Would you trade Bradman for these cricketers?

[Coronis]

They have the same SR. Holding was more capable of destruction when on song and especially if the pitch was flat. He may give more runs though.

.1 advantage for Garner. Wonder how many overs that would take to equate to a 1 wicket advantage.

 

[Coronis]

Lee wasn't more destructive than Gillespie but anyways nor was Starc notably moreso than Hazelwood.

lol.
Lee - 14 4’fers and 10 5’fers in 76 matches (150 innings) Gillespie - 8 4’fers and 8 5’fers in 71 matches (137 innings)
Starc - 20 4’fers, 15 5’fers and 2 10’fers in 96 matches (184 innings) Hazlewood - 11 4’fers 12 5’fers in 72 matches (135 innings)

 

[subshakerz]

lol.
Lee - 14 4’fers and 10 5’fers in 76 matches (150 innings) Gillespie - 8 4’fers and 8 5’fers in 71 matches (137 innings)
Starc - 20 4’fers, 15 5’fers and 2 10’fers in 96 matches (184 innings) Hazlewood - 11 4’fers 12 5’fers in 72 matches (135 innings)

Fair enough was wrong on Gillespie. Not really on Starc and Hazelwood though.

 

[shortpitched713]

Shoaib Akhtar in the bodyline series or even in the era when there was no protective equipment would have been very dangerous

No ****

 

[shortpitched713]

150 at times. Definitely over 145 unquestionably, some odd balls would probably have been over 150. Nobody bowled 155+ except Thommo.

Except for all the other people documented to bowl over 155+ , lol

 

[Coronis]

Except for all the other people documented to bowl over 155+ , lol

I’m pretty sure he meant in the past, not including more modern guys.

Fair enough was wrong on Gillespie. Not really on Starc and Hazelwood though.

I mean yes, in just 24 more matches (or 49 more innings) he’s taken 2 10’fers to zero, and taken 4+ wickets 35 times compared to 23 times.

 

[Thala_0710]

I’m pretty sure he meant in the past, not including more modern guys.


I mean yes, in just 24 more matches (or 49 more innings) he’s taken 2 10’fers to zero, and taken 4+ wickets 35 times compared to 23 times.

This while having a SR diffrence of 10% (4.59)

 

[subshakerz]

I’m pretty sure he meant in the past, not including more modern guys.


I mean yes, in just 24 more matches (or 49 more innings) he’s taken 2 10’fers to zero, and taken 4+ wickets 35 times compared to 23 times.

Ok but 5fers isn't so different neither did either of them take a 7fer. Neither particularly destructive.

Anyways, it doesn't matter as much because they are in different tiers as bowlers.

 

[sayon basak]

.1 advantage for Garner. Wonder how many overs that would take to equate to a 1 wicket advantage.

Approximately 5523 overs. Both didn't bowl that many overs combined in their whole career.

 

[Coronis]

Approximately 5523 overs. Both didn't bowl that many overs combined in their whole career.

Lazy bastards

 

[Migara]

1. I believe there is a higher chance to be a statistical outlier in the “olden days” compared to be an outlier today

2. That being said if we are going to reduce Don’s average, we have to apply the same reasoning to Hobbs, Sutcliffe & Hammond.

Not necessarily. Why do we have to assume the reduction is linearly applied?

 

[Migara]

Holding with bodyline would probably kill a couple

That is entirely in hands of Croft or Patterson

 

[sayon basak]

Not necessarily. Why do we have to assume the reduction is linearly applied?

Then how should it be applied? Exponentially? Logarithmically?

 

[Migara]

Then how should it be applied? Exponentially? Logarithmically?

Should it be applied in first place?