Who is the world's best Test bowler ever?

[Jamee999]

The Cricket World Cup does not exist.

The ICC Cricket World Cup, on the other hand...

 

[Neil Pickup]

Prove that the cricket world cup does not exist.

Anything non-factual...

 

[Neil Pickup]

The Cricket World Cup does not exist.

The ICC Cricket World Cup, on the other hand...

Thank you Jamee for out-pedanting.

 

[gs_86]

Prove Nathan Hauritz is a better bowler than Shane Warne

 

[BoyBrumby]

I disagree - statistical analysis can quite easily be used to "legitimise" bias, with careful selection of what tests and what weightings you used. Give me an hour or two and I could create you something "rigorous" that proved virtually anything - heck, giving "quality of wickets taken" a greater rating could quite easily whip Gilo up to the realm of all time greats.

Oh, I'm sure you're right! I won't pretend to be great with figures because I'm v demonstrably not ("C" grade Maths GCSE in 1992, mind you exams were harder back then ) but even I can see his formula is flawed. It is the sort of subject where producing a flawless formula is pretty much impossible tho I'd guess.

Puts one in mind of Disraeli's famous axiom!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Prove Nathan Hauritz is a better bowler than Shane Warne

Test Bowling Averages
Hauritz 20.60
Warne 25.03

Test Strike Rates
Hauritz 32.39
Warne 57.45

Record in India - The true Test for a spinner
Hauritz 5w @ 20.60, SR 32
Warne 34w @ 43.11, SR 81

Record after One Test - The only fair way to compare two disjoint careers
Hauritz 5w @ 20.60, SR 32
Warne 1w @ 150.00, SR 270

The evidence is staggering.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Test Bowling Averages
Hauritz 20.60
Warne 25.03

Test Strike Rates
Hauritz 32.39
Warne 57.45

Record in India - The true Test for a spinner
Hauritz 5w @ 20.60, SR 32
Warne 34w @ 43.11, SR 81

Record after One Test - The only fair way to compare two disjoint careers
Hauritz 5w @ 20.60, SR 32
Warne 1w @ 150.00, SR 270

The evidence is staggering.

Shall we merge threads?
http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=13164&highlight=Hear+Lend

 

[Top_Cat]

The evidence is staggering.

Overwhelming even!

On the 'one-Test index', Narendra Hirwani is the greatest bowler to have ever lived.

 

[luckyeddie]

Prove Nathan Hauritz is a better bowler than Shane Warne

Foot, meet shotgun

 

[Slow Love™]

Test Bowling Averages
Hauritz 20.60
Warne 25.03

Test Strike Rates
Hauritz 32.39
Warne 57.45

Record in India - The true Test for a spinner
Hauritz 5w @ 20.60, SR 32
Warne 34w @ 43.11, SR 81

Record after One Test - The only fair way to compare two disjoint careers
Hauritz 5w @ 20.60, SR 32
Warne 1w @ 150.00, SR 270

The evidence is staggering.

Haha, don't forget to return gs_86's silver platter.

There's really too much to pick on in the article's analysis. Besides the equal weightage for home and away performances, there's also the dubious "team wins" stat (Brett Lee coming out second of all bowlers present and past here should have really given him pause), and the "consistency factor", which I'm not sure tells us a whole lot of value.

It's quite possible that the guy did embark on the whole thing on good faith though. It's not a terrible effort, all things considered.

 

[gs_86]

Foot, meet shotgun

Not really, I just thought of the most ridiculous comparison I could on the spot, proving his point entirely.

Also this fits in with my view that the article posted is an absolutely steaming pile of crap posted by someone who sounds like Murali's 4 year old love child.

 

[Dasa]

Argh...thirdslip.com...the way they manipulate stats is ridiculous (even though I'm a huge fan of Murali), and the site is just plain unprofessional - several instances of players names being incorrect (Shaun Pollock being confused with Graeme Pollock??)...etc etc.

 

[Beleg]

There are so many holes in the reasoning of this article that you can fit the Roman Colosseum into them and still have space left for a couple dozen football fields.

 

[dinu23]

Ahhh....Murali is the greatest bowler. I knew it all along.

 

[a massive zebra]

Anything non-factual...

OK, prove that Asoka De Silva was a more effective Test match bowler than Shane Warne.

 

[Neil Pickup]

OK, prove that Asoka De Silva was a more effective Test match bowler than Shane Warne.

Tougher than the Hauritz one, I'll give you that.

However: Warne's highest ever bowling average was 335.00 and Asoka never managed to breach the 300 mark, so it looks to me like Asoka had more potential at a young age, and was never shown enough faith to fulfil it...

 

[a massive zebra]

Tougher than the Hauritz one, I'll give you that.

However: Warne's highest ever bowling average was 335.00 and Asoka never managed to breach the 300 mark, so it looks to me like Asoka had more potential at a young age, and was never shown enough faith to fulfil it...

Well, you did find some evidence to support this ludicrous statement, which is more than I can say for myself, but to be perfectly honest I think even you would admit that the very brief passage above is hardly 'rigorous proof' that De Silva was a more effective Test match bowler than Warne, as you claimed you would be able to find.

 

[Jamee999]

Asoka was known by 3 names.

And we ALL know that old saying "If you're known by 3 names, take 127 off your Test bowling average"

Therefore Asoka averages 2, while Warne averages, what ever Shane Warne averages. (37 or something)

 

[a massive zebra]

Asoka was known by 3 names.

And we ALL know that old saying "If you're known by 3 names, take 127 off your Test bowling average"

Therefore Asoka averages 2, while Warne averages, what ever Shane Warne averages.

 

[simmy]

Warne.