Wasim definitely took lot of tail wickets. Not sure about Waqar.I wonder why Wasim and Waqar are so low down on the list of absolute average value of wickets despite playing in the same era as Ambrose and Walsh. Did they make hay against, on average, inferior opposition? Did they take a higher percentage of tail wickets?
Still played for almost 11 yearsWell, except that Miller had far shorter career. Nonetheless quite an excellent figure he notched up!
Did you mix up Ambrose and Walsh? Ambrose played for 12 yearsAs for, Ambrose and Walsh,
Ambrose is better by a good margin.
However, If I had to have to pick between one of Waqar, Ambrose or Walsh starting his career with India right now. I'd take Ambrose's slightly lower quality 18 years over the other bowler's decade each of awesome bowling. Walsh over Akram, who played for 18 too, because Walsh remained awesome throughout his career while Akram was for only 8-9 years.
All three bowlers are better bowlers overall though.
He meant to say Walsh instead of Ambrose in that bolded part, I'm sure. He was posting the other day about how he felt Ambrose was over-rated and Walsh under-rated.Did you mix up Ambrose and Walsh? Ambrose played for 12 years
We could do that but that would be true for lot of bowlers. Hadlee, Imran and Murali had slow starts. Donald, Marshall and Pollock had bad last few years. So it will not be accurate to do it for only one bowler IMO.Ankit,
If it's not too much trouble, I'd appriciate it if you could do this for Waqar from 1 jan 1990 to 31 dec 1994 and 1 jan 1990 to 31 dec 1999.
The latter would provide a more accurate account of Waqar as a bowler because he was a pretty average bowler for three uneccesary years after 2000 and the former is the greatest peak by a pacer ever. Thanks.
That's why he divides the average value of wickets with the bowling average, because if a bowler is getting the opportunity to take more cheaper wickets, he should be taking them at a lower price.Taking a high number of tail end wickets would bring your 'Average value of wicket' down. This may allow for a better view or indication of a certain players bowling average. However, we can't use this value of wicket to compare players can we?
For example if you take a bowler who opens the bowling only and does not bowl with the older ball much, when tail enders are present, naturally he will take more top order wickets and thus have a higher average value of wicket. But if you have someone who bowls at the tail more often, taking almost 1-2 lower order wickets per game, he will have a lower average value per wicket as compared to the previous bowler, even if both took the same number of top order wickets. You can't really use this value to compare players imo, although it does give a better indication of where all the wickets of a player came from.
Thanks for not paying full attention to the opening post :PTaking a high number of tail end wickets would bring your 'Average value of wicket' down. This may allow for a better view or indication of a certain players bowling average. However, we can't use this value of wicket to compare players can we?
For example if you take a bowler who opens the bowling only and does not bowl with the older ball much, when tail enders are present, naturally he will take more top order wickets and thus have a higher average value of wicket. But if you have someone who bowls at the tail more often, taking almost 1-2 lower order wickets per game, he will have a lower average value per wicket as compared to the previous bowler, even if both took the same number of top order wickets. You can't really use this value to compare players imo, although it does give a better indication of where all the wickets of a player came from.
That's why once you take ratio of bowling average and average value, that problem is taken care of.The real problem I have with this analysis is that it doesn't take into account the quality of the batsmen each bowler bowled to but didn't dismiss. One's bowling average is not merely a representation of one's effectiveness against batsmen one dismissed, but any batsmen one bowled to. Interesting all the same, however.
Hmm no not really.That's why once you take ratio of bowling average and average value, that problem is taken care of.
haha tldr momentThanks for not paying full attention to the opening post :P
I suspect they will do very poorly. But will do when I get chance. With all the requests I am getting, I should get paid for the workHi Ankit,
Could you do the Indian spin quartet as well? I don't know enough about them, but it'd be interesting to see how they stack up statistically.
Did you mix up Ambrose and Walsh? Ambrose played for 12 years
Nah, It was a personal request not a comparison one.We could do that but that would be true for lot of bowlers. Hadlee, Imran and Murali had slow starts. Donald, Marshall and Pollock had bad last few years. So it will not be accurate to do it for only one bowler IMO.
The less people that know about that post the better tbhI meant to say Walsh in the part you bolded. I was posting the other day about how I felt Ambrose is over-rated and Walsh, under-rated.
Here's how some of the bowlers of that era stack up:I'd be interested if you looked at the rivals of Lohmann and Barnes in their time and see how they place.
[B]Rank Bowler Wickets Bow Ave Avg value Discount Factor[/B]
1 J.J. Ferris 61 12.7 20.34 62.45%
2 Sydney Barnes 189 16.43 25.02 65.67%
3 George Lohman 112 10.75 15.92 67.53%
4 Charlie Turner 101 16.53 23.52 70.28%
5 Charlie Blythe 100 18.63 24.90 74.82%
6 Hugh Trumble 141 21.78 26.16 83.27%
7 Bobby Peel 101 16.98 19.61 86.58%
8 Fred Spofforth 94 18.41 20.01 92.00%
9 Johnny Briggs 118 17.75 17.42 101.89%
10 Wilfred Rhodes 127 26.96 26.21 102.85%
11 Monty Noble 121 25 24.13 103.62%
12 Aubrey Faulkner 82 26.58 23.02 115.49%