Jasprit Bumrah vs Malcolm Marshall

[sayon basak]

I don't know I have to look up what Tony Lock did. But Imran at top among post war bowlers, Smith second only to Bradman, Viv Richards very high, Tendulkar not that high etc. all checks out with what we know of their career trajectories.

These are peak ratings, mind. Not their career ratings (just in case there's confusion about that)

Yeah because the career (I think you mean average) ratings are far worse.

 

[Coronis]

I don't know I have to look up what Tony Lock did. But Imran at top among post war bowlers, Smith second only to Bradman, Viv Richards very high, Tendulkar not that high etc. all checks out with what we know of their career trajectories.

These are peak ratings, mind. Not their career ratings (just in case there's confusion about that)

Was a nice run from Lock.

Final test vs Windies in 1957 - 5/28, 6/20 - 762 (+138)
First test vs NZ in 1958 - 0/0, 3/25 - 774 (+12)
Second test vs NZ in 1958 - 5/17, 4/12 - 851 (+77)
Third test vs NZ in 1958 - 4/14, 7/58 - 895 (+44)
Fourth test vs NZ in 1958 - 1/61, 7/35 - 912 (+17)
Fifth test vs NZ in 1958 - 2/19, 1/20 - 912 (+0)

(both home series)

Mostly against NZ ofc. Great series tho. England won 4-0 Lock took 34 @ 7.47 Other English bowlers were also great, averaging under 20 but none took more than 17 wickets (Laker)

 

[sayon basak]

Tony Lock especially seems very out of place to me. He even at his best was largely useless away, whereas for home record it's almost impossible to argue against Laker circa Ashes 56 to be below him.

Plus he copied your bowling style.

 

[Bolo.]

Unless there is anyone who rivals Tendulkar and played for 24 years, it's irrelevant. If all hisn rivals played 22 or less years then Tendulkar's last 2 years and 23 tests are irrelevant to where you rank him.

Na. Sachin is unequivocally the best modern bat for me, and most of the reason why is because of how long he was good for, but there is no way I'm giving him a pass for being turd at the end. He was hurting the team by playing.

 

[subshakerz]

Still no way unquestionably better than Hobbs

I reckon on this board he would be seen that way. They are swayed by raw averages and ending on such a glorious note would make his case very persuasive.

 

[sayon basak]

I think these ratings are not as obsessive about home/away (although they do reward away performances a bit from what I recall reading long ago). And I like it.

I suggest you to request @Days of Grace to update his rankings. His ratings were lightyears better than ICC ratings, and arguably the best among the ones that I know of.

 

[Johan]

Hobbs the GOAT bar Bradman

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think these ratings are not as obsessive about home/away (although they do reward away performances a bit from what I recall reading long ago). And I like it.

Just checked, he got the ratings off of a home series in '58, taking 34 wickets in 5 matches @7.41, against New Zealand...... That NZ was way too poor even by NZ standards. Not a single English bowler averaged even 20, not even one. There are 3 Kiwi players with 16+ career averages, Reid and Sutcliffe (who both averaged under 15 in that series) and literally Tony MacGibbon (who top scored). That's the kind of **** that makes me susceptible to these rankings, they don't take opposition enough into account.

 

[sayon basak]

Just checked, he got the ratings off of a home series in '58, taking 34 wickets in 5 matches @7.41, against New Zealand...... That NZ was way too poor even by NZ standards. Not a single English bowler averaged even 20, not even one. There are 3 Kiwi players with 16+ career averages, Reid and Sutcliffe (who both averaged under 15 in that series) and literally Tony MacGibbon (who top scored). That's the kind of **** that makes me susceptible to these rankings, they don't take opposition enough into account.

How far are you with the "scientific method" that you were working on?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Was a nice run from Lock.

Final test vs Windies in 1957 - 5/28, 6/20 - 762 (+138)
First test vs NZ in 1958 - 0/0, 3/25 - 774 (+12)
Second test vs NZ in 1958 - 5/17, 4/12 - 851 (+77)
Third test vs NZ in 1958 - 4/14, 7/58 - 895 (+44)
Fourth test vs NZ in 1958 - 1/61, 7/35 - 912 (+17)
Fifth test vs NZ in 1958 - 2/19, 1/20 - 912 (+0)

(both home series)

Mostly against NZ ofc. Great series tho. England won 4-0 Lock took 34 @ 7.47 Other English bowlers were also great, averaging under 20 but none took more than 17 wickets (Laker)

That NZ was below minnow level though.

 

[capt_Luffy]

How far are you with the "scientific method" that you were working on?

Not looking great frankly, too many variables influencing to different extents.

 

[sayon basak]

Not looking great frankly, too many variables influencing to different extents.

Like mine?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Like mine?

Like yours

 

[Johan]

Just checked, he got the ratings off of a home series in '58, taking 34 wickets in 5 matches @7.41, against New Zealand...... That NZ was way too poor even by NZ standards. Not a single English bowler averaged even 20, not even one. There are 3 Kiwi players with 16+ career averages, Reid and Sutcliffe (who both averaged under 15 in that series) and literally Tony MacGibbon (who top scored). That's the kind of **** that makes me susceptible to these rankings, they don't take opposition enough into account.

The **** do you mean even by NZ standards bro

 

[capt_Luffy]

The **** do you mean even by NZ standards bro

I meant by pre Hadlee NZ standards ofcourse. Don't come after me @Fuller Pilch, please......

 

[ma1978]

No in anyone's eyes. Retiring with a 57 average and as no.1 bat in the world on top of his reputation sort of does that.

Whereas 23 tests of decline is a fair bit.

who Gaf after 177 tests

You are clueless

 

[ma1978]

Tendulkar is still the best after Bradman but it's counterintuitive to say that 23 continuous tests of non-performance has zero effect on rating him. Without that it's basically just his prodigy phase and sublime batting prime.

this would be correct if it was Virat Kohli and the decline phase started after 81 tests
it’s utterly irrelevant after 177 tests of greatness.

 

[ankitj]

Just checked, he got the ratings off of a home series in '58, taking 34 wickets in 5 matches @7.41, against New Zealand...... That NZ was way too poor even by NZ standards. Not a single English bowler averaged even 20, not even one. There are 3 Kiwi players with 16+ career averages, Reid and Sutcliffe (who both averaged under 15 in that series) and literally Tony MacGibbon (who top scored). That's the kind of **** that makes me susceptible to these rankings, they don't take opposition enough into account.

Edit: I don't see that rating as particularly underserved. Disingenous to think that series alone earned him that rating. He did very well against West Indies, South Africa and Australia in previous 3 series.

 

[ankitj]

Was a nice run from Lock.

Final test vs Windies in 1957 - 5/28, 6/20 - 762 (+138)
First test vs NZ in 1958 - 0/0, 3/25 - 774 (+12)
Second test vs NZ in 1958 - 5/17, 4/12 - 851 (+77)
Third test vs NZ in 1958 - 4/14, 7/58 - 895 (+44)
Fourth test vs NZ in 1958 - 1/61, 7/35 - 912 (+17)
Fifth test vs NZ in 1958 - 2/19, 1/20 - 912 (+0)

(both home series)

Mostly against NZ ofc. Great series tho. England won 4-0 Lock took 34 @ 7.47 Other English bowlers were also great, averaging under 20 but none took more than 17 wickets (Laker)

I'm guessing he gets a big boost from one of his poor series (England in West Indies 1954 when he averaged 51) falling out of the window caused a big boost. So it's not just the NZ series but previous 3 series too where he posted impressive numbers that contributed handsomely to that bump. Don't see why it would be considered an underserved rating.

 

[subshakerz]

this would be correct if it was Virat Kohli and the decline phase started after 81 tests
it’s utterly irrelevant after 177 tests of greatness.

It's not as relevant as Kohli but it's not totally irrelevant. It's still 10 percent of Tendulkar's career.

Tendulkar is still my.no.2...