Where does longevity kick in for you? Rank these bowlers

[Flem274*]

The selection of some of the bowlers doesn't make sense. Why Edwards, who was clearly well behind the others?

Edwards had very solid longevity for a fast bowler but was the epitome of hot and cold, and his statistics aren't pretty. I'm interested to see how people rank him relative to players with far better statistics and far fewer caps. Gul and Martin are less extreme versions of the same.

A pure longevity argument would say Edwards provided more tests and wickets to his team than Tyson, Harris and Bond for sure and you could press into the 30 caps bracket with Bumrah etc using the same logic.

This entire thread is just me observing where everyone's personal crossover point is. I suspected it would be around the Shoaib mark with some people are making exceptions for low cap bowlers they like (which is something we see IRL with Tyson especially and currently Bumrah).

Before starting this thread I noticed the people making exceptions were supporters of the low capped player's nation who knew the value of that player to their nation, whereas longevity minded posters from overseas will insist Southee is better/greater than Bond and Lee is better/greater than Harris, which I disagree with but I want to see where people start changing from valuing career length or availability to valuing what the bowler actually sends down.

 

[srbhkshk]

Anderson > Akhtar > Kapil > Bumrah > Southee > Lee > Tyson > Harris > Siddle > Martin > Bond > Gul > Edwards.

Not going to include Procter or Cowie - there's absolutely no reasonable way you can even start pretending to compare 40 wickets with 300. If forced to include they slot in at the end of the list (ignoring their FC exploits).

Another thing to consider here is that among the various reasons for a short career (Not complete yet , Not enough opportunities , Injured all the time , Trash apart from the period he actually played) - I'll personally penalize the last two harshly, but will be okay with the first two - still won't rate such people anywhere near the main longevity folks though.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Schutz > Harris

 

[mr_mister]

For some reason to me 27 tests is a cutoff for a career long enough to be considered ATG, possibly because Barnes and O'Reilly both played that many and nobody disputes their status

 

[_00_deathscar]

For some reason to me 27 tests is a cutoff for a career long enough to be considered ATG, possibly because Barnes and O'Reilly both played that many and nobody disputes their status

I think there’s a difference in eras/tests played/opportunities/war etc vs Ryan “simply not good enough for 10 years” Harris though.

 

[mr_mister]

I think there’s a difference in eras/tests played/opportunities/war etc vs Ryan “simply not good enough for 10 years” Harris though.

Fair enough. He doesn't have the excuses they did for not playing 50+ tests

I still think it's a long enough to career to get an idea what a player can do in the test arena against multiple opponents in a home and away setting

Sid Barnes the batsmen has a similar excuse to O"Reilly but I just don't think he played enough to warrant ATG status despite the very pretty average

It's just my personal cut-off

 

[_00_deathscar]

Fair enough. He doesn't have the excuses they did for not playing 50+ tests

I still think it's a long enough to career to get an idea what a player can do in the test arena against multiple opponents in a home and away setting

Sid Barnes the batsmen has a similar excuse to O"Reilly but I just don't think he played enough to warrant ATG status despite the very pretty average

It's just my personal cut-off

Yea it can certainly be an idea, and in the case of injuries it could give you a bit more of a “what if” (ala Bond).

I think that one Cricinfo article on peaks actually used 27 tests for bowlers too - and 52 for Bradman.
Curious to dig it up and see what Mitch Johnson’s best 27 test streak was.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

For some reason to me 27 tests is a cutoff for a career long enough to be considered ATG, possibly because Barnes and O'Reilly both played that many and nobody disputes their status

Barnes is overrated. His average is inflated by his numbers against SA who were the minnows of that era. Plus pre-WW1 era of cricket was way more bowling friendly to now.

He was no Bradman of bowling.

 

[mr_mister]

I reckon for batsmen it gets even trickier because I think Headley and Pollock both played 23 and they too are often seen as undisputed ATGs

But Voges who had basically the same amount of tests and similar average is just... Clearly not in the argument. And then we start to dive into who he played against and it makes the whole concept of an arbitrary test cutoff point useless

But.. for bowlers it might work

 

[mr_mister]

Barnes is overrated. His average is inflated by his numbers against SA who were the minnows of that era. Plus pre-WW1 era of cricket was way more bowling friendly to now.

He was no Bradman of bowling.

SA were minnows yes but the batsmen were of a higher quality than the bowlers

Barnes bowled to Herbie Taylor, Faulkner and Nourse snr. So wickets against them have more value then runs against them

I feel the same way about 90s Zim and 90s SL before Murali hit his stride

 

[Flem274*]

Anderson > Akhtar > Kapil > Bumrah > Southee > Lee > Tyson > Harris > Siddle > Martin > Bond > Gul > Edwards.

Not going to include Procter or Cowie - there's absolutely no reasonable way you can even start pretending to compare 40 wickets with 300. If forced to include they slot in at the end of the list (ignoring their FC exploits).

Another thing to consider here is that among the various reasons for a short career (Not complete yet , Not enough opportunities , Injured all the time , Trash apart from the period he actually played) - I'll personally penalize the last two harshly, but will be okay with the first two - still won't rate such people anywhere near the main longevity folks though.

I really can't get behind the bolded. Bond and Martin were contemporaries in the same side, and everyone IRL knows who the better bowler was and who real selectors named first, yet you've got Tyson leading that group and somehow Bond is better than Gul (who took 80 odd more wickets) but not Marto. Bumrah and his 30 odd tests are in 4th while Harris and his 27 tests are towards the back. If that's because you've watched every test and know how valuable he is to India to rank so highly, well yes, I agree. That's the point.

I am nitpicking despite promising not to, but I'm battling to understand some of these lists tbh. I'll let you guys respond by listing my own list for if I valued longevity like the forum norm.

Anderson, Kapil, Southee, Lee, Siddle, Martin, Gul, Edwards, Shoaib, Bumrah, Harris, Tyson, Bond, Cowie, Procter.

I don't agree with what I just listed at all though. It's insane to select some of those blokes ahead of the back half. No selector IRL ever would.

Tbh I think the real debate in my head here is I'm beginning to think "historical greatness" just isn't worth much IRL beyond keeping sports social media alive.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Here it is:

How do the top players compare with Don Bradman and Sydney Barnes?

A look at the best streaks of elite batters and bowlers versus the gold standard

www.espncricinfo.com

The thing with rating Harris (unlike other players of past eras who had careers cut short due to lack of opportunity, wars etc) is that he doesn’t make any of the lists there for the “best” anything despite playing at the peak of his career and having no significant bedding in period or decline due to his unique circumstances. And those circumstances are largely of his own making.

Yes, certainly when he played he was bloody good (but not THAT good - as per the 27 test peak), but to then compare a career like that to someone who played 100+ tests, took 400+ wickets, is very disingenuous.

 

[Flem274*]

Here it is:

How do the top players compare with Don Bradman and Sydney Barnes?

A look at the best streaks of elite batters and bowlers versus the gold standard

www.espncricinfo.com

The thing with rating Harris (unlike other players of past eras who had careers cut short due to lack of opportunity, wars etc) is that he doesn’t make any of the lists there for the “best” anything despite playing at the peak of his career and having no significant bedding in period or decline due to his unique circumstances. And those circumstances are largely of his own making.

Yes, certainly when he played he was bloody good (but not THAT good - as per the 27 test peak), but to then compare a career like that to someone who played 100+ tests, took 400+ wickets, is very disingenuous.

he won tests for Australia and they did a lot of losing without him.

that's all that matters imo.

i starting to believe that how we (royal we, bringing in judges beyond cw) currently select all time sides can be reconciled with how real selectors select real teams at all.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I don't agree with what I just listed at all though. It's insane to select some of those blokes ahead of the back half. No selector IRL ever would.

Probably not, and especially initially. But if the player continues to break down every other test or isn’t as good as initially imagined when there are better options (because with a 27 test career largely only played at peak, we really really don’t know), you’ll find that selectors will default to the guys who can be consistent.

Maybe there would be leeway if the bowlers talked about were Hadlee, Imran, Steyn, but those guys aren’t.

Taking that line of thinking to its next point, when we’re selecting ATG teams, we’re selecting the good of the player with the bad.
Otherwise Mitch Johnson probably makes everyone’s team for insane few tests, and then where’s the cut off?

 

[_00_deathscar]

he won tests for Australia and they did a lot of losing without him.

that's all that matters imo.

Yes, that is all that matters. An injured player is no good to the team. Because they’ve proven time and again they wouldn’t be available when needed.

The thing is, I don’t think anyone (apart from nutters) are arguing Ryan Harris wasnt better than Kapil for a select period. It’s more that it’s very insulting to even compare them across as a career thing.

One is an actual legend of the game, the other is a what if/what could have been who wasn’t good enough for the majority of his career, and then injured a fair amount when he was.

We aren’t talking Ronaldo levels of what if here either where the guy was clearly SO good that by 22 he was in discussion for the greatest of all time.
Which is my other point - Ryan Harris was good, he wasn’t THAT good that he gets a real pass for a “what if” career the way many do for Ronaldo.

 

[srbhkshk]

I really can't get behind the bolded. Bond and Martin were contemporaries in the same side, and everyone IRL knows who the better bowler was and who real selectors named first, yet you've got Tyson leading that group and somehow Bond is better than Gul (who took 80 odd more wickets) but not Marto. Bumrah and his 30 odd tests are in 4th while Harris and his 27 tests are towards the back. If that's because you've watched every test and know how valuable he is to India to rank so highly, well yes, I agree. That's the point.

The difference between Bumrah and Harris is in the second part of my post. Same for Tyson vs Harris although it's much closer - Tyson's stats are ridic good. Bond is the lowest of the less tests guys because frankly I don't think he did anything special in tests. Gul vs Martin is pretty easy - Gul has 2/3rds the wickets and I saw him bowl in tests.

I think overall you pick your players on the basis of who will be first name on the sheet if they were all available. The longevity guys do it on the basis of how would Bond/Harris/Tyson do if they absolutely had to play 100-120 tests - they would have to massively cut down on their pace and play through huge periods of terrible form - they wouldn't average 20.

I don't particularly think of either pov as unreasonable but I prefer the second one, at the end of the day the 6th choice bowlers most teams have are going to be worse compared to both Bond and Martin - but you don't actually need to replace Martin.

 

[mr_mister]

Bond managed to keep that average in ODIs with a much bigger sample size of matches

I think if he's on the park, he's averaging low 20s

 

[_00_deathscar]

Bond managed to keep that average in ODIs with a much bigger sample size of matches

I think if he's on the park, he's averaging low 20s

Nah that’s just not right and you know it - ODIs are a different game altogether.

Starc is gun in ODIs. Not as hot in tests. Lee the same.

It’s ok to think Bond was an ODI great but had far more to prove in tests.

 

[Flem274*]

Probably not, and especially initially. But if the player continues to break down every other test or isn’t as good as initially imagined when there are better options (because with a 27 test career largely only played at peak, we really really don’t know), you’ll find that selectors will default to the guys who can be consistent.

Maybe there would be leeway if the bowlers talked about were Hadlee, Imran, Steyn, but those guys aren’t.

Taking that line of thinking to its next point, when we’re selecting ATG teams, we’re selecting the good of the player with the bad.
Otherwise Mitch Johnson probably makes everyone’s team for insane few tests, and then where’s the cut off?

This is more of an issue with the concept of selecting ATG sides (as we currently do it) than the players or selectors though. Johnson is a good example, but guys who change their roles (sometimes drastically) like McCullum are hard to rate because you can't combine the late career batting with mid career keeping to create a player who never existed. This "lessens" McCullum in an ATG exercise but it is irrelevant because his ability to reinvent himself was extremely valuable to his side IRL and they definitely benefited from it. Likewise Vettori and even true greats like Imran iirc.

Real life selectors pick their best teams and kick the can down the road for injuries almost every time. Gap fillers like Siddle, Gul and Martin serve a role when the side has a stable of injury prone quicks, but those guys are also very disposable and get binned any time the selectors feel safe to do so. Australia threw Harris in whenever they could because he was their best bowler.

Selectors play to win, and if we could dig up the ATGs in real life you'd quickly see some very different teams selected to the ones selected on here. No one is diddling about picking Chris Martin ahead of Shane Bond. The coach would be fired.

 

[_00_deathscar]

We aren’t talking Martin over Shane Bond though, that of course would be silly - we’re talking about a player like Kapil or Anderson or Southee.
And you’re judging those last 3 by their entire careers; the good and the bad, but the player you’re supposedly picking never had the chance to prove the bad (or maybe even the real good - maybe they were even better than what they showed?)