Matt79
Global Moderator
Confused me too - I thought you'd finally resorted to debating yourself after exhausting all other comers...You confused me there with my avatar and the multi-coloured sig.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
ODI bowlers: how they stand
- Thread starter Migara
- Start date
Definitely ,u would enjoy that .
It is in the table that Wasim's( taking for an example )is better in the last season or in the era of 300 scores ,how would u explain that .
That is his average in the last two years is better than his previous 16 years of ''easy life ''.His average in 2001 -2003 is 21 ,what is the probabilty that it will go down ?
By Migara's assumption ,it should ahve been 25 ,or 27
Jakester1288
International Regular
So Bond averages better than 2/40?
Matt79
Global Moderator
Sorry, don't understand the question. Can you be a bit clearer?It is in the table that Wasim's( taking for an example )is better in the last season or in the era of 300 scores ,how would u explain that .
That is his average in the last two years is better than his previous 16 years of ''easy life ''.His average in 2001 -2003 is 21 ,what is the probabilty that it will go down ?
By Migara's assumption ,it should ahve been 25 ,or 27
Economy might change a bit ,still that doesn;t mean that Average will go high as well .It can go high or low .
No ,that general argument is wrong ,as it is proved that ,not the same trend with all the bowlers ,plenty of them have better averages in the latter stages ,precisely in the batsman friendly era than in the earlier stages .Mcgrath's average was 23 in 2001 ,however got improved to 21 in the remaining years.Murli's average was 26 ,improved to 20.Then others too.
Only thing that can be ''generalised '' here is economy ,that will go higher thats it .Average and Sr can go either way .
No such generalisation is possible ,thats flawed .
Say for example how Hadlee would have done in this era ,who can assume that ? .His econmoy may go higher ,still his wicket takingabilities are similar to Mcgrath or even better .Does that prove anything ?
Last edited:
Migara
Cricketer Of The Year
That happens only with great bowlers. Ordinary bowlers will peak off and then go down. Wasim, Murali and McGrath all are legends. Don't compare tham to ordinary bowlers. Here we are comparing legends to each other.
.How? can you show with data?
That shows in his stats. He would have done mighty better than current lot. No questions about it.
Migara
Cricketer Of The Year
I have clearly show in the graph. Averages of bowlers are generally on the rise.
okay ur saying Murli and Mcgrath are better than Wasim ,fair enough.
Plus ,if u check the statistics of Mcgrath in 90s ,say from 1993-2001 ,his average was 23.6 ,Sr 35 , By ur argument Mcgrath should ahve finished with an average of 25 ,instead that got better in the last 6 years.So claiming that average would have gone up is not that clear .
As for Wasim his last three seasons was like 18.6 ,22.4,18 ...average and Sr was 30,28,29etc . so the trend was his average and Sr getting better .So how can u conclude that he will do in the next season ? His average in the twilight of his career was 21.
how his average and Sr is going to be ? That is Wasim who passed his prime .How he would have done in his prime fully fit . All the three Murli,Mcgrath ,Wasim did well since 2001 than before.
Last edited:
Not with all the bowlers .hence the ''general'' argument is wrong.Thats what i said ,Mcgrath's average before 2001 is poorer than after that .That was my argument when u consider great bowler u can't simply assume based on ''general'' trend . So what is that ? Had Mcgrath retired in 2001 ,u can only consider his average as 23.6 ,actually he improved his statistics after that.
And Murli ,his average by 2001 is 26.5 ,sr 38.7 and econmy 3.9 .what does that mean ? He should ahve gone worse by ur assumption then .Instead he got better .
Last edited:
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
Why ? some bowlers have improved their statistics contrary to the general theory .Hence.
SirBloody Idiot
Cricketer Of The Year
Possibly the worst placing of the word "hence" ever. But the fact is, as a 'general rule', bowling averages have increased over the past decade. Yes there are exceptions to the 'general rule' - that's why it is called 'general' and not 'absolute'.
I am saying that .U cannot apply a general rule to each and every one .
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Not even close
Migara
Cricketer Of The Year
All I say is MacGrath and Murali are not even mentioned when you talk about best ODI bowlers. For me, to my eyes, still Wasim is the best ODI bowler. But, I think, Murali and McGrath were equally effective. Wasim was an artist with he ball, latter two were mechanics.
Please try to understand the scope of the study. This is not to look at each bowler seperately. This is a look taken at he full pack of them. Once again, greats do not have to go with the common trend. They can withstand the trend. Why don't you take look at statsguru, and do some digging about avrage score in ODIs, as well as try to see average SR in ODIs by each year? Then you'll see the trend.
Not clear what you are talking about. I have not extrapolated anything.
Once again, I am not clear what you ae getting at.