NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
I hope not. While he did well when he actually played, he did brilliantly against the weaker opponents and if you take out Zim and Bang he has 63 Test wickets at over 26. I hope Siddle cracks the top hundy.
-
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.
DoG’s Top 100 Test Batsmen - Bowling Discussion
- Thread starter Days of Grace
- Start date
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
George Headley
Everyone takes me so seriously.... its almost like you can't detect sarcasm on a forum.
Migara
Cricketer Of The Year
Having a cap on any of the parameters seems absurd for me. If that is the case should have cap for everything. For example if there is a cap for longevity or WPM, there should be one for batting or bowling average as well. Otherwise you are just taking off outliers out of the equation.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
The argument for capping WPM is that after a certain number (5), it's more an indication of the lack of bowling support on your own team, than you own ability. If longevity isn't capped then for some there is an argument that Sachin is better than Bradman (extreme example) or that Kumble is better than Laker, Grimmett and O'Reilly ect.
Migara
Cricketer Of The Year
That argument is moot since the advantage of WPM is offset by increase in Avg and SR being not able to bowl at tailenders regularly. If WPM (rather WPI) is capped, so would be Average and SR. Statistically parameter of average and parameter of longevity are similar. Capping one shows bias.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
I largely agree but showing bias is not the end of the world. We want to be able to place more emphasis on what we consider important.
I think it's fine to say neforehand that we think, for example, Marshall was better than Hadlee, and that if there's a factor that Hadlee excelled at (WPM) that efforts should be made to ensure that that factor doesn't receive a disproportionately large weighting.
Changing it in-game is wrong though.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah wickets after 5 come with no effort at all, and wickets after playing for 15 years also don't take any effort I guess? Why are you assuming that wpm will be a factor? Even if it is, asking for capping it is not the best idea IMO. You don't get a high wpm by just taking one extra wickets every match (which may have diminishing marginal value) but by taking tenfers more frequently. And surely there is no diminishing returns to tenfers in different matches.
Whatever, it's DoG's research. Why are you so insecure about how his methodology rates bowlers? Already planting ideas to knock down Hadlee and Murali? Just relax and watch what comes, man.
Last edited:
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
Everything in these ratings is based on weighting, even in the batting ratings longevity was capped because it's about getting it right and falling in line with or totally debunking in some instances, historical perspective.
That being said, eargerly awaiting the bowling countdown.
Migara
Cricketer Of The Year
Weighting and capping are two different functions mate. One is totally acceptable and other shows total bias, unless capping can be explained and justified with an statistical exercise.
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
You're probably not going to be happy then.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
Once the top 3 isn't Murali, Hadlee and Barnes I will be happy. Accept that Pidgeon may beat out MM (longevity, top order wkts), but see why anyone else should.
Looking for a strong showing from Trueman as well.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
What a ridiculous statement. Your irrational hatred for Murali and Hadlee used to be mildly amusing but now it is getting a bit distasteful
watson
Banned
I don't think that SF Barnes would be out of place in the Top 3-5 as he was an awesome bowler by all accounts, and has the stat's to match too.
Also, if you put away the idea that Murali chucked and look objectively at his raw numbers then I would have to agree that there is a reasonable case to declare that Murali is the best and greatest bowler of all time. He's not my cup of tea, but I can understand why other people rave.
Last edited:
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
We of course await exactly how the scoring for this exercise will be calculated, but given the kind of statistical parameters we can expect I reckon there’s a very strong chance that Barnes, Hadlee and Murali will indeed be the top 3, and at the very least I’ll be surprised if they don’t all make the top five.
I don't think any of those things will happen.