The value of Anil Kumble was underestimated

[Spark]

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.

 

[Francis]

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...

 

[kyear2]

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)

 

[MartinB]

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.

 

[Ikki]

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.

 

[stephen]

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.

 

[MartinB]

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.

 

[smash84]

I'll rate the bowlers...

1. Warne
2. Murali
3. McGrath (just... just ahead of Akram. I'd prefer watching Akram 9/10)
4. Akram
5. Ambrose
6. Walsh
7. Donald/Kumble
8. Waquar
9. Pollock
10. Steyn (will be much higher when he's finished)

Edit: Actually maybe Steyn should be higher... nearly 5 wickets per Test at under 24...

This

 

[smash84]

I need to understand why people rate Akram ahead of Ambrose?
Kindly enlighten me.

People who like more skill with the ball and more flair prefer Akram.

 

[Red]

Strike rate gives you a more accurate idea of a bowler's ability than wickets per test does.

 

[Teja.]

Strike rate gives you a more accurate idea of a bowler's ability than wickets per test does.

That Waqar, a true god eh?

 

[kyear2]

Econ, s/r and average are all equally important.

 

[GIMH]

It's like people have come together just to make troll threads towards me today.

Expecting a 'Herath is god' thread to pop up at some point.

 

[Red]

Econ, s/r and average are all equally important.

I reckon SR is more important than average, within reason.

 

[Red]

That Waqar, a true god eh?

Agree, especially in his prime. Absolutely brilliant.

 

[Prince EWS]

1. Warne
2. Murali
3. McGrath (just... just ahead of Akram. I'd prefer watching Akram 9/10)
4. Akram
5. Ambrose
6. Walsh
7. Donald/Kumble
8. Waquar
9. Pollock
10. Steyn (will be much higher when he's finished)

Seriously it is the worst **** when people do this. If you've got two ****s in 7th then there's no 8th FFS.

 

[Prince EWS]

Fourth best spinner I've seen (in 30ish years) behind Warne, Murali, MacGill.

Yeah, I think MacGill was a better bowler than Kumble too. Obviously he didn't achieve anywhere near as much so it won't be seen that way though.

 

[smash84]

Seriously it is the worst **** when people do this. If you've got two ****s in 7th then there's no 8th FFS.

 

[weldone]

Econ, s/r and average are all equally important.

So you mean only average in important...

 

[weldone]

Yeah, I think MacGill was a better bowler than Kumble too.

...reminds me for how long I truly believed that Utpal Chatterjee was a better bowler than Kumble...In fact, I believed the same till Kumble started approaching towards 200 or 300 test wickets IIRC..