He's only played 23 tests, his sample size is far to small to judge him on pure statistics. He is not a sub 25 bowler in this era, he is definitely not a sub 20 bowler and his average is misleading at this stage.The cringe in this post is incredible. Don't know whether to start, really - should I go after the "someone isn't actually good enough to average <20 ---> averages 35!" (and 35 is bloody awful ftr) or the "oh, he might get smashed in Asia which nullifies EVERYTHING" or the "oh he's only performed against bad batting lineups"?
Look, he's probably not as good as Steyn. He's probably not as good as Harris either. But the bloke is peerless in modern cricket in his ability to make the batsman play the damn ball, which coupled with even the slightest bit of assistance in the pitch makes him a constant threat if not the wrecking ball that his new-ball partner is. And that's fine, Steyn might well be in the top five bowlers of all time and to say that "not as good as Steyn" automatically implies that he'll be awful from now on is rank stupid.
I agree he's better than them as a bowler however it is still possible he could have a form slump for a few matches maybe 20 odd @ their career averages. If Steyn got injured he'd be half the bowler he is now, or if he toured India or Sri Lanka while playing Sanga and Jaya he would average more than he did against OZ (50+).. If he can go 20 matches less than 20, why can't he go at 35 for the next 20. It took 1 bad series to go from 18 to 20, he could be averaging 25 in the next two years, if he doesn't play the kiwi's any time soon.as a bowler he's miles better than Sobers, Chris Martin or Zaheer Khan.
He's about on peer with Mohammad Asif, who averaged about 24.
I can see how you could come to that conclusion but no that's not what I am saying. The bloke bowled 6 overs in a series deciding innings and was too scared to bowl any more for fear of hurting his average. He cowered behind a rookie and he was meant to be leading the attack after the real leader got injured.So basically what you've decided there is that a priori he should average x, and he doesn't, and therefore because there's no way your initial assertion could be wrong, he will automatically average a hell of a lot more so it "evens out".
k then.
The vast majority of posts in this thread are ridiculous. You have no idea what goes on in team meetings and changing rooms about batting tactics etc that could have made a player play the way they did in a certain game.
[/endforum]
I'm vaguely curious as to why people care so much about a bowler's average anyway. Personally, raw average isn't really an important metric at all in determining how I rate a bowler.I love the idea that you can say "x player" is not a "y average" bowler despite the fact that they are averaging that number (or lower) and have done so for their whole career. Literally no concrete evidence suggests someone like Philander is a worse bowler than what he's done up until now, yet plenty of evidence shows exactly why he averages what he does.
Yeah I'm in the same boat I think. IMO a good average is generally a result of other things. You're not a good bowler because you have a good average, you're a good bowler because you get blokes out by bowling well.I'm vaguely curious as to why people care so much about a bowler's average anyway. Personally, raw average isn't really an important metric at all in determining how I rate a bowler.
I wonder what genius came up with the plan to bowl big Vern for 6 overs in that 2nd innings. They didn't even give him the new ball, I can only assume he was injured or claiming injury.Actual cricketer shakes fist at CW and demands hard evidence....echoes of 2009 from BFP.
Some may not rate individuals at all but rate teams seeing as how the rest of the team affects a bowler's performance so much. Personally I rate bowlers by the quality of their moustache but that's just me.Why not and what do you rate instead?
I do agree with you in a way, but when people want real evidence they tend to look at those numbers. Raw average isn't important in the short term but it becomes more important over time.I'm vaguely curious as to why people care so much about a bowler's average anyway. Personally, raw average isn't really an important metric at all in determining how I rate a bowler.
Dunno, probably the same way lots of people said that Bresnan wasn't a mid-20s averaging bowler when he was going well.I love the idea that you can say "x player" is not a "y average" bowler despite the fact that they are averaging that number (or lower) and have done so for their whole career. Literally no concrete evidence suggests someone like Philander is a worse bowler than what he's done up until now, yet plenty of evidence shows exactly why he averages what he does.
I agree, and now he has taken some punishment for the first time in his short career I am interested to see how he responds.Dunno, probably the same way lots of people said that Bresnan wasn't a mid-20s averaging bowler when he was going well.
People are going a bit far the other way, but there are some fair questions to be asking about Philander.
Yeah fair point but with Bresnan people were using their eyes too and saying they didn't think the way he operated and the way he got those wickets at 20ish was actually a reflection of a guy who was going to average in the 20s long term.Dunno, probably the same way lots of people said that Bresnan wasn't a mid-20s averaging bowler when he was going well.
People are going a bit far the other way, but there are some fair questions to be asking about Philander.
Bresnan isn't really comparable, he averaged 34 or so in FC. Philander averages 18 or something stupid.Dunno, probably the same way lots of people said that Bresnan wasn't a mid-20s averaging bowler when he was going well.
People are going a bit far the other way, but there are some fair questions to be asking about Philander.