10% of someone’s career is different after they’ve played 177 tests than for someone who has played 120 test.
the 23 tests are irrelevant for someone who already had a career longer than any other test batsman
-
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.
Jasprit Bumrah vs Malcolm Marshall
- Thread starter Darkshadows
- Start date
the 23 tests are irrelevant for someone who already had a career longer than any other test batsman
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I think you are confusing contextualising a portion of someone's career versus simply ignoring it.
It's not like Tendulkar was playing injured or was a teen. Poor form isn't an excuse. So that portion counts and yeah it lessens his record somewhat. We can't pretend he didn't have poor tours of Eng and Aus in 2011 or that him not performing wasn't one reason for India losing at home in 2012.
DrWolverine
State Vice-Captain
Muralitharan took 30 5-Fers in just 4 years.
For comparison McGrath took 29 5-Fers
1998 : 7
2000 : 7
2001 : 7
2006 : 9
For comparison McGrath took 29 5-Fers
1998 : 7
2000 : 7
2001 : 7
2006 : 9
Last edited:
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I posted this before. It's sad for Bumrah but realistically if his body breaks down at 150 overs and he can't sustain a five test load that the others regularly did, we shouldn't be rating him with the top end ATG pacers even if he ends up with stellar comparable numbers at the end of the day.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
< Hoggard
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Can't rate him ahead of Pollock, Waqar, Holding.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Think I might because those guys were never considered the consensus best in the world.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah but if Bumrah retired today, that's a seven year career of which he missed some tests. Quite short for me.
The reason longevity has to be taken into account is there are two many cases of seemingly top shelf players having careers of halves in which they fall well below worldclass level. It's kind of the necessary challenge for cricketers to maintain that standard.
Sliferxxxx
School Boy/Girl Captain
Probably top 20. Can't be top ten on that sample size in the modern game. Plus, you generally want your premier bowler to be able to make it through a long series.
DrWolverine
State Vice-Captain
If we are picking an all time eleven, we are assuming the best versions of the cricketers and no one is going to pick Anderson or Broad ahead of him.
DrWolverine
State Vice-Captain
Bumrah will be regarded as someone who was the best bowler of his generation but couldn’t accomplish more because of his body.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
No we assume their overall record, not peak versions.
DrWolverine
State Vice-Captain
What is the minimum amount of wickets Jasprit Bumrah has to take to be considered an all time great? For me 300 wickets
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
250ish works for me
DrWolverine
State Vice-Captain
29 fast bowlers have taken 300+ wickets
Those who have done it at an average of <25
Those who have taken it at an average of 25+
Those who have done it at an average of <25
Those who have taken it at an average of 25+
DrWolverine
State Vice-Captain
I am not rating Bumrah below anyone in the second list even if he retires today.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Exactly.