DoG’s Top 100 Test Batsmen - Bowling Discussion

[uvelocity]

mcwarne imo

 

[Ikki]

mate "fast bowlers hunt in pairs" is a saying for a reason.

its easier to get wickets when youre not the only **** in the team building pressure and the batsmen can just play you out.

It's a meaningless cliche as far as I'm concerned. Hadlee took Hadlee's wickets and Marshall took Marshall's wickets. It's not only immeasurable how much credit can be given to another bowler applying pressure; I do not know of any great bowler in history who did not have at least one other bowler who, at the very least, didn't contribute to pressure through bowling economically.

Anyway, I'm happy to discuss this however I think we're derailing this thread.

 

[Flem274*]

It's a meaningless cliche as far as I'm concerned. Hadlee took Hadlee's wickets and Marshall took Marshall's wickets. It's not only immeasurable how much credit can be given to another bowler applying pressure; I do not know of any great bowler in history who did not have at least one other bowler who, at the very least, didn't contribute to pressure through bowling economically.

Anyway, I'm happy to discuss this however I think we're derailing this thread.

It's not a meaningless cliche at all. Two bowlers applying pressure in a joint spell is more effective than only one bowler turning up. This is seen time and again on the park. I like how you mention Hadlee because to support my post I was going to say I believe Hadlee himself has credited Chatfield with half his test wickets for keeping opposition batsmen tied down, and if I remember correctly you are a major supporter of Hadlee's worship of Lillee being a trump card in any Hadlee v Lillee discussion, so I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too. Chatfield was a decent bowler but not even he would call himself great. Imagine what some of the great lone rangers could have done for their sides had they had a world class bowler at the other end?

Marshall and his colleagues were so effective because four world class bowlers in one attack is test cricket on unfair mode, whereas having one world class bowler and two test class bowlers is merely difficult. When the great West Indian sides are discussed the reason for their dominance always comes back to those ridiculously good attacks, despite them having a very formidable, probably even the best batting line up in the world during their great era which included the likes of Viv Richards who was the batsman of his generation.

The West Indian fast bowlers had a harder path into test cricket due to the competition from their fellow domestic bowlers, and when they made the side they had greater pressure from within the West Indies system to perform because if they didn't they would be browsing the jobs section of the paper sooner than a Hadlee or a Murali, but they undoubtedly had the advantage of bowling as one superb unit.

I guess it's one of those things where success will generate success and drag newer or lesser players along with the great ones. Maybe the reason Finn gets so many jammy wickets is because he's being a parasite on Anderson, Broad and Swann. In contrast the lone ranger has greater room for error or mediocrity but a harder task in attaining excellence.

 

[kyear2]

The two best examples of ATG lone wolves are Hadlee and Murali and their wpm numbers benefited for it. They did not win as many matches but they sure as hell got to bowl that much more overs than say a Marshall and got more opportunities to get wickets. They also got the run of the tail more as there was less competition for wickets.
What made MM so great was that I think that as an opening bowler he lost like 3 matches in his entire career despite the fact that when he came on the scene Roberts was on the downside of his career and Croft also on the way out. Holding was consistently missing or hindered by injury and Lloyd was also on his way out and Richards was well past his best days. Yet the6 kept winning and winning matches is the primary job of the fast bowler. From Trueman, through Lillee, Marshall and Steyn ect and including Hadlee and Murali, when you best bowler was on you won matches. Period.
So while wpm was definately affected by quality of team mates, wins seemed less so. So wins, or performances in wins should count for more than wpm, once you at least say exceeded 4.5 and maxes out in value at 5.
As far as no clear cut number one, I would say Marshall and Warne both are seen in history in that light by most objective observers. Once again, whats the point of much more wickets and wpm if you have much less wins or more losses.

 

[Prince EWS]

The two best examples of ATG lone wolves are Hadlee and Murali and their wpm numbers benefited for it. They did not win as many matches but they sure as hell got to bowl that much more overs than say a Marshall and got more opportunities to get wickets. They also got the run of the tail more as there was less competition for wickets.What made MM so great was that I think that as an opening bowler he lost like 3 matches in his entire career despite the fact that when he came on the scene Roberts was on the downside of his career and Croft also on the way out. Holding was consistently missing or hindered by injury and Lloyd was also on his way out and Richards was well past his best days. Yet the6 kept winning and winning matches is the primary job of the fast bowler. From Trueman, through Lillee, Marshall and Steyn ect and including Hadlee and Murali, when you best bowler was on you won matches. Period. So while wpm was definately affected by quality of team mates, wins seemed less so. So wins, or performances in wins should count for more than wpm, once you at least say exceeded 4.5 and maxes out in value at 5.As far as no clear cut number one, I would say Marshall and Warne both are seen in history in that light by most objective observers. Once again, whats the point of much more wickets and wpm if you have much less wins or more losses.

I'm sorry but the idea that the result of the game is more or less unchanged by the performances of 21 of 22 players playing is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen put across on this forum. I'm no big fan of WPM as a statistic either, lets make that clear; it's useful at hinting at whether or not someone was a full-time bowler but a % of team overs statistic would be more telling if we had one, and as far as comparing top bowlers goes it's largely a red herring. However, a bowler certainly has far more control over that - his own, personal statistic - than he does over the result of the game. There's just no way I'm going to wear that a bowler's job is to "win matches"; his job is to take take cheap wickets in order to contribute to possible wins. Whether or not that actually translates into wins depends on the ability of the rest of the attack and of course the batting lineup. The very fact that it's possible to have a great bowler on either side bowl fantastically and impossible for both sides to win the same game makes it a fallacy right from the get-go. If you're seriously trying to suggest that he reason the West Indies won more matches during Marshall's career than New Zealand won during Hadlee's is because Marshall is a better bowler, then that has to be the greatest example we've ever seen on this forum of "decide who your favourite cricketers are and then devise a criteria that puts them on top"; it's absurd. And that's certainly not to say Marshall wasn't a better bowler than Hadlee, but the win rates of the respective teams really go nowhere in showing that.

 

[Furball]

Yeah the idea that it's just bowlers who win you matches is a complete fallacy.

 

[smash84]

The two best examples of ATG lone wolves are Hadlee and Murali and their wpm numbers benefited for it. They did not win as many matches but they sure as hell got to bowl that much more overs than say a Marshall and got more opportunities to get wickets. They also got the run of the tail more as there was less competition for wickets.
What made MM so great was that I think that as an opening bowler he lost like 3 matches in his entire career despite the fact that when he came on the scene Roberts was on the downside of his career and Croft also on the way out. Holding was consistently missing or hindered by injury and Lloyd was also on his way out and Richards was well past his best days. Yet the6 kept winning and winning matches is the primary job of the fast bowler. From Trueman, through Lillee, Marshall and Steyn ect and including Hadlee and Murali, when you best bowler was on you won matches. Period.
So while wpm was definately affected by quality of team mates, wins seemed less so. So wins, or performances in wins should count for more than wpm, once you at least say exceeded 4.5 and maxes out in value at 5.
As far as no clear cut number one, I would say Marshall and Warne both are seen in history in that light by most objective observers. Once again, whats the point of much more wickets and wpm if you have much less wins or more losses.

honestly dude, I would agree with PEWS here. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have seen on CW. You are talking of cricket here, not singles tennis

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Yeah the idea that it's just bowlers who win you matches is a complete fallacy.

Of course, but taking 20 wickets is how you win.

 

[kyear2]

I'm sorry but the idea that the result of the game is more or less unchanged by the performances of 21 of 22 players playing is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen put across on this forum. I'm no big fan of WPM as a statistic either, lets make that clear; it's useful at hinting at whether or not someone was a full-time bowler but a % of team overs statistic would be more telling if we had one, and as far as comparing top bowlers goes it's largely a red herring. However, a bowler certainly has far more control over that - his own, personal statistic - than he does over the result of the game. There's just no way I'm going to wear that a bowler's job is to "win matches"; his job is to take take cheap wickets in order to contribute to possible wins. Whether or not that actually translates into wins depends on the ability of the rest of the attack and of course the batting lineup. The very fact that it's possible to have a great bowler on either side bowl fantastically and impossible for both sides to win the same game makes it a fallacy right from the get-go. If you're seriously trying to suggest that he reason the West Indies won more matches during Marshall's career than New Zealand won during Hadlee's is because Marshall is a better bowler, then that has to be the greatest example we've ever seen on this forum of "decide who your favourite cricketers are and then devise a criteria that puts them on top"; it's absurd. And that's certainly not to say Marshall wasn't a better bowler than Hadlee, but the win rates of the respective teams really go nowhere in showing that.

DoG rates great innings in wins higher that high scores in high scoring draws. I was just suggesting something similar for the bowlers which is why I said place greater emphasis on performances in wins. The rest of it got lost in a rant and got away from the point was ended us as hyperbole. Agree that's its a team game and no one person can consistently win games on their own but also a team cannot win games without a great bowling attack and similar to the batting ratings as I said, great performances in wins should count for slightly more than just wpm stats. But agree that both can be seen as favoring a certain constituantcy.

 

[Prince EWS]

Of course, but taking 20 wickets is how you win.

Well, kind of. You can take 20 wickets and still lose. Taking 20 wickets and scoring more runs than the opposition is how you win.

Moreover, a bowler has never taken all 20. It's not even so much that he was implying batting was irrelevant, but that he was also implying that all bar one of the bowlers in each match is irrelevant.

 

[Prince EWS]

DoG rates great innings in wins higher that high scores in high scoring draws. I was just suggesting something similar for the bowlers which is why I said place greater emphasis on performances in wins. The rest of it got lost in a rant and got away from the point was ended us as hyperbole. Agree that's its a team game and no one person can consistently win games on their own but also a team cannot win games without a great bowling attack and similar to the batting ratings as I said, great performances in wins should count for slightly more than just wpm stats. But agree that both can be seen as favoring a certain constituantcy.

Fair enough. (Y)

 

[kyear2]

honestly dude, I would agree with PEWS here. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have seen on CW. You are talking of cricket here, not singles tennis

Agreed, but the batsmen also got more points for their great innings that came in wins. More exaggerated, but similar principle. Went a bit far and poorly articulated what I was trying to bring across, but basically saying great performances should be seen in perspective to if they contributed to wins.

 

[smash84]

Agreed, but the batsmen also got more points for their great innings that came in wins. More exaggerated, but similar principle. Went a bit far and poorly articulated what I was trying to bring across, but basically saying great performances should be seen in perspective to if they contributed to wins.

So wouldn't this also benefit the lone rangers because most of the time they would usually have a huge contribution in their team winning matches?

 

[kyear2]

So wouldn't this also benefit the lone rangers because most of the time they would usually have a huge contribution in their team winning matches?

So it would all balance out wouldn't it then.

 

[Migara]

The two best examples of ATG lone wolves are Hadlee and Murali and their wpm numbers benefited for it. They did not win as many matches but they sure as hell got to bowl that much more overs than say a Marshall and got more opportunities to get wickets. They also got the run of the tail more as there was less competition for wickets.

That's totally wrong. To get to the tail the lone wolf first have to dismiss 6 quality batsman, which is a massive ask how good the bowler may be. If you have two such bowlers then only three wickets a piece is needed to get to the tail. When bowlers bowl to tail that is cheap wickets. Lone wolf's may get more wickets but has less chance to bowl to tail. But they get the chance they'll gobble it up. When a pack hunts then they'll get to the tail more often to get more cheap wickets, hence WPI will be low, as well as average and SRs.

So while wpm was definately affected by quality of team mates, wins seemed less so. So wins, or performances in wins should count for more than wpm, once you at least say exceeded 4.5 and maxes out in value at 5. As far as no clear cut number one, I would say Marshall and Warne both are seen in history in that light by most objective observers. Once again, whats the point of much more wickets and wpm if you have much less wins or more losses.

Wrong. Wins will depend on batsmen as well. If batsmen don't bats well, you'll get thrashed by innings and the bowlers will lose out on an innings. Hence WPI is better indicator than WPM.

 

[Ikki]

It's not a meaningless cliche at all. Two bowlers applying pressure in a joint spell is more effective than only one bowler turning up. This is seen time and again on the park. I like how you mention Hadlee because to support my post I was going to say I believe Hadlee himself has credited Chatfield with half his test wickets for keeping opposition batsmen tied down, and if I remember correctly you are a major supporter of Hadlee's worship of Lillee being a trump card in any Hadlee v Lillee discussion, so I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too. Chatfield was a decent bowler but not even he would call himself great. Imagine what some of the great lone rangers could have done for their sides had they had a world class bowler at the other end?

Marshall and his colleagues were so effective because four world class bowlers in one attack is test cricket on unfair mode, whereas having one world class bowler and two test class bowlers is merely difficult. When the great West Indian sides are discussed the reason for their dominance always comes back to those ridiculously good attacks, despite them having a very formidable, probably even the best batting line up in the world during their great era which included the likes of Viv Richards who was the batsman of his generation.

The West Indian fast bowlers had a harder path into test cricket due to the competition from their fellow domestic bowlers, and when they made the side they had greater pressure from within the West Indies system to perform because if they didn't they would be browsing the jobs section of the paper sooner than a Hadlee or a Murali, but they undoubtedly had the advantage of bowling as one superb unit.

I guess it's one of those things where success will generate success and drag newer or lesser players along with the great ones. Maybe the reason Finn gets so many jammy wickets is because he's being a parasite on Anderson, Broad and Swann. In contrast the lone ranger has greater room for error or mediocrity but a harder task in attaining excellence.

How is it relevant at all that I point to Hadlee himself worshipping Lillee? It's a non-statistical point. Here I am talking about statistics.

As I said, it is a lazy generalisation. I do agree that pressure being built up is an important facet, but only a bowler takes his own wickets. And although cricket is a team sport, it is clearly a 1v1 based game. If a better bowler than Chatfield was on the other end, he'd not only help build pressure, he'd take away possible wickets for Hadlee. In the end, if you have a miserly bowler at the other end, it suffices in building pressure. It actually aids you if your partner creates pressure, yet doesn't get stuck into your wicket haul. It doesn't help your team to not have great bowling teammates, but it certainly helps your own individual statistics.

The WIndies were great because they had great bowlers. And each of them would have had even better wpm stats if they didn't have to share wickets. Ironically, I think they are the absolute worst example because while I can buy 1-2 other good-great bowlers helping, when you have about 3 other ATG they are definitely cutting into your wicket hauls. Which as far as wpm is concerned it IS a hindrance. For Marshall to take 5 wickets per game like Lillee or Hadlee he'd have to strike even faster than the 46 balls per wicket he already achieved, precisely because of his help. Frankly, I find the suggestion silly.

 

[kyear2]

That's totally wrong. To get to the tail the lone wolf first have to dismiss 6 quality batsman, which is a massive ask how good the bowler may be. If you have two such bowlers then only three wickets a piece is needed to get to the tail. When bowlers bowl to tail that is cheap wickets. Lone wolf's may get more wickets but has less chance to bowl to tail. But they get the chance they'll gobble it up. When a pack hunts then they'll get to the tail more often to get more cheap wickets, hence WPI will be low, as well as average and SRs.

Wrong. Wins will depend on batsmen as well. If batsmen don't bats well, you'll get thrashed by innings and the bowlers will lose out on an innings. Hence WPI is better indicator than WPM.

That makes no sense, yes it's harder to get to the tail as a lone wolf, but once they get they they tend to polish off the tail pretty quick with little competition and that helps to make up for the earlier struggles with the top order. There can be no doubt that Murali's and Hadlee's wpm greatly benefited from being lone wolves and getting the opportunities to bowl longer spells to get those wickets. It didn't always benefit the teams as much obviously, but it definitely helped their overall stats. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Ok, how about this then. Average, strike rate, WPM, 5 wicket hauls in victories and higher emphasis on middle order, top order (openers) and top lower order wickets taken (down to no. 8) in descending order. That should cover all of the basics and be fair to everyone and accurate as well.

 

[smash84]

That makes no sense, yes it's harder to get to the tail as a lone wolf, but once they get they they tend to polish off the tail pretty quick with little competition and that helps to make up for the earlier struggles with the top order. There can be no doubt that Murali's and Hadlee's wpm greatly benefited from being lone wolves and getting the opportunities to bowl longer spells to get those wickets. It didn't always benefit the teams as much obviously, but it definitely helped their overall stats. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Ok, how about this then. Average, strike rate, WPM, 5 wicket hauls in victories and higher emphasis on middle order, top order (openers) and top lower order wickets taken (down to no. 8) in descending order. That should cover all of the basics and be fair to everyone and accurate as well.

How about Man of match per match to be included with heavy weightage? Imran and Wasim to take the honors then

 

[kyear2]

How is it relevant at all that I point to Hadlee himself worshipping Lillee? It's a non-statistical point. Here I am talking about statistics.

As I said, it is a lazy generalisation. I do agree that pressure being built up is an important facet, but only a bowler takes his own wickets. And although cricket is a team sport, it is clearly a 1v1 based game. If a better bowler than Chatfield was on the other end, he'd not only help build pressure, he'd take away possible wickets for Hadlee. In the end, if you have a miserly bowler at the other end, it suffices in building pressure. It actually aids you if your partner creates pressure, yet doesn't get stuck into your wicket haul. It doesn't help your team to not have great bowling teammates, but it certainly helps your own individual statistics.

The WIndies were great because they had great bowlers. And each of them would have had even better wpm stats if they didn't have to share wickets. Ironically, I think they are the absolute worst example because while I can buy 1-2 other good-great bowlers helping, when you have about 3 other ATG they are definitely cutting into your wicket hauls. Which as far as wpm is concerned it IS a hindrance. For Marshall to take 5 wickets per game like Lillee or Hadlee he'd have to strike even faster than the 46 balls per wicket he already achieved, precisely because of his help. Frankly, I find the suggestion silly.

Basically what I was trying to say, just better.

Incidentally Marshall still wasn't that far off 5wpm and his wpi is just about 2.5.

 

[Migara]

That makes no sense, yes it's harder to get to the tail as a lone wolf, but once they get they they tend to polish off the tail pretty quick with little competition and that helps to make up for the earlier struggles with the top order. There can be no doubt that Murali's and Hadlee's wpm greatly benefited from being lone wolves and getting the opportunities to bowl longer spells to get those wickets. It didn't always benefit the teams as much obviously, but it definitely helped their overall stats. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Ok, how about this then. Average, strike rate, WPM, 5 wicket hauls in victories and higher emphasis on middle order, top order (openers) and top lower order wickets taken (down to no. 8) in descending order. That should cover all of the basics and be fair to everyone and accurate as well.

Once again wrong. Firstly, lone wolf's does not necessarily get to the tail every time. The opposing team most of the time have piled enough runs so the innings would be declared before all ten falls, where as a bowling unit will get the sides all out. Hence bowling units will take more late order wickets % compared to lone wolfs, and the pack will have better Averages and SRs due to large share of tailenders.

How much of a WPI is significant I have no idea. So what ever we pick would be an arbitary limit.