DoG's Top 100 Test Bowlers Countdown Thread 100-1

[harsh.ag]

Would anyone rate Pollock over Akram? Identical stats, with Pollock coming from a more bowler friendly country but playing in a tougher era. I'd imagine just about nobody would go for Pollock, but if you include batting, where Pollock is ahead

During the batting friendly era portion of his career, Pollock's bowling stats are inferior to his overall stats, in part due to him being past his peak.

 

[Bolo]

Pollock's batting sometimes seems to be forgotten about. Maybe because he spent a lot of time playing with Kallis and Klusener, whose batting exploits overshadowed his.

I actually remember just about nothing of Klusenars career as a test bat. Couple of flashy knocks at he start.

Probably had pressed to Pollocks individual knocks as well. Very little he did was notable. Not many big scores or flash. But he was extremely reliable. Would give a handy knock most games and would often build a partnership or two which stopped the tail from collapsing and added a meaningful amount of runs. Was perfect for the job.

During the batting friendly era portion of his career, Pollock's bowling stats are inferior to his overall stats, in part due to him being past his peak.

Sure. The end of his peak was a whole lot more meaningful. Had he ended his career as Akram, he would still have been returning nothing special, but it would have still given him better stats

 

[Dendarii]

I actually remember just about nothing of Klusenars career as a test bat. Couple of flashy knocks at he start.

I don't remember much either - there was a century after only a handful of matches was the only thing that comes to mind, but it turns out he ended with an average of 32.86, marginally higher than Pollock's 32.31. But of course, he's better remembered for his batting in ODIs.

 

[sunilz]

I just went through batting version of this list . And as far as i am concerned this statistical analysis massively favours players who played most of their games in favourable conditions.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/60352-dog-s-top-100-test-batsmen-top-25-a-27.html

Tendulkar ranked 10th and Sangakkara ranked 9.

Kohli has more runs outside Asia at a better average than Sangakkara.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

No wonder players like Ashwin, Jadeja, Rabada and Herath are ranked so high. These type of analysis will never favour players like Warne, Tendulkar who have most of their career runs, wickets in unfavourable circumstances.

 

[Bolo]

I just went through batting version of this list . And as far as i am concerned this statistical analysis massively favours players who played most of their games in favourable conditions.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/60352-dog-s-top-100-test-batsmen-top-25-a-27.html

Tendulkar ranked 10th and Sangakkara ranked 9.

Kohli has more runs outside Asia at a better average than Sangakkara.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

No wonder players like Ashwin, Jadeja, Rabada and Herath are ranked so high. These type of analysis will never favour players like Warne, Tendulkar who have most of their career runs, wickets in unfavourable circumstances.

You are picking the wrong hill to die on when you complain about Sanga doing well in a stats analysis. Monster away average. Same as the Tendulkar, but scored more at home as well. Dogs ranking system prioritises outstanding performances above consistency. The real brilliance of Tendulkar was his consistency, which (together with period of career) is why I rate him above Sanga.

Yes the system massively favours those who won the geographical lottery. Unless you only use away averages (which I'm actually in favour of, but not as the only system), any system will. I think this one will do so even more than a normal average (which is a ridiculous boost anyway) because of the high number of points you can generate in favourable conditions (even allowing for the fact that this gets discounted a little and there is a small boost for away performances,) but I can't say for sure.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Funny,
people punishing Akram for playing longer than other pacers.
He was as good as anyone (if not better) for 12 or so years. And for an 8yr period he was number one in the world. Contemporaries rates him as the best.
And he suffered from worst fielding support.

Longevity deserves positive points not negative.

 

[harsh.ag]

Tbf if you gave Tendulkar his due 180 career points in that DoG analysis (capped to 150 points max), he would shoot up to #4.

 

[ankitj]

Funny,
people punishing Akram for playing longer than other pacers.
He was as good as anyone (if not better) for 12 or so years. And for an 8yr period he was number one in the world. Contemporaries rates him as the best.
And he suffered from worst fielding support.

Longevity deserves positive points not negative.

Fun fact. Wasim Akram never achieved #1 ranking on ICC test bowlers rating.

This is in fact the kind of adulation for Akram in subcontinent that I was referring to earlier.

 

[Beleg]

Fun fact. Wasim Akram never achieved #1 ranking on ICC test bowlers rating.

This is in fact the kind of adulation for Akram in subcontinent that I was referring to earlier.

not just in the subcontinent. elsewhere too. and perhaps for a reason. much like shoaib and warne, but to a greater extent than the former, his was a dominant presence that played on batsmens minds even when they'd been scoring relatively freely. and as a viewer the primacy of bowling in such a manner, specially in sharjah and on subcontinent pitches was gratifying. but thats a measure a generalised statistical analysis is hardly likely to capture, to be fair. the viv richards comparison is likely apt, tho viv was before my time.

 

[bagapath]

Akram was a master. Ambrose was better.

 

[Beleg]

Akram was a master. Ambrose was better.

hard to disagree with that =)

 

[h_hurricane]

Wasim Akram was an immense cricketer. Fans, peers and even ex-cricketers of his time were in awe of all the skills he possessed and his mercurial ability to change the balance of a match in a jiffy. But there were quite a few bowlers ahead of him in the pecking order on pure bowling. If I have to choose 2 world elevens below will be my choice of bowlers and their batting position. I am a bit greedy about lower order batting but also need the bowlers I choose to be at ATG levels.

World eleven 1:
8.Imran
9.Hadlee
10.Marshall
11.Warne

with Sobers as 5th bowler

World Eleven 2:
8. Akram
9. Steyn
10. Ambrose
11. Murali

with Kallis as 5th bowler. Akram ahead of Mcgrath,Garner and a few others only because he could bat at no.8.

 

[Migara]

I'd rather have Pollock, Ambrose, McGrath and Murali in 2nd XI, with Miller as 5th bowler.

 

[h_hurricane]

Fair enough. Pollock's and Miller's bowling are close to ATG level. Does Miller + Pollock give as much batting as Kallis + Akram ? Debatable, but quite possible.

 

[h_hurricane]

I also did not want 2 genuine no. 11s in my team. Since I need a spinner and Murali bats at 11, Mcgrath misses out.

 

[smash84]

i think with Akram over pollock you add the left armer's variety and reverse swing which will complement Ambrose and Steyn/McGrath

 

[Bolo]

Funny,
people punishing Akram for playing longer than other pacers.
He was as good as anyone (if not better) for 12 or so years. And for an 8yr period he was number one in the world. Contemporaries rates him as the best.
And he suffered from worst fielding support.

Longevity deserves positive points not negative.

Is there an 8 year period when he was even the best player in his own team? When I think of greatest peaks for fast bowlers ever, the first two names I think of are waqar and imran. Are you talking about the very end of his career?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Is there an 8 year period when he was even the best player in his own team? When I think of greatest peaks for fast bowlers ever, the first two names I think of are waqar and imran. Are you talking about the very end of his career?

1990 to 98
Best avg
2nd best strike rate
5 wpm

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Wasim Akram was an immense cricketer. Fans, peers and even ex-cricketers of his time were in awe of all the skills he possessed and his mercurial ability to change the balance of a match in a jiffy. But there were quite a few bowlers ahead of him in the pecking order on pure bowling. If I have to choose 2 world elevens below will be my choice of bowlers and their batting position. I am a bit greedy about lower order batting but also need the bowlers I choose to be at ATG levels.

World eleven 1:
8.Imran
9.Hadlee
10.Marshall
11.Warne

with Sobers as 5th bowler

World Eleven 2:
8. Akram
9. Steyn
10. Ambrose
11. Murali

with Kallis as 5th bowler. Akram ahead of Mcgrath,Garner and a few others only because he could bat at no.8.

First 11
Sobers
Procter
Hadlee
Akram
Murali

2nd 11
Miller
Imran
Marshall
Warne
Steyn

3rd 11
Rice (based on Fc stats)
Kapil / Botham
Lillee / Trueman
O'Reilly
Mcgrath

(not considering Barnes)

 

[marc71178]

1990 to 98
Best avg
2nd best strike rate
5 wpm

And yet NEVER ranked number 1 once...