CW Ranks Top 25 Bowlers of All Time (Version 2010)

[jaideep]

round 3

mcgrath - 3 pts
barnes - 2 pts
lillywhite - 1 pt

 

[Prince EWS]

I was really referring to his SR, which is unbelievably good for his era. When guys like Miller were in the low 60s or someone like Lindwall was just under it; Trueman is striking at 49.4 - ridiculous.

Fair enough; that is a good point. We have very different ideas on the importance of strike rates - batting and bowling - but one thing I'll definitely concede is that if you're the best bowler in your team it's definitely advantagous to have a better strike rate (even given average as a constant - ie. with a strike rate improvement you have to have an equal relative worsening of economy rate) as you can reduce the impact of the other bowlers in the team and have more of an impact on the quality of the attack overall. Of course if you're worse than the mean quality of your entire bowling attack, the opposite is true, but when we're talking about ATG bowlers this is never the case.

 

[weldone]

I don't know how fair this, I think in this instance just having a straight shoot out between Hadlee and Murali would be the way to go, the winner gets second, the loser gets third.

@ Weldone - If there is a tie, I think you should count which player got more highest ratings (3 points) in that round. A more objective (ergo fair) way to break ties, IMHO.

That'd just mean less people voted for them though.

In the case of a tie I'd knock out lower points from people who voted for bowlers - for example in the Hadlee/Murali tie, I'd cancel out any 2 or 1 votes for Hadlee from people who voted Murali 3 (or 1 votes for Hadlee from people who voted Murali 2) and vice versa.

NUFAN's idea doesn't seem to be the best one, to me personally. Ranking someone at no. 3 right after the voting for rank 2 conflicts with the logic of my exercise.

Same about 8ankitj's idea. I think the point Prince EWS raised against it is perfect. If we are not counting the 2's and the 1's then what's the point in having those 2's and 1's at the first place? Those 2's and 1's have been kept (by me) for a purpose, that gets defeated.

Prince EWS' idea seems much much more interesting than the other two, have to think about it.

But at the first place, I want to know what's unfair about my procedure. If everyone is allowed to change their votes anytime before the results, then so am I. Isn't it? There are so many members who've changed their votes (maybe looking at the voting patterns after they voted, maybe not. But the point remains.) The fact that I shall only edit my votes in case of a tie, and not otherwise; is a subset of that larger fair set (if you know what I mean). And hence that's fair too.

 

[NUFAN]

NUFAN's idea doesn't seem to be the best one, to me personally. Ranking someone at no. 3 right after the voting for rank 2 conflicts with the logic of my exercise.

Same about 8ankitj's idea. I think the point Prince EWS raised against it is perfect. If we are not counting the 2's and the 1's then what's the point in having those 2's and 1's at the first place? Those 2's and 1's have been kept (by me) for a purpose, that gets defeated.

Prince EWS' idea seems much much more interesting than the other two, have to think about it.

But at the first place, I want to know what's unfair about my procedure. If everyone is allowed to change their votes anytime before the results, then so am I. Isn't it? There are so many members who've changed their votes (maybe looking at the voting patterns after they voted, maybe not. But the point remains.) The fact that I shall only edit my votes in case of a tie, and not otherwise; is a subset of that larger fair set (if you know what I mean). And hence that's fair too.

I'm not really a fan of PEWS idea, it will just lead to more people voting 3 points for their favourite player and then picking 2 nuffies.

Just my opinion, but when it's a tie, I think the people who do this: 3 Murali, 2 Arnel, 1 Milne should have their points removed.

I never realized people were changing their picks, seems odd to me.

BTW Weldone your doing a great job, I like the stat that you do at the end of each round!

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm not really a fan of PEWS idea, it will just lead to more people voting 3 points for their favourite player and then picking 2 nuffies.

Nah if anything it will lead to less of that, because if it's a draw, you're only giving points to the player you prefer out of the two.

 

[Jarquis]

Murali
Barnes
Ambrose

 

[Jarquis]

mcgrath - 3 pts
barnes - 2 pts
lillywhite - 1 pt

Prince EWS multi fo sho.

 

[Prince EWS]

Prince EWS multi fo sho.

Haha I just noticed that he picked Lillywhite; that's seriously gun. Would've made an appearance in my list already if I knew more about other cricketers like him.. I'm sure there were other guns from the pre-Test era so I thought it would've been a bit inconsistent to put Lillywhite in from my perspective. Not this early anyway.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Is this the player he's referring to?

William Lillywhite, FC, 1576 wickets, Avg 1.54, SR 9.6, ER 0.95

 

[Prince EWS]

Is this the player he's referring to?

William Lillywhite, FC, 1576 wickets, Avg 1.54, SR 9.6, ER 0.95

Yeah, I think you'll find his cricinfo average is wrong.and that it was closer to 10 than 1, but that's him. Given how I rate players based on how good they were compared to their peers, a player nicknamed The Nonpareil is obviously quite interesting to me so I've done a fair bit of reading on him. The only reason I don't put him forward in threads like this mre is the fact that I'd then have to consider including other players from his time and while I have a good idea about the standard averages and performances one would find through my Lillywhite research, I don't know enough about specific players of the time to do that.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, I think you'll find his cricinfo average is wrong.and that it was closer to 10 than 1, but that's him. Given how I rate players based on how good they were compared to their peers, a player nicknamed The Nonpareil is obviously quite interesting to me so I've done a fair bit of reading on him. The only reason I don't put him forward in threads like this mre is the fact that I'd then have to consider including other players from his time and while I have a good idea about the standard averages and performances one would find through my Lillywhite research, I don't know enough about specific players of the time to do that.

The numbers seem to add up, as ridiculous as it sounds. What mistake did they make? Runs conceded?

Cricketarchive has his average as 10. But the runs conceded/ wickets taken from their page still works out to 1.54. What is going on? http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Players/30/30998/30998.html

 

[fredfertang]

Old fred's correct stats are here

 

[G.I.Joe]

Old fred's correct stats are here

There's still some mistake. 2435 runs conceded for 1576 wickets should give him an average of 1.54.

 

[Prince EWS]

There's still some mistake. 2435 runs conceded for 1576 wickets should give him an average of 1.54.

Yeah, they made an estimate on his average because of how many games there are like this one. 2435 runs conceded is just the confirmed number; he played a fair few games where full bowling figures weren't recorded. I dare CricketArchive probably based it on his economy rate in the matches that were recorded properly. Cricinfo just assumed he conceded 0 runs in every game that wasn't recorded properly.

 

[fredfertang]

All the players of that era are the same - the likes of John Wisden, Alfred Mynn, William Clarke etc

There are folk who make it their life's work trying to track down the details - must be completely off their heads

 

[Somerset]

3 - Barnes
2 - Warne
1 - Muralitharan

 

[SJS]

1. Barnes
2. Murali
3. Grimmett

 

[weldone]

BTW Weldone your doing a great job, I like the stat that you do at the end of each round!

Thank you!

 

[weldone]

Murali, Barnes, Marshall

Marshall has already been taken as rank 1. So, your vote will not count for rank 3.

 

[weldone]

Rank 3 Results Declared and Rank 4 Voting Beigins

Points:
Muralitharan (35)
Barnes(28)
McGrath (22)
etc etc etc...

Rank 1: Malcolm Marshall
Rank 2: Richard Hadlee
Rank 3: Muttiah Muralitharan

I shall be maintaining two counts: one showing how many of the already ranked players played in which decade, and the other showing the fast bowling-spin bowling split.

Decade-wise split
1890 and before: 0
1891-1900: 0
1901-10: 0
1911-20: 0
1921-30: 0
1931-40: 0
1941-50: 0
1951-60: 0
1961-70: 0
1971-80: 2 (67%)
1981-90: 2 (67%)
1991-2000: 2 (67%)
2001-10: 1 (33%)

Fast-spin split
Fast Bowler: 2 (67%)
Spin Bowler: 1 (33%)

The voting process for rank 4 starts.

My votes are:
Sydney Barnes (3 points)
Glenn McGrath (2 points)
Fred Trueman (1 point)