I need to understand why people rate Akram ahead of Ambrose?
Kindly enlighten me.
Hutton* | Hobbs | Bradman | Richards^ | Tendulkar | Sobers5^ | Gilchrist+ | Khan3 | Marshall1 | Warne4^ | McGrath2
Sutcliffe | Gavaskar* | Headley | Chappell^ | Lara^ | Kallis5^ | Knott+ | Hadlee3 | Ambrose2 | Lillee1 | Muralitharan4
Greenidge | Richards^ | Ponting^ | Pollock | Hammond^ | Worrell5* | Waite+ | Akram3 | Steyn1 | Holding2 | O'Reilly4
Morris | Simpson^ | Sangakkara | Weekes^ | Border*^ | Walcott+ | Faulkner5 | Laker4 | Trueman1 | Garner3 | Donald2
- As featured in The Independent.
"Even when England lost 5-0 in 2006-07 I don't remember them folding like this. This is as bad as I have seen from an England side."
- Mick Vaughan on the 2013/14 tourists' efforts
Nein. Es ist nicht!Wickets per match is really such a poor measure beyond a certain point.
It's a fantastic criterion! I'd take a person who averages 26 per wicket and took five wickets per Test, than a person who averaged 20 and took four wickets per Test.
Look at Dennis Lillee. He got wickets faster than Glenn McGrath, and only bled 2 or three extra runs per wicket. How many Tests did Australia play in Lillee's day that were decided by less than 15 runs? Not many... I recall the famous Test where Thompson was caught in slips and Alan Border was batting with him, etc.
What's two or three extra runs compared to getting Viv Richards out with the last ball in the day.
I don't think you understand how bowling works...
Let me give you a hint. Glenn McGrath would have had a much higher wickets-per-match ratio if he played for England than us. And it's not because he would have been a better bowler.
You are literally picking the worse bowler just because they happened to play in a ****tier team. Have fun winning Tests like that.
+ time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +
get ready for a broken ****in' arm
Eh it's debatable...
I'm sure Murali would have less wickets had he played for Australia. But as the argument always does, would McGrath have taken as many wickets if not for Warne.
Would all the West Indies quartet have averages in the low 20s if they didn't have each other?
It's hard to say sometimes.
At the end of the day, the better cricketer is the one that wins you the Test! Kumble did that.
And besides, no pace bowler could bowl for as long as Kumble...
Wickets per match is more determined by the quality of your team mates, Murali and Hadlee basically sometimes bowled all day and often also had the run of the tail as well. Marshall, Mcgrath.had to share the spoils and bowled less overs and there was Warne, Garner ect clean up the tail (along with top/middle order players as well of course)
There is a lot to like about Kumble
- Great stamina, sustained pressure for long periods of time
- Tremendous fighter - never gave up.
- Bowlers like Kumble can be the difference between winning on the fifth day and
letting the opposition escape with a Draw.
After 2000, India had a lot of Great Batsmen, so the loss of one batsman was no great issue.
But India had no one who could replace Kumble,
in many ways Kumble was the most valuable player for India.
But if Kumble had played for a side with better bowlers, he would of bowled a
lot less overs.
I don't think Francis is making a generic statement about the game insofar as wickets-per-match being the best or ultimate stat representing a bowler's worth, so I do kinda agree with him in this thread re Kumble.
I do believe he was probably better than his figures showed at times and when India scored a lot of runs, it really wasn't a matter of needing an ultra-cheap/fast bowler...India just needed someone to kill the game off in a respectable amount of time and get all the wickets to end the match. Kumble did that very well and was a matchwinner for them.
I think there'll sooner be another Bradman than another Warne. - Gidgeon Haigh
[Warne is] the greatest bowler ever produced in this entire world - Muttiah Muralidaran
[Warne is] the greatest bowler of all time - Glenn McGrath
In my opinion Shane Warne is the greatest cricketer who's ever lived - Ian Botham
Warne is the greatest cricketer to pick up a ball ever.
And is the greatest bowler I have ever laid eyes on. - Brian Lara
I only bother with WPM comparisons when someone has an unusually high or low stat for it. If they do have a very low/high value (anything below 3.5 or above 4.5) I look to see if there is an obvious explanation for it (such as they were the only classy bowler in their side). It's only when there is no obvious explanation (ala Steyn/Lillee or Miller in the reverse) that I start to consider the stat as important to the way I rate a player.
Kumble had minimal backup for most of his career. His WPM figure was higher because of it.
Kumble was a very fine bowler and had his career not coincided with that of Warne and Murali, he would rightly have been regarded far more highly than he was. As it is, he was the third best regular sping bowler of his time (it's arguable as to whether MacGill was better than him or not) and probably in the top ten spin bowlers ever.
It is amazing that we had so many top spin bowlers for so long. In many eras Harbhajan would have been the best spinner, but he was easily behind 4-5 other spinners for most of his career.
Most ATG fast bowlers bowl some where near there Wicket per test limit (Why bowl second rate bowler when you have a ATG bowler in the side).
All bowler's Wickets per Test count is limmited by
(the number of Overs he can bowl per test) / (Strike Rate).
For most fast bowlers (including most ATG) that is about 4 wickets per test.
It is only in the really Great Teams (WI, Aus [recent + late 40's] where competition
for Wickets becomes a issue. For example if you look at Imran, he does very little bowling in the fourth inning of a Test Match's and his bowling average is > 40 runs per wicket in the fourth innings. I doubt Imran could of bowled to many more overs than he did without a big drop in average / strike rate and more injuries.
For example if Fast Bowler had a strike rate of 50 and bowls 40 overs a game he will take 4.8 wickets per test. Very few fast bowlers have a strike rate of < 50 and very few can sustain 40 overs a Test. Fast bowlers who can take 4.8+ wickets a test are a very, very rare breed.
I recently heard a speech (on the radio) by a long term of Australia's Cricket Trainer (State, national level), he stated in the last 40 years, Australia has only produced 2 Test class fast bowlers (Lillee, McGrath) who could sustain 40 overs a Test. I think he is right in that and I do not think any other country has produced more bowlers who could bowl 40 overs per game over a 10 year period.
Also Fast Bowlers who go flat out all the time (e.g. Holding, Akram, Steyn) generally bowl less that 35 overs per Test.
For a fast bowler to sustain 4.8 wickets a test he needs to be able to bowl well on most wickets / most days in a Test, he also needs to have one of
- Incredible Strike rate (Steyn, Strike Rate=40).
- Excellent Strike Rate, Excellent Stamina (Marshal, Strike Rate = 46, 38 overs per test).
- Incredible Endurance, Good Strike (Lillee, Haddle and probably McGrath ??? Strike
Rate = 51 - 53).
Spinners have it slightly easier but have other issues.
Last edited by MartinB; 27-12-2012 at 09:53 AM.
And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW
Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta
Strike rate gives you a more accurate idea of a bowler's ability than wickets per test does.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)