Best of the best - pacers vs bats vs spinners

[reyrey]

Average in wins:

Murali 16.18
Hadlee 13.06

A bowling average doesn't win a match. Taking 20 Wickets does. Murali got more wickets in wins.

Average number of wickets per game in wins

Murali 8.19
Hadlee 7.86

 

[smash84]

A bowling average doesn't win a match. Taking 20 Wickets does. Murali got more wickets in wins.

Average number of wickets per game in wins

Murali 8.19
Hadlee 7.86

That's barely any difference though. In a 3 test series where their teams won all the matches, Murali would get 1 more wicket. 24 vs 25

 

[honestbharani]

That's barely any difference though. In a 3 test series where their teams won all the matches, Murali would get 1 more wicket. 24 vs 25

its still worth more than the 3 runs FP was bringing up.

 

[smash84]

its still worth more than the 3 runs FP was bringing up.

Probably not.

For every 10 wickets. Hadlee is conceding 30 runs less. Seems a lot more significant.

 

[honestbharani]

Probably not.

For every 10 wickets. Hadlee is conceding 30 runs less. Seems a lot more significant.

Not really coz he is still taking 1 less wicket per match while Murali concedes 3 more runs but takes that extra wicket. Unless ur conclusion is 1 wicket < 3 runs.

Not sure if there is any sense in comparing runs when test matches are won by taking wickets.

 

[reyrey]

Probably not.

For every 10 wickets. Hadlee is conceding 30 runs less. Seems a lot more significant.

Why would the number of run conceded matter more than the number of wickets taken if the game was won anyway?

Would a batsmen scoring at a higher strike rate matter more than a batsmen scoring more runs in a win?

 

[Prince EWS]

Why would the number of run conceded matter more than the number of wickets taken if the game was won anyway?

Well looking at this way, why would literally anything matter at all if the game was won anyway?

 

[reyrey]

Well looking at this way, why would literally anything matter at all if the game was won anyway?

I wasn't the one that started comparing what they did in wins. I just offered a better comparison.

 

[smash84]

Not really coz he is still taking 1 less wicket per match while Murali concedes 3 more runs but takes that extra wicket. Unless ur conclusion is 1 wicket < 3 runs.

.

That's 1 wicket more per series, not per match

 

[reyrey]

That's 1 wicket more per series, not per match

That would assume they win all the matches in the series.

In draws the average number of wickets per innings is the following.

Murali 2.81 (29.23 bowling average)
Hadlee 2.33 (30.54)

In games where defeat was avoided

Murali 3.66 (19.54)
Hadlee 3.03 (20.66)

I stand by my original point "I wouldn't argue that Murali was a better bowler than Hadlee, but Murali was more important and did more for his team as a bowler."

 

[Slifer]

Curious to know how they compare outside their home conditions....

 

[Qlder]

Should break up the pace bowlers

Fast >>> Fast-Medium >>>>>> Medium

 

[howitzer]

Should break up the pace bowlers

Fast >>> Fast-Medium >>>>>> Medium

Effective >>> Less Effective >>>>>> Not Effective imo otherwise Lee>>>McGrath

 

[Migara]

I think Murali had better support on less helpful conditions than Hadlee. Sri Lankan fast bowling was palpably better than Kiwi spinners.

On a seaming track Murali in theory had more support than Hadlee on a dustbowl. On helpful conditions it would have been reverse.

 

[subshakerz]

Pacer > batsman > spinner

I am still split between pacer and batsman. It's a toin coss.

 

[kyear2]

I am still split between pacer and batsman. It's a toin coss.

Welcome back Subz