King_Ponting said:
How so? He averages more than 5 wickets a game and could bowl nearly every delivery....
Look...we are talking creme de la creme here. Every single of those bowlers that i've named could bowl every single delivery in the book.
And dont you argue that Warne is better than Murali, despite the fact that Murali averages almost SIX wickets a game, which is much more than Warne's 'almost 5 wickets/game' ratio ?
As always, a proper analysis isnt one that focuses on one particular aspect but looks at the sum total picture. For by your logic, one can say that Gayle is a better batsman than Dravid, because he has a triple ton, while Dravid doesnt.
This is to serve as an example, how one particular aspect is not the guaging parameter but the net sum total.
Yeah, Lillee has over 5 wickets/match and obviously, thats one of his strong points.
I dont know how you evaluate pace bowlers, but i evaluate them by the following guage for test cricket:
1. Overall performance( performance defined as wicket/innings ratio, # of wickets, average, strike rate,5wkts and 10fers)
2. Performance away from home
3. Performance against the best batting lineup of their time(if they happen to be in the best batting lineup, then performance against next-best)
4. A decay factor for past players.....further back in time you are from the modern era(late 1950s to current),more penalty
5. Performance in various continents
6. Consistency
7. Performance in the subcontinent
8. Performance outside the subcontinent(i rate this lower than #7, since pace bowling in the subcontinent needs certain adaptation and thinking)
9. Quality of support from the bowling attack
According to my rating system, the abovementioned 10 come ahead of Lillee- he rates lower than those bowlers cumulatively and empirically in most of the abovementioned category.
