• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Is Bumrah the best cricketer India has ever produced?

Is jasprit bumrah the best cricketer india has ever produced?


  • Total voters
    25

ma1978

International Debutant
I mean it does when you basically ignore bowlers and their influence over the game. Or decide to ignore context here and there just to pretend that one great cricketer isn't in the same class as another.

I have a lot of love for Dravid, but he is in no way on a separate tier.
when Ashwin plays 150 tests, I will comfortably say he’s at the same tier as Dravid. It’s not a bowler / batter thing, it’s a volume of output thing
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
when Ashwin plays 150 tests, I will comfortably say he’s at the same tier as Dravid. It’s not a bowler / batter thing, it’s a volume of output thing
Lol, bowlers will almost never ( besides Anderson ), have that many matches over a career.

So it does become a bowler/ batter thing, by default.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Nah. The can be as valuable, but they aren't the most valuable.

They're inherently inconsistent and need more support to win a match compared to a bowler.
 

Xix2565

International Regular
when Ashwin plays 150 tests, I will comfortably say he’s at the same tier as Dravid. It’s not a bowler / batter thing, it’s a volume of output thing
So you would say all of Marshall/Steyn/Ambrose are worse than Dravid then?
 

Xix2565

International Regular
lame argument, they are all better than Ashwin
Given that it's not been addressed, there's no point in calling it lame.
Bowlers take wickets based off the batting they face though. Can't take many if the batting is too good.
Again, failing to understand the basic advantages bowlers have in general with every ball bowled is not a good place to start from. You might as well say you don't understand how 1+1 = 2.
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
Given that it's not been addressed, there's no point in calling it lame.

Again, failing to understand the basic advantages bowlers have in general with every ball bowled is not a good place to start from. You might as well say you don't understand how 1+1 = 2.
This is highly offensive, not because you are insinuating I don't know basic math (I don't), but because an ignoramus feels superior to me.
 

Xix2565

International Regular
This is highly offensive, not because you are insinuating I don't know basic math (I don't), but because an ignoramus feels superior to me.
I mean you did take a valid point and try to mock it without thinking about it. Is there going to be value in discussion, or is this just another way to snipe at each other?
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
I mean you did take a valid point and try to mock it without thinking about it. Is there going to be value in discussion, or is this just another way to snipe at each other?
I was less trying to mock and more trying to show the flip side. To win a test you must end the opposition's innings twice (why bowlers matter) while having scored more runs (why batsmen matter).
I tend to rate bowlers as more valuable too, but I also see that it is not because they win the matches alone.
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
4-6 bowlers vs not quite 11 batsmen. One side of the equation is always a bit unbalanced.
This might hold up if you could remove a bowler from the innings, not to return, if you hit him for 6 or something.
Oddly, 4 to 6 bowlers bowl the same number of balls that batsmen face.
You could say bowlers have it easy because they can just play with their top order. Imagine if all 11 had to bowl!
 

reyrey

U19 Captain
Ball to ball, over to over, session to session bowlers are more valuable, but the further you go out from this, so innings to innings, game to game, series to series the value difference between bowlers and batsmen becomes more equal.
 

ma1978

International Debutant
If you ask any slightly above average, average or below average team in cricket history what they would prefer - a top batsman or a top bowler, they would say a top batsman.
 

Arachnodouche

International Captain
I think I'm just reiterating Victor Ian, but 20 wickets a game to win is a cliche I never quite understood. Sure, ok, technically it is true - well, not if you run into a team like England happy to declare prematurely and let you chase down a score - but 20 wkts in a game won't do you any good if your batsmen can't outscore the opposition by >= 1. You can take fewer wickets and still win but you can never score fewer runs to win a game of cricket.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with the statement that bowlers are inherently more valuable to a team. The nature of the game implies a bowler can fail repeatedly over the course of a spell in terms of executing his skills and still only require the one decent delivery to get rid of the batsman. Whereas odds are a batsman has to be extraordinarily lucky and/or named Travis Head to survive making repeated bad decisions, hence making a technically solid batsman who minimizes errors an extremely valuable asset in his own right, as much if not more so than a bowler.
 

Top