Best bowler of 1990s

[Beleg]

.And ODIs are for fun & not meant to be taken seriously.

That's a terribly ignorant statement.

 

[funnygirl]

Aww ! Waqar Younis wins it !!
Look at his strike rate . Damn !

Waqar younis bowled 30 overs per test ,because he is all out pacer ,more over expensive too . Generally tearaway quicks have better strike rate ,they wouldn't bowl that many overs .They can't .

Compare the strike rate of Donald and Ambrose .Donald has got better strike rate ,but i would have Ambrose in my team .

 

[funnygirl]

Why not? It's cricket. Test cricket is cricket. ODI cricket is cricket. What's wrong with combining the 2 to see who is the best allround bowler for both forms? I got them from Cricinfo

No totally wrong .How can u combine two entirley different formats .Tomorrow will u combine Tests ,ODIs and 20/20 s

 

[funnygirl]

It doesn't, though - someone being better in ODIs doesn't make any difference to how good they were in Tests. Likewise, someone being better in Tests doesn't make any difference to how good they were in ODIs.

There is no "overall". It's one, or it's the other.

True .Mohammed Asif is an example .He is brilliant in tests ,pretty mediocre in ODIs .

 

[Richard]

I am not talking about how good they were in only tests. But how they were in both - overall. It makes plenty of sense to combine the stats if you are looking at both.

But there's no point in looking at both, they're sufficiently different to make it an exercise with no interest to, well, anyone really. Other than someone with the outdated belief that the two game-forms aren't really that different.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Rugby. Union. And. League. Are. Completely. Different. Sports.

No more different than Tests and ODIs IMO. No big Rugby buff, but one has more players and there are rule changes which mean more running in League IIRC.

Tests and ODIs have the same amount of players, but there is an over limit in ODIs, it's a wildly shorter game and there are additional features such as field restrictions. There's enough difference between the for one to be brilliant and one to be ****.

I didn't see your past argument with Richard over this, so maybe there is something I'm missing, but still, there are big differences between Tests and ODIs.

 

[Ikki]

But there's no point in looking at both, they're sufficiently different to make it an exercise with no interest to, well, anyone really. Other than someone with the outdated belief that the two game-forms aren't really that different.

What? If this poll wanted the best bowler in both forms there would be every reason to combine both stats.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

That's a terribly ignorant statement.

I'm one of those who are of the view that all forms of cricket except Tests should be abolished,there are lot of people on this forum who don't take ODIs seriously.So,I'm not alone in that category.

 

[funnygirl]

What? If this poll wanted the best bowler in both forms there would be every reason to combine both stats.

During 90s ,ODIs were more popular (sadly) than tests especially in India and Pakistan .The respective cricket boards were more (money hungry) interested in meaningless ODI tournaments than quality tests . Hence subcontinental players played more ODIs compared to others .So it is unfair to combine statistics .

U can analyse it seperately .

 

[Engle]

U can analyse it seperately .

U can also analyse it together. It's not like just playing with numbers, there is some truth to the value of a cricketer who can excel in both forms of the game over another who cannot.

e.g. It is to Tendulkars credit that he could adjust his game to open in an ODI from his regular Test position

 

[Ikki]

During 90s ,ODIs were more popular (sadly) than tests especially in India and Pakistan .The respective cricket boards were more (money hungry) interested in meaningless ODI tournaments than quality tests . Hence subcontinental players played more ODIs compared to others .So it is unfair to combine statistics .

U can analyse it seperately .

What? You can still look at their averages, which discounts player X playing more than player Y.

 

[The Sean]

The Sean's easy four step guide to more satisfying bowler assessment.

1. Take a nice, long, slow, deep breath. And relax.

2. Drop the statsguru page and back away slowly. Be sure not to make any sudden movements.

3. Grab a DVD or as much footage as you can of these magnificent bowlers and sit there and watch the wonderful things each and every one of them was capable of doing with a cricket ball in their hands.

4. Even better, if you are old enough to have seen them in action first hand then cast your mind back and remember how great they were and what it was like to actually watch them play cricket.

There, don't you feel happier now?

 

[Richard]

What? If this poll wanted the best bowler in both forms there would be every reason to combine both stats.

There wouldn't, though, there'd be every reason to do a list for ODIs and a list for Tests. Because the two games are different.

FFS, this is my last post on the matter - I don't do changing your mind.

 

[Richard]

The Sean's easy four step guide to more satisfying bowler assessment.

1. Take a nice, long, slow, deep breath. And relax.

2. Drop the statsguru page and back away slowly. Be sure not to make any sudden movements.

3. Grab a DVD or as much footage as you can of these magnificent bowlers and sit there and watch the wonderful things each and every one of them was capable of doing with a cricket ball in their hands.

4. Even better, if you are old enough to have seen them in action first hand then cast your mind back and remember how great they were and what it was like to actually watch them play cricket.

There, don't you feel happier now?

Disagree that you need to drop the StatsGuru page. Just place the "look at StatsGuru" step after the "grab a DVD" (or that could read "hop onto YouTube" these days) one.

What's more, disagree with 4. The human memory is a fallible instrument. Much better to use DVDs and scorecards.

 

[Ikki]

There wouldn't, though, there'd be every reason to do a list for ODIs and a list for Tests. Because the two games are different.

FFS, this is my last post on the matter - I don't do changing your mind.

Yes, they're different. But all those players have to deal with those different facets. Therefore, when we combine the stats it takes that into account for ALL the bowlers.

If McGrath is a better Test bowler because of a certain facet and that same one is a disadvantage to him in ODI, then that's tough, he has to adapt. Just as all the other bowlers have had to.

You're not going to change my mind with total non-sense. It isn't even relevant that the two forms are different.

 

[Fiery]

Yes, they're different. But all those players have to deal with those different facets. Therefore, when we combine the stats it takes that into account for ALL the bowlers.

If McGrath is a better Test bowler because of a certain facet and that same one is a disadvantage to him in ODI, then that's tough, he has to adapt. Just as all the other bowlers have had to.

You're not going to change my mind with total non-sense. It isn't even relevant that the two forms are different.

AWTA

 

[Smudge]

No more different than Tests and ODIs IMO. No big Rugby buff, but one has more players and there are rule changes which mean more running in League IIRC.

Tests and ODIs have the same amount of players, but there is an over limit in ODIs, it's a wildly shorter game and there are additional features such as field restrictions. There's enough difference between the for one to be brilliant and one to be ****.

I didn't see your past argument with Richard over this, so maybe there is something I'm missing, but still, there are big differences between Tests and ODIs.

They are governed by two completely separate bodies, because they're two different sports. There are clear rule differences, relating to the breakdown (ruck/play-the-ball), restarting play, style of tackling allowed and penalty offences, which change the whole complexion of the two games. As Fiery said, the basic mechanics of cricket stay the same, whereas rugby league requires a competely different kind of player to rugby union. Look at someone like Matt Dunning, for example - he would never make it as a league player.

But the key point is they are two separate sports and have been since the early 1900s - which is why they have two completely separate ruling bodies. Test and ODI cricket are governed by the ICC as we all know, and how many ruling bodies is that? One.

 

[Richard]

They are govorned by the same body, who give them different rules, thus making them different games.

 

[Sanz]

Test and ODI cricket are governed by the ICC as we all know, and how many ruling bodies is that? One.

You got that wrong Mister. The correct answer is ZERO.

 

[Smudge]

They are govorned by the same body, who give them different rules, thus making them different games.

Maybe different games, but not different sports.