer be in question.

 

[Rob Wesley]

His away record excluding minnows really sets him apart from not just this era bowlers but even quite a few from 90s too. In the era of Ambrose, Wasim, Donald, Waqar and Pollock, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh can be referred as minnows. If we exclude them and look at away record, the stats are:-

Donald 140 wickets @Avg 24
Wasim 238 wickets @Avg 24
Pollock 166 wickets @Avg 27
Waqar 164 wickets @Avg 28
Walsh 290 wickets @ Avg 25

Even including great fast bowlers from 90s also, we can see that Bumrah really stands out of the mentioned above when it comes to away performances excluding minnows.

But it is not like the away record is bad for all. Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose and Hadlee still manage an average of 21-22 away from home excluding minnows. So, alongwith Bumrah, these 4 names are the standout names when it comes to away performances vs non minnows.

This further illustrates that there really shouldn’t be any question of greatness in case of Bumrah because out of his 200 wickets, 150 have been away from home vs non minnows. A lot of other fast bowlers themselves find their stats taken a hit when you exclude minnows. The gap seems big.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

One aspect in which Bumrah is well ahead of the rest is his record away from home excluding minnows.

In modern era, the minnows would usually be referred for West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Bumrah’s record is great against them but if you look at away record excluding these minnows and compare him with other greats of this era, he still stands out in all aspects:-

Bumrah 145 wickets, Avg 21
Cummins 111 wickets, Avg 26
Rabada 96 wickets, Avg 29
Steyn 135 wickets, Avg 28
Anderson 230 wickets, Avg 30

As we can see, he is comfortably ahead of rest in the most important parameter of greatness, i.e. away record vs non minnows and hence his greatness should no longer be in question.

This is true, but also remember that for no fault of his own Bumrah has never played tests in Pakistan or the UAE which are the toughest places in the world for seam bowlers.

 

[centurymaker]

Steyn's away avg not looking too great.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Steyn's away avg not looking too great.

Only by average, it isn't. But on breaking down his record you see it's pretty great. He just played in a very flat Era.

 

[Rob Wesley]

This is true, but also remember that for no fault of his own Bumrah has never played tests in Pakistan or the UAE which are the toughest places in the world for seam bowlers.

You are probably true due to flat pitches produced there but I think if I exclude Pakistan/ UAE, the records of other pacers still fall well behind Bumrah.

Actually surprisingly Steyn, Anderson and Cummins have very good record in Pak/UAE. They have found success using reverse swing.

 

[Rob Wesley]

Only by average, it isn't. But on breaking down his record you see it's pretty great. He just played in a very flat Era.

Yes, Steyn falls in that era where pitches were relatively flat.

90s produced so many great bowlers or bowlers averaging under 25. But between 2000-15, there weren’t really many standouts except Steyn, McGrath and Shoaib Akhtar ( for a short period) averaging well under 25.

 

[Coronis]

One aspect in which Bumrah is well ahead of the rest is his record away from home excluding minnows.

In modern era, the minnows would usually be referred for West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Bumrah’s record is great against them but if you look at away record excluding these minnows and compare him with other greats of this era, he still stands out in all aspects:-

Bumrah 145 wickets, Avg 21
Cummins 111 wickets, Avg 26
Rabada 96 wickets, Avg 29
Steyn 135 wickets, Avg 28
Anderson 230 wickets, Avg 30

As we can see, he is comfortably ahead of rest in the most important parameter of greatness, i.e. away record vs non minnows and hence his greatness should no longer be in question.

Conferring the title of minnow upon modern West Indies (especially) and Bangladesh is so ****ing filthy.

Its almost like none of you remember what a true minnow is.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Conferring the title of minnow upon modern West Indies (especially) and Bangladesh is so ****ing filthy.

Its almost like none of you remember what a true minnow is.

3/4 years ago Bangladesh probably had a better batting lineup than England (definitely at home) in conditions that are tough for seamers.

In terms of batters
Root was quality

Mushy, Tamim, and Shakib were all a bit better than Stokes

Mominul and Liton were better than Bairstow

The rest of the England batting was about Mahmudullah level or below

 

[sayon basak]

Conferring the title of minnow upon modern West Indies and Bangladesh is so ****ing filthy.

Its almost like none of you remember what a true minnow is.

Bangladesh was never a minnow. Virat Kohli and Steve Smith has poor record vs BD.

 

[Rob Wesley]

Conferring the title of minnow upon modern West Indies (especially) and Bangladesh is so ****ing filthy.

Its almost like none of you remember what a true minnow is.

what is a true minnow as per you?

For me, a team that wins occasionally vs a good side but loses most of its games is a minnow.

West Indies or Bangladesh can win occasionally vs Australia or New Zealand respectively but they will likely lose a lot of games . It will be like 3-4 wins vs 25 losses. That to me is a team that falls in minnows category.

Moreover, West Indies batting is even worse, their bowling is still test standard. But batting is not worth even rating. Hence, I have excluded them when comparing today’s pacers. Anyways, they all have done well vs Windies and stat padded well. So, don’t think it makes a difference, just shows up the count of quality wickets at whatever be the average.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

what is a true minnow as per you?

For me, a team that wins occasionally vs a good side but loses most of its games is a minnow.

West Indies or Bangladesh can win occasionally vs Australia or New Zealand respectively but they will likely lose a lot of games . It will be like 3-4 wins vs 25 losses. That to me is a team that falls in minnows category.

Moreover, West Indies batting is even worse, their bowling is still test standard. But batting is not worth even rating. Hence, I have excluded them when comparing today’s pacers. Anyways, they all have done well vs Windies and stat padded well. So, don’t think it makes a difference, just shows up the count of quality wickets at whatever be the average.

Bangladesh are the only Asian team to win a test in NZ in about the last 12/13 years. They have drawn their last 3 series against NZ, Australia, and England 1-1.

The Windies have won more tests in Australia in the last 10 years than England, NZ, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka combined. They haven't lost a test series at home to England in about 20 years.

 

[ankitj]

Petition to treat NZ as a minnow.