The primary job a bowler is to take wickets. Bowling strike rates are very important in Tests. A bowler with a low strike rate allows his team more time and a greater opportunity for a win.
-
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.
The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
From Sanga's perspective it is so normal to think this way.
He would have grown up aspiring to be as good as Aravinda. Joins the team becomes the best bat but is humble enough to say the guy he aspired to be like is still the best BECAUSE he is too humble to say he is better but he knows the guys he played with werent as good as him (sanga).
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
Sulieman Benn has a better Test strike rate than Lance Gibbs, yet nobody in their right mind could possibly claim Benn is better. SR is a dud measure because it sells bowlers short who focus on building pressure by shutting down the scoring.
Most idiotic comparison.
One guy took 300+ wickets. Another took 80 odd wickets. And they played 50 years apart.
I would give more preference to Player A with an average of 22 and SR of 42 over Player B with an average of 20 and SR of 55 if they are considered almost equal in every other way. This is just my opinion.
One guy took 300+ wickets. Another took 80 odd wickets. And they played 50 years apart.
I would give more preference to Player A with an average of 22 and SR of 42 over Player B with an average of 20 and SR of 55 if they are considered almost equal in every other way. This is just my opinion.
Last edited:
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
Back in the Caribbean once again, the fast bowler with the best strike rate in WI Test history (45.6) is also probably the worst they have ever played.
It's just an inherently flawed way of rating players, produces a distorted picture that heavily counts against those renowned for their parsimony
It's just an inherently flawed way of rating players, produces a distorted picture that heavily counts against those renowned for their parsimony
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Strike rate isn't why Steyn is way better than philander anyway, it's because he picked up twice as many wickets, had many more key performances away from home, picked up way more wickets per match because he was more threatening with the old ball, etc. To say philander has "better stats" than him just because he averaged slightly more is laughable. Average obsession while ignoring every other stat is just stupid.
Bowling average is the best parameter to compare bowlers, ceteris paribus, as it is the product of economy rate and strike rate.
re Steyn's strike rate, there is a huge disparity in his general strike rate and strike rate against the top 7 bats. i.e, his general SR is a bit misleading due to the large proportion of tailender wickets he has bagged.
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah I think that's a mindbogglingly dim way of thinking.
Which bowler I would prefer in that scenario would depend almost entirely on the balance of the rest of the attack. Need a good mixture of shock and stock
If you managed to read my post, I said if there are two bowlers who are almost equal, I would prefer the wicket taking bowler.
A wicket taking bowler is always better. Simple as that.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Would you honestly take Ambrose from 96-2000 who had a better economy rate but was getting fewer than 4 wickets per match over 90-95 Ambrose who had slightly worse economy but was far more destructive?
Strike rate differences of around 5-6 doesn't necessarily tell us anything important, but a higher strike rate while bowling a similar number of overs generally leads to you picking up more wickets per game. Parsimony is less valuable.
ataraxia
International Coach
Terrible post by me originally but now you're using Steyn's contemporaries relative incompetency against Marshall? Steyn has arguably got better stats (yes, I will abide by PEWS' signature now) than Marshall but that does not mean it is a flat-out certainty that they are around or at least equals, as you often seem to suggest.
Last edited:
Steyn’s strike rate isn’t the only thing that sets him apart. It is a huge bonus.
Steyn’s greatness is due to numerous reasons. His extraordinary performances in Asia. Able to win matches single handedly even on dead pitches. Being the only great fast bowler when fast bowling was at an all time low etc
Steyn’s greatness is due to numerous reasons. His extraordinary performances in Asia. Able to win matches single handedly even on dead pitches. Being the only great fast bowler when fast bowling was at an all time low etc
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
If by simple you mean simplistic, then I agree. Because that's exactly what your argument is.
There is always more context and nuance to things, thats what makes cricket (or pretty much any sport for that matter) so interesting
For almost a decade, Steyn was the only ATG fast bowler. That means a lot. He was so ****ing good and light years ahead of his peers he was compared with yesteryear legends.
It is the reverse Viv Richards scenario. Viv being light years ahead of his peers in ODIs was a HUGE reason why Viv is rated so highly. It is foolish if someone says Amla or Root are better than Viv because their stats are similar.
I thought you will remember for taking 5-fer in both innings and Australia losing it’s first home series in more than 16 years.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
When was that? As I don't remember
