DoG’s Top 100 Test Batsmen - Bowling Discussion

[Days of Grace]

PLEASE KEEP ALL BOWLING DISCUSSION OUT OF THE BATTING THREAD AND POST YOUR ESSAYS HERE

Chill guys I was only stating what DOG was stating himself thay he was lower because Indias win rate. If India had had at least average bowlers he would been where he deserves which is top 3, just a shame there ain't a way to incorporate indias rubbish bowling lol. thanks for your response DOG keep up the good work.
and yes dravid would of been higher in India didn't have crap bowlers to!

Nah, I'm gonna bite. What the **** is this about India having a "rubbish" bowling attack? Kumble, Srinath, Harbhajan and Zaheer Khan are all top 100 bowlers.

 

[NUFAN]

Nah, I'm gonna bite. What the **** is this about India having a "rubbish" bowling attack? Kumble, Srinath, Harbhajan and Zaheer Khan are all top 100 bowlers.

Yessss Bring it on DoG, start it immediately following the batting one (maybe enjoy a Belgian beer and salad first for all your hard work).

 

[kyear2]

Yessss Bring it on DoG, start it immediately following the batting one (maybe enjoy a Belgian beer and salad first for all your hard work).

Would be great.

What I have noticed though is most bowler ratings seem to focus too much on longevity/total wickets and WPM. Once the WPM is 5 or over that's good enough and points should max out there, as it seems to reward bowlers who had little support otherwise. For mine, the most important role of bowlers is to win matches, so wins, average and s/r followed by wpm should be the focus.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[Prince EWS]

Would be great.

What I have noticed though is most bowler ratings seem to focus too much on longevity/total wickets and WPM. Once the WPM is 5 or over that's good enough and points should max out there, as it seems to reward bowlers who had little support otherwise. For mine, the most important role of bowlers is to win matches, so wins, average and s/r followed by wpm should be the focus.

Just my humble opinion.

I actually agree about WPM (it needs to be a factor to stop someone who took 15 wickets in 100 Tests at a decent average from being rated extremely highly for example, but I don't think Hadlee should really be getting extra points for having a greater WPM when compared to Marshall for example) but I completely disagree about wins. Any rating system should look to standardise and remove the variables that exist as a result of bowlers playing in different teams and factoring in wins would just exaggerate them. You talk about WPM favouring bowlers who had no support; a win function would just favour the opposite.

 

[kyear2]

I actually agree about WPM (it needs to be a factor to stop someone who took 15 wickets in 100 Tests at a decent average from being rated extremely highly for example, but I don't think Hadlee should really be getting extra points for having a greater WPM when compared to Marshall for example) but I completely disagree about wins. Any rating system should look to standardise and remove the variables that exist as a result of bowlers playing in different teams and factoring in wins would just exaggerate them. You talk about WPM favouring bowlers who had no support; a win function would just favour the opposite.

Fully agree with that argument, what I was saying with regard to wins though is that the same way that DoG rates hundreds more in wins than in high scoring draws, then performances and 5fors should count more in wins.

But yes cap wpm after 5 and also cap longevity similar to the batting ratings.

Of equally great importance, place greater weight on percentage of top order wickets taken over lower order wickets, especially #9-11.

 

[Coronis]

Fully agree with that argument, what I was saying with regard to wins though is that the same way that DoG rates hundreds more in wins than in high scoring draws, then performances and 5fors should count more in wins.

But yes cap wpm after 5 and also cap longevity similar to the batting ratings.

Of equally great importance, place greater weight on percentage of top order wickets taken over lower order wickets, especially #9-11.

Grimmett had O'Reilly supporting/leading the attack. Still averaged 5.82 wpm. Gonna cut off that .82? Kinda hurts Barnes too, the bowlers he played with were no slouches iirc. Excellent to see Hammond above Viv and Sachin.

 

[Ikki]

Grimmett had O'Reilly supporting/leading the attack. Still averaged 5.82 wpm. Gonna cut off that .82? Kinda hurts Barnes too, the bowlers he played with were no slouches iirc. Excellent to see Hammond above Viv and Sachin.

I guess it should factor in whether his teammates (bowlers) were good. For example, if you are in a great attack and yet still have a high wpm then it should definitely count in your favour IMO.

 

[hendrix]

For example, if you are in a great attack and yet still have a high wpm then it should definitely count in your favour IMO.

why?

You're already getting the advantage of simply having taking a bunch of wickets. There's no need to give an additional factor there.

 

[Days of Grace]

Bowling averages, strike-rates, and WPM have all been adjusted.

But let's discuss all that when I reveal the bowlers.

 

[kyear2]

Bowling averages, strike-rates, and WPM have all been adjusted.

But let's discuss all that when I reveal the bowlers.

You just made mine and especially Nufan's day.

I eagerly anticipate.

 

[Ikki]

why?

You're already getting the advantage of simply having taking a bunch of wickets. There's no need to give an additional factor there.

How do you mean? If you are in a bowling line-up with great competition it is harder to accumulate wickets in the sense of wpm. There are a finite amount of wickets one can take, to have to share them amongst your teammates means there'll be less for you.

 

[hendrix]

How do you mean? If you are in a bowling line-up with great competition it is harder to accumulate wickets in the sense of wpm. There are a finite amount of wickets one can take, to have to share them amongst your teammates means there'll be less for you.

yeah, but you also get the advantage of not having to bowl long spells or bowl too much against batsmen who have settled in - that's a significant advantage in terms of average.

 

[hendrix]

How do you mean? If you are in a bowling line-up with great competition it is harder to accumulate wickets in the sense of wpm. There are a finite amount of wickets one can take, to have to share them amongst your teammates means there'll be less for you.

if you're getting high wickets per match, you're taking a lot of wickets. You've already proven your worth by taking wickets. The skill in taking wickets as part of a good attack is already reflected by the number of wickets you have!

you also get the advantage of not having to bowl long spells or bowl too much against batsmen who have settled in - that's a significant advantage in terms of average.

 

[Migara]

How do you mean? If you are in a bowling line-up with great competition it is harder to accumulate wickets in the sense of wpm. There are a finite amount of wickets one can take, to have to share them amongst your teammates means there'll be less for you.

already done and dusted argument. Better bowling units will have more chances to bowl at the tail as they hunt in a pack and do itconsistently. But lone rangers will get to the tail less often and have more top / middle order wickets. Hence good bowling units bowlers will have better averages and SRs offsetting the advantages of WPM. The other use of WPI or overs per innings to show how fit was the said bowler. Unfit fat ****s cannot bowl long spells and cannot have high WPIs unless they are uber talented.

 

[Flem274*]

cant think of any unfit fat **** atg bowlers tbh

 

[Coronis]

yeah, but you also get the advantage of not having to bowl long spells or bowl too much against batsmen who have settled in - that's a significant advantage in terms of average.

Ah I remember Grimmett and O'Reilly bowling them 3 over spells back in the day.

 

[The Sean]

Bowling averages, strike-rates, and WPM have all been adjusted.

But let's discuss all that when I reveal the bowlers.

I realise we still have to finish the batting countdown but I'm already really looking forward to this. I reckon it could be even more surprising than the batting list.

 

[Ikki]

yeah, but you also get the advantage of not having to bowl long spells or bowl too much against batsmen who have settled in - that's a significant advantage in terms of average.

No, I don't think it is. If you have a high wpm I think it works to your advantage in the sense that I don't think bowlers take wickets in a linear fashion and those with a higher chance of taking more wickets can improve their average dramatically. Bowling longer is not a disadvantage in itself, it only is when you're not taking wickets.

Yes, on some occasions great bowlers will bowl bad and will bare the brunt of that much more than a bowler in a great attack - they can't hide. But, just how often are great bowlers that poor? They get far more leverage from their good performances because they can take full advantage of not having to compete for wickets. Their teammates are also less likely to be on form and also hinder them taking more wickets. Conversely, a great bowler in a great attack may get hidden if they're bowling dross; but on the other hand the majority of the time where they're bowling well they do not get to take advantage of their good form because there are only 10 wickets to take in any innings. If they're bowling well, so too, probably, are their teammates.

I reckon such a distinction that considers the bowling attack's strength is highly relevant to determine how good they were. They're not only competing against opposition batsman, but their teammates for those wickets.

already done and dusted argument. Better bowling units will have more chances to bowl at the tail as they hunt in a pack and do itconsistently. But lone rangers will get to the tail less often and have more top / middle order wickets. Hence good bowling units bowlers will have better averages and SRs offsetting the advantages of WPM. The other use of WPI or overs per innings to show how fit was the said bowler. Unfit fat ****s cannot bowl long spells and cannot have high WPIs unless they are uber talented.

Whether you're a lone wolf or not it doesn't dictate how much you bowl to the tail. And in any case I assume that distinction (the position of the batsman dismissed) will be taken into account in DoG's list. That would offset bowlers getting to bowl at the tail more.

 

[Furball]

I realise we still have to finish the batting countdown but I'm already really looking forward to this. I reckon it could be even more surprising than the batting list.

The one thing the bowling list has in its favour is no clear and obvious number 1.

 

[Flem274*]

No, I don't think it is. If you have a high wpm I think it works to your advantage in the sense that I don't think bowlers take wickets in a linear fashion and those with a higher chance of taking more wickets can improve their average dramatically. Bowling longer is not a disadvantage in itself, it only is when you're not taking wickets.

Yes, on some occasions great bowlers will bowl bad and will bare the brunt of that much more than a bowler in a great attack - they can't hide. But, just how often are great bowlers that poor? They get far more leverage from their good performances because they can take full advantage of not having to compete for wickets. Their teammates are also less likely to be on form and also hinder them taking more wickets. Conversely, a great bowler in a great attack may get hidden if they're bowling dross; but on the other hand the majority of the time where they're bowling well they do not get to take advantage of their good form because there are only 10 wickets to take in any innings. If they're bowling well, so too, probably, are their teammates.

I reckon such a distinction that considers the bowling attack's strength is highly relevant to determine how good they were. They're not only competing against opposition batsman, but their teammates for those wickets.




Whether you're a lone wolf or not it doesn't dictate how much you bowl to the tail. And in any case I assume that distinction (the position of the batsman dismissed) will be taken into account in DoG's list. That would offset bowlers getting to bowl at the tail more.

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.

The one thing the bowling list has in its favour is no clear and obvious number 1.

yeah this