Can a bowler who averages 30+ be considered as greats ?

[Prince EWS]

Can a bowler who averages 30+ be *great* ?

In theory, certainly.

Firstly, as I alluded to in this thread, all averages have to be taken into the context of the time they were achieved - greatness should be measured to relative success to one's peers. It hasn't quite happened yet, but it's quite feasible to suggest could experience an era of cricket whereby averaging 30 with the ball is exceptional - the ways things are going, that might not be too far off.

Secondly, as has already been pointed out in this thread, players who are picked too early or even those who are retained too long shouldn't have it held against them. If you can sustain greatness for a long period of time you should be judged on that and not came before or after.

All that said, I don't think there are any great bowlers who average in excess of 30 as it stands. Great cricketers certainly, but great bowlers - not yet.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd call Anil Kumble a great. He actually ended up averaging a shade under 30, but you get the point.

Greatness is such a troublesome term in cricket. Completely impossible to define but with a sanctity that causes fans to get seriously cranky when it's applied to someone they don't approve of.

 

[Uppercut]

Erapalli Prasanna, perhaps? Extremely highly rated in the spinner's guild.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Firstly, like most things, there will be different interpretations of the term "great bowler".
I think the way to go about it is not to try to develop a general theory about whether any bowler who averages over 30 can be considered great but instead look at specific cricketers, taking into consideration their specific context, environment, factors etc.

So while Kumble, Botham and Kapil Dev all average close to 30, I only consider Botham and Kapil as great, but I will use the term great player rather than great bowler when talking about their acheivements. Neither of them will be in my top 5 bowlers of the 80s.
Now Kumble is just not a great bowler in my books, because for most part of his career, he was pretty toothless outside of India. And dont come back to me with stats of how many 5 wicket hauls he has outside India, because he played most his cricket at a time when I hardly missed a cricket match, so I know what I am talking about. Being part of a weak bowling side, he used to bowl majority of overs during the wicket, and would naturaly pick up wickets, not always as a result of skill and guile though.

Both Harbhajan and Brett Lee are very good bowlers, but not great. Brett Lee I felt could not use his pace to reach heights he should have.

But once again, I dont mean to suggest any theory that anyone who averages more than 30 is not great. We have to assess case by case because statistics as most of us know do not always reflect the whole story.

 

[Uppercut]

Personally I have Kumble down as a great because I think he made a difference between winning and losing/drawing in so, sooo many matches for India. Teams generally manage to bat out the draw on slow, deteriorating pitches more often than not these days (Australia just did). They're not especially easy to take wickets on. In such a scenario, I'd probably have Anil Kumble in my team ahead of anyone to ever play the game.

 

[Furball]

I've said no earlier in this thread, but then again having said that, WG Grace is one of the game's all time great batsmen, and his FC average is under 40, which on first look doesn't look like being anything special.

If there came a time in the future where batting was so aggressive/pitches were even flatter/bowling was at an all time low in terms of quality, where averaging below 40 was a challenge, and someone came along and averaged 31, he'd certainly be a great of his era.

Also, if Shakib were to take say 600 Test wickets @ 32, and during his career see Bangladesh emerge as a truly competitive Test nation, there's absolutely no way you couldn't say he wasn't a great.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Firstly, like most things, there will be different interpretations of the term "great bowler".
I think the way to go about it is not to try to develop a general theory about whether any bowler who averages over 30 can be considered great but instead look at specific cricketers, taking into consideration their specific context, environment, factors etc.

So while Kumble, Botham and Kapil Dev all average close to 30, I only consider Botham and Kapil as great, but I will use the term great player rather than great bowler when talking about their acheivements. Neither of them will be in my top 5 bowlers of the 80s.
Now Kumble is just not a great bowler in my books, because for most part of his career, he was pretty toothless outside of India. And dont come back to me with stats of how many 5 wicket hauls he has outside India, because he played most his cricket at a time when I hardly missed a cricket match, so I know what I am talking about. Being part of a weak bowling side, he used to bowl majority of overs during the wicket, and would naturaly pick up wickets, not always as a result of skill and guile though.

Both Harbhajan and Brett Lee are very good bowlers, but not great. Brett Lee I felt could not use his pace to reach heights he should have.

But once again, I dont mean to suggest any theory that anyone who averages more than 30 is not great. We have to assess case by case because statistics as most of us know do not always reflect the whole story.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion but most spinners have pretty poor records away from home. The exceptions of course are Warne and Murali and even they had their share of problems. Warne had a miserable time against India in India, and Murali's stats in Australia and India are atrocious. I am not trying to suggest that Kumble was as good as Warne was or Murali is, he definitely wasn't. But most spinners have less than impressive records outside home.

 

[wpdavid]

Agreed that the word is massively over used, so how do we define 'great' then?

 

[Furball]

IIRC Kumble also has a pretty poor record in England, particularly when you compare him to Warne and Murali.

Kumble was a terrific match winner on a wearing deck in India, however great bowlers can adapt well to (nearly) all conditions. That there's so many spinners with poor away records is just an indication that there have been very few great spinners in the history of the game.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

IIRC Kumble also has a pretty poor record in England, particularly when you compare him to Warne and Murali.

Kumble was a terrific match winner on a wearing deck in India, however great bowlers can adapt well to (nearly) all conditions. That there's so many spinners with poor away records is just an indication that there have been very few great spinners in the history of the game.

He improved vastly later in his career. He performed very well in the 2003-2004 tour to Australia. Even guys like Qadir who are considered legends have pretty abysmal stats. In fact Qadir would be a good one to illustrate the point of my post. He averages over 30 (think 33 or something) and he's still considered a great by most who saw him play.

 

[0RI0N]

I've said no earlier in this thread, but then again having said that, WG Grace is one of the game's all time great batsmen, and his FC average is under 40, which on first look doesn't look like being anything special.

If there came a time in the future where batting was so aggressive/pitches were even flatter/bowling was at an all time low in terms of quality, where averaging below 40 was a challenge, and someone came along and averaged 31, he'd certainly be a great of his era.

Also, if Shakib were to take say 600 Test wickets @ 32, and during his career see Bangladesh emerge as a truly competitive Test nation, there's absolutely no way you couldn't say he wasn't a great.

pointless arguement.will not happen.|

some people have low standards,therefore they will name any Tom ,Dick or Harry great.
I blame commentators(well the crap ones at least) from the 90s onwards.
Great shot great ball great catch great save etc.
And now with 20/20 things have gotten worse.
I would not call Kumble great.
A great = Viv Warne Murali Lara Marshall SRT Ponting Sobers Hammond Ambrose Hadlee Imran McGrath Sunil amongst others. Out of a pool of very good players,select another group.Those will be the great players.
A kind of 'Greatest of the Greats'.

Or maybe my standard of judgement is too high...

 

[MrIncredible]

IMHo with very few exceptions from a stats POV:

Great Fast bowlers

a. average around 25 or less
b. SR 55 or under
c. wpm around 4 per match
d. econ under 4 rpo
e. atleast one 10 for not to mention a few 5 fors

Great Spinners
a. average under 30
b. SR under 70
c. Wpm of around 3.5
d. econ around 3.5
e. same as fast men

With a few other intangibles (record home/away, supporting cast, era, etc) these are what i look at from a stats pov when considering great bowlers.

 

[AaronK]

Yes, selectors should pick teams based on career averages, good point

Jimmeh's average around the 30 mark over the past few seasons, generally this is accepted as a time when he has improved hugely. But whatever, let's drop him now based on his average being high from the past.

Don't even know why I bother responding to this stuff, irks me when people say a player should be dropped because of their average even though they've been steadily improving it!

I suppose we should have dropped Flintoff in 2005 as well? After all, he averaged over 30 with the ball and well under 40 with the bat.

He is a good ODI bowler lets keep him there

yes but he has averaged almost 35 for the last couple of years just like his career average.... makes it hard to believe he is improving and validity of ur argument for that matter

 

[Uppercut]

IIRC Kumble also has a pretty poor record in England, particularly when you compare him to Warne and Murali.

Kumble was a terrific match winner on a wearing deck in India, however great bowlers can adapt well to (nearly) all conditions. That there's so many spinners with poor away records is just an indication that there have been very few great spinners in the history of the game.

Yeah, I know. It all comes down to how subjective greatness is. Some would say that being able to perform overseas is crucial, I would say it's desirable but not essential.

There's two points about Kumble that swing it for me. The first is that, in a specific set of circumstances- a slow but deteriorating subcontinental pitch and an opposing side trying to bat out the draw- he's quite possibly the greatest player ever to play the game. The second is the absolutely vast number of matches he made the difference for India in. When someone uses the term, "match-winner", I think of Kumble.

 

[GIMH]

He is a good ODI bowler lets keep him there

yes but he has averaged almost 35 for the last couple of years just like his career average.... makes it hard to believe he is improving and validity of ur argument for that matter

He averages 31ish over the last two years, so that pretty much ends your argument, thanks

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Of course they can. Statistics don't tell everything....

 

[GIMH]

Of course they can. Statistics don't tell everything....

Yeah, this is my answer to the question as well

 

[AaronK]

He averages 31ish over the last two years, so that pretty much ends your argument, thanks

still not great.. but average..

i like anderson though

 

[GIMH]

It's not great and I never said it was. He's been dragging his average down though, which is what I said.

Jimmeh rules though, who gives a **** what his average is he's sxy

 

[Jarquis]

Swanneh. Jimmeh. Swanneh.



Can't wait for the SA Tests (even if I don't have SS )