Better player : Bumrah or Headley ?

[smash84]

They had 5 series in the 30’s, losing 3, drawing 1 and winning 1 (at home against England) they won 4 tests in total - 3 at home and 1 in Australia.

Headley in those 4 tests:
114 and 112 vs England 1930
105 and 30 vs Australia 1931
25 and 93 vs England 1935
270* vs England 1935

In the only match he didn’t nab a ton, 93 was the highest score of the entire game. In the ‘35 series he was one of only 2 players from both teams to make a ton the entire series, and outscored his closest competitors by over 200 runs. (in fact, that one innings of 270 was the same amount of runs as the second highest scorer in the series)

Bumrah has been instrumental in series wins in Australia though, which is the toughest test for SC sides. His Melbourne performance sealed the series for India in 2018.

And always seemed to get key wickets, even in the 2020 tour.

I don't think India would have won without him both times. Although his performance in 2018 was better. I don't think he played all the matches in 2020 did he?

 

[Coronis]

Bumrah has been instrumental in series wins in Australia though, which is the toughest test for SC sides. His Melbourne performance sealed the series for India in 2018.

And always seemed to get key wickets, even in the 2020 tour.

I don't think India would have won without him both times. Although his performance in 2018 was better. I don't think he played all the matches in 2020 did he?

Yeah I get that but for Headley and the Windies in the 30’s just winning a test was a big achievement and up til that point winning a series? Crazy.

Obviously, you can have more impactful players with poor teams who have worse stats but thats not the case with Headley.

 

[smash84]

Yeah I get that but for Headley and the Windies in the 30’s just winning a test was a big achievement and up til that point winning a series? Crazy.

Obviously, you can have more impactful players with poor teams who have worse stats but thats not the case with Headley.

Sure, one can make an argument for Headley, which you just did and it isn't necessarily a bad argument. It's always hard to assess the impact of players in weak teams (e.g. Shakib). I just think that Bumrah was more impactful because he was instrumental in two difficult series wins.

 

[h_hurricane]

Bumrah was better in his secondary skill so its him.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Bumrah was better in his secondary skill so its him.

Yea yea whatever
Who was the better fielder?

 

[h_hurricane]

Yea yea whatever
Who was the better fielder?

Bumrah has dropped 0 catches in the cordon, so it's probably him.

 

[Coronis]

Bumrah was better in his secondary skill so its him.

Yea yea whatever
Who was the better fielder?

I thought fielding was a secondary skill

 

[OverratedSanity]

Bumrah has been instrumental in series wins in Australia though, which is the toughest test for SC sides. His Melbourne performance sealed the series for India in 2018.

And always seemed to get key wickets, even in the 2020 tour.

I don't think India would have won without him both times. Although his performance in 2018 was better. I don't think he played all the matches in 2020 did he?

He was very good in the 2020 series but that was much more of a team effort compared to 2018. Siraj, Ashwin, Jadeja's bowling performances were equally important.

 

[Migara]

Again depends team by team. But I actually agree, getting Marshall for a single match improves more teams more than Tendulkar.
Oh, and that 1 bowler 1.5 batsman is some bull****

There are only 4 bowlers, but 6 batsmen. So the average bowler makes, 1.5 times more impact than average batsman. If you are illiterate on numbers it is not my problem.

 

[capt_Luffy]

There are only 4 bowlers, but 6 batsmen. So the average bowler makes, 1.5 times more impact than average batsman. If you are illiterate on numbers it is not my problem.

I am pursuing a degree literally on data analysis..... and if you judge cricketers like that; then yeah, starting a conversation with you was my problem.

 

[Migara]

I am pursuing a degree literally on data analysis..... and if you judge cricketers like that; then yeah, starting a conversation with you was my problem.

I have already completed a masters in Applied Statistics if you are trying to come from the point of authority. So yes, you are illiterate of numbers. (And oh, stats is not the thing I do for a living. That was done for fun of it)

 

[Coronis]

I have already completed a masters in Applied Statistics if you are trying to come from the point of authority. So yes, you are illiterate of numbers. (And oh, stats is not the thing I do for a living. That was done for fun of it)

Cool story bro

 

[capt_Luffy]

I have already completed a masters in Applied Statistics if you are trying to come from the point of authority. So yes, you are illiterate of numbers. (And oh, stats is not the thing I do for a living. That was done for fun of it)

Man, I always knew you were full of ****, but thought that was only for Sri Lankan players (not like I can't see the ulterior motive behind giving bowlers a 1.5x booster on bowlers over batsmen and might just call Murali>Bradman)

 

[h_hurricane]

While bowlers share the workload a bit more than batsmen on an average, they also tend to have shorter careers. Nearly always, an ATG batsman has a longer career than an ATG bowler. When an ATG bowler retires, you need to find a bowler of similar quality to maintain the team's standing in world cricket, which is hard to get. In the case of an ATG batsman, such issues happen less often. An ATG bowler is more prone to miss important series as well.

There are arguments and counter arguments that can be used to debate who is more valuable. I consider an ATG batsman as valuable as an ATG bowler.

This 1 bowler ~ 1.5 batsman analogy is ridiculous imo as well.

 

[Migara]

Man, I always knew you were full of ****, but thought that was only for Sri Lankan players (not like I can't see the ulterior motive behind giving bowlers a 1.5x booster on bowlers over batsmen and might just call Murali>Bradman)

This is the exact **** I expected from you.

Since there are more batsmen than bowlers, impact gets distributed among lesser number of bowlers than batsmen. It is batsmen who are at the wrong end. It is batsmen who should get x 1.5 boost.

Congrads with that data science degree.

 

[Migara]

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.

 

[capt_Luffy]

This is the exact **** I expected from you.

Since there are more batsmen than bowlers, impact gets distributed among lesser number of bowlers than batsmen. It is batsmen who are at the wrong end. It is batsmen who should get x 1.5 boost.

Congrads with that data science degree.

*Congrats.

But seriously, to get it straight; you're telling me a bowler is worth 1.5 batsmen, and simultaneously that batsmen should get 1.5x booster??? Now, I am no mathematician (am really not), but you don't really need to be one to see what kind of ****ery calculation that is....

 

[Coronis]

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.

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.

 

[Migara]

*Congrats.

But seriously, to get it straight; you're telling me a bowler is worth 1.5 batsmen, and simultaneously that batsmen should get 1.5x booster??? Now, I am no mathematician (am really not), but you don't really need to be one to see what kind of ****ery calculation that is....

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

 

[capt_Luffy]

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.

Nooooo. You got i all wrong!!! Since there are 6 batsmen and only one keeper and assuming they all have equal impacts; then to compare to Billy a batsman needs to bat 6 times..... (Or some **** like that. It was really stupid to wrap my head around).