The Barnes Standard

[kyear2]

Just one problem with that post. You can't have the same parameters for quick and spinners. Spinners have a different role and generally have a far higher strike rate. Unfair on Warne and Murali.
Apart from that, it just backs up my point how shockingly overlooked Donald is in ATG teams. He should always be a part of the discussion

Wasn't looking for the best attack really and there wasn't any preconceived notions going into it. Just looking at who was the most effective bowlers period.

 

[smash84]

There is no perfect formula, but we can at least use basic statistical standards to create groups. If we were to select the players since 1900 that over their careers has managed to meet the minimum requirements to average at least under 26, allowed less than 3.5 runs per over, struck at under 58 balls per wicket and taken at least 4 wickets per match one would end up with only 18 players. Much less than I would have imagined and leaving some of the great fast bowlers in history out in the cold. The players who made this initial cut would be.

Syd Barnes
Malcolm Marshall
Dale Steyn
Fred Trueman
Richard Hadlee
Dennis Lillee
Curtly Ambrose
Muttiah Muralitharan
Joel Garner
Michael Holding
Allan Donald
Shane Warne
Imran Khan
Waqar Younis
Colin Croft
Peter Pollock
Andy Roberts

When the standard is raised to an average below 23, economy rate below 3, a strike rate below 52 and a minimum of 4.5 WPM we are left with

Syd Barnes
Malcolm Marshall
Glenn McGrath
Fred Trueman
Richard Hadlee
Allan Donald

Slightly raise the average requirement to below 24 and that would add to the list;

Dennis Lillee
Colin Croft

So I would suggest that a statistical search for the greatest bowler should start with those 6/8 gentlemen. (yes Croft probably doesn't belong in that group and would probably be a situation similar to Graeme Pollock, strong team and short career in terms of years)

Just out of curiosity if we raise the requirements to an average < 23, and strike rate <50, that would leave us with

Sydney Barnes
Malcolm Marshall
Fred Trueman
Allan Donald

Even to lower the average requirement to <22 that would still only eliminate Donald. Don't see too many ATG XI's with an attack of Marshall, Trueman, Donald and Barnes. Probably we should.

Imran played a significant number of matches purely as a batsman (either due to injury or because in the end he was just leading Pakistan). Otherwise his wpm should be 4.5 or wpm. Is there someway to exclude such matches on statsguru?

 

[hendrix]

.....which now begs the question: Why not use the Waqar Standard instead, since he out-Barnes, Barnes?

because Barnes managed it over his whole career (which just happens to be 27 tests) while Younis only managed it over a segment of his career.

 

[kyear2]

Imran played a significant number of matches purely as a batsman (either due to injury or because in the end he was just leading Pakistan). Otherwise his wpm should be 4.5 or wpm. Is there someway to exclude such matches on statsguru?

But isn't that the part of his career that boosted his average and rating/ranking as a batsman and subsequently as the best bowling all rounder to play the game. We don't subtract his batting from that period when we rate him as a all rounder, hence that standard should apply to the bowling as well.

Hope that makes sense, sounded better in my head. Either way Imran still is among the bowling greats and one of the best ever and the WPM doesn't subtract from how people view him as a bowler.

What I am interested in though is why is Donald rated so lowly in comparison to his peers from that era. He was statistically the equal of any from his era (Ambrose/McGrath) and certainly better than Akram, yet is rarely mentioned in the argument of who is the best in the era which seems to be generally between Ambrose, McGrath, Akram and sometimes even Waqar.
A similar argument could be made for Trueman who statistically stands out from the pack of bowlers from his era and in almost ever category for his career seems to be trailing behind only Marshall and on par with McGrath, Donald and Hadlee as a total package. Admittedly he played the over whelming majority of his matches at home in the seam friendly conditions of England, never bowling in the sub continent and averaging 6 runs less away than at home, but it was an impressive career none the less and deserving to be mentioned among the very best.

Name * Average * S/R * Econ * WPM
Marshall * 20.94 * 46.7 * 2.68 * 4.64
McGrath * 21.64 * 51.9 * 2.49 * 4.54
Trueman * 21.57 * 49.4 * 2.61 * 4.58
A.Donald * 22.25 * 47.0 * 2.83 * 4.58
R.Hadlee * 22.29 * 50.8 * 2.63 * 5.01

D. Lillee * 23.92 * 52.0 * 2.75 * 5.07
C. Croft * 23.30 * 49.3 * 2.83 * 4.70
D.Steyn * 22.65 * 41.1 * 3.30 * 5.10
J.Garner * 20.97 * 50.8 * 2.47 * 4.46
M.Murali * 22.72 * 55.0 * 2.47 * 6.01
S.Warne * 25.41 * 57.4 * 2.65 * 4.88

Ambrose * 20.99 * 54.5 * 2.30 * 4.13
W.Younis * 23.56 * 43.4 * 3.25 * 4.28
I. Khan * 22.81 * 53.7 * 2.54 * 4.11
Holding * 23.68 * 50.9 * 2.79 * 4.15
P.Pollock * 24.18 * 56.2 * 2.58 * 4.14
Roberts * 25.61 * 55.1 * 2.76 * 4.29

W.Akram * 23.62 * 54.6 * 2.59 * 3.98
Davidson * 20.53 * 62.2 * 1.98 * 4.22
C.Walsh * 24.44 * 57.8 * 2.59 * 3.93
J. Snow * 26.66 * 59.5 * 2.68 * 4.12
B. Willis * 25.20 * 53.4 * 2.83 * 3.65
N.Adcock * 21.10 * 61.4 * 2.06 * 4.00
W. Hall * 26.38 * 54.2 * 2.91 * 4.00
S.Pollock * 23.11 * 57.8 * 2.39 * 3.89
Mahmood * 24.70 * 70.7 * 2.09 * 4.02

Tayfield * 25.91 * 79.8 * 1.94 * 4.59
O' Reilly * 22.59 * 69.6 * 1.94 * 4.70
Grimmett * 24.21 * 67.1 * 2.16 * 5.80
J. Laker * 21.24 * 62.3 * 2.04 * 4.19

S.Barnes * 16.43 * 41.6 * 2.36 * 7.00
F. Tyson * 18.56 * 45.4 * 2.45 * 4.47

Larwood * 28.35 * 63.7 * 2.67 * 3.61
Lindwall * 23.03 * 59.8 * 2.30 * 3.73
K. Miller * 22.97 * 61.5 * 2.24 * 3.09

The list showing the bowlers mentioned for comparison.

 

[Goughy]

But isn't that the part of his career that boosted his average and rating/ranking as a batsman and subsequently as the best bowling all rounder to play the game. We don't subtract his batting from that period when we rate him as a all rounder, hence that standard should apply to the bowling as well.

Hope that makes sense, sounded better in my head. Either way Imran still is among the bowling greats and one of the best ever and the WPM doesn't subtract from how people view him as a bowler.

What I am interested in though is why is Donald rated so lowly in comparison to his peers from that era. He was statistically the equal of any from his era (Ambrose/McGrath) and certainly better than Akram, yet is rarely mentioned in the argument of who is the best in the era which seems to be generally between Ambrose, McGrath, Akram and sometimes even Waqar.

While it is true that Donald is generally underrated - possibly due to never quite consistently do well against Aus - I also think very few people realistically put Akram the company you did. There will always be a few fan boys and some comments made that are polite and complimentary but Akram wasnt in the same class as Ambrose and McGrath.

 

[Migara]

It's interesting, but I also notice that Barnes played just 10 of his 27 tests in England (home tracks). How many '27 test peaks' would have so few home tests. May havehappened, I haven't checked.

And some of them are against minnows of highest nature. That also should be a consideration.

 

[watson]

And some of them are against minnows of highest nature. That also should be a consideration.

20 Tests against Australia plus 7 Test matches against South Africa between 1912 and 1914. The top South African batsman of the time were probably Herbie Taylor, Arthur Nourse, and Aubrey Faulkner.

 

[smash84]

While it is true that Donald is generally underrated - possibly due to never quite consistently do well against Aus - I also think very few people realistically put Akram the company you did. There will always be a few fan boys and some comments made that are polite and complimentary but Akram wasnt in the same class as Ambrose and McGrath.

I think kyear2's analysis was pretty much on the mark. While Akram may not have been as good Ambrose and McGrath but Akram gets the nod above Amby and McG by a LOT of their peers. In fact for the batsmen that played all 3 of them Akram probably gets the most rave reviews

 

[kyear2]

20 Tests against Australia plus 7 Test matches against South Africa between 1912 and 1914. The top South African batsman of the time were probably Herbie Taylor, Arthur Nourse, and Aubrey Faulkner.

One look at his stats would reveal that Miagra this time is correct in my opinion. He performed creditably but not overly spectacularly against Australia but really gorged on the South Africans, particularly on the South African matting pitches where the hosts were out matched. Everyone from that era performed much better vs South Africa than the other opposition and boosted their stats against them.

 

[kyear2]

I think kyear2's analysis was pretty much on the mark. While Akram may not have been as good Ambrose and McGrath but Akram gets the nod above Amby and McG by a LOT of their peers. In fact for the batsmen that played all 3 of them Akram probably gets the most rave reviews

True. Believe that was based on what Wasim could do rather than what he actually did. So talented with the ball, just didn't quite have the results to back it up.

 

[OverratedSanity]

While it is true that Donald is generally underrated - possibly due to never quite consistently do well against Aus -

I know that's the explanation people generally give for not ranking Donald that high... I think most people just say Donald wasn't good against Australia by just looking at his average of 31... The thing is, I watched his career and thought he was actually pretty good against Australia, bar of course that last unfortunate series which he really shouldn't have played. Before that series he averaged around 27... Considering that Australian team had one of the best lineups of all time, that's a pretty damn good level of performance. He bowled some of his best spells against them too

Waqar was poor against them too , but his name still shows up more often than Donald's in those greatest fast bowler discussions. Almost everyone apart from Ambrose and Akram had a very tough time against Australia, and just because a couple of matches took his average against them over that psychological figure of 30 shouldn't automatically mean he somehow bowled poorly against them, certainly not bad enough to rate him too far below McGrath and Ambrose imo. Apart from those two, I wouldn't put any of the 90s greats above Donald

 

[Prince EWS]

True. Believe that was based on what Wasim could do rather than what he actually did.

Quite. This is a very common trait we all share are sports-lovers, I believe. It's actually an amazing trait to have when we sit around discussing the beauty or awe of the game but we need to somehow apply checks and balances on ourselves regarding it when we're discussing a player's quality.

I think it's been said before, by Howe I believe, that Afridi's ODI batting is the perfect example of this. He's capable of having a far more devastating affect on the game than most other players but it happens so rarely that we needn't worry about it - yet we do.

 

[Howe_zat]

Quite. This is a very common trait we all share are sports-lovers, I believe. It's actually an amazing trait to have when we sit around discussing the beauty or awe of the game but we need to somehow apply checks and balances on ourselves regarding it when we're discussing a player's quality.

I think it's been said before, by Howe I believe, that Afridi's ODI batting is the perfect example of this. He's capable of having a far more devastating affect on the game than most other players but it happens so rarely that we needn't worry about it - yet we do.

Nah we don't

Afridi4lyfe

 

[Migara]

Even to lower the average requirement to <22 that would still only eliminate Donald. Don't see too many ATG XI's with an attack of Marshall, Trueman, Donald and Barnes. Probably we should.

Taking averages at face value is useless especially for players pre 1920. It should be standardized averages as some of the pitches pre 1920 were real shockers. Then possibly no spinner will make the cut.

 

[kyear2]

I am not trying to compete with DoG, this is not a full statistical analysis, this is just using players combined pure career numbers to compare them and see who were the more complete and most effective.

Basically whose wickets cost the less, how quickly they struck taking them and how much a game they took and using filters to eliminate players while whittling down to the very best.

One more category to add, just double checking the numbers and verifying if it would actually add anything to the exercise.

Of note, the last three players listed were threee of the bowlers chosen by Benaud in his short list when he was selecting his ATG XI above an unnamed bowler . Just though I should point that out and how sometimes hyperbole and romanticism elevates some players higher than probably they should be and that average alone cannot tell us the whole story for a bowler, or a batsman for that matter.

 

[watson]

I am not trying to compete with DoG, this is not a full statistical analysis, this is just using players combined pure career numbers to compare them and see who were the more complete and most effective.

Basically whose wickets cost the less, how quickly they struck taking them and how much a game they took and using filters to eliminate players while whittling down to the very best.

One more category to add, just double checking the numbers and verifying if it would actually add anything to the exercise.

Of note, the last three players listed were threee of the bowlers chosen by Benaud in his short list when he was selecting his ATG XI above an unnamed bowler . Just though I should point that out and how sometimes hyperbole and romanticism elevates some players higher than probably they should be and that average alone cannot tell us the whole story for a bowler, or a batsman for that matter.

If the stat's match the 'hyperbole' and 'romanticism' then you probably have yourself a truly great player.

However, if the stat's are inconsistent with the 'hyperbole' and 'romanticism' then you're probably confronted with a load of bull****.

 

[smash84]

If the stat's match the 'hyperbole' and 'romanticism' then you probably have yourself a truly great player.

However, if the stat's are inconsistent with the 'hyperbole' and 'romanticism' then you're probably confronted with a load of bull****.

So how exactly does one figure out if romanticism and hyperbole are matching the stats or not?

The top 15 or 20 fast bowlers have very little between them IMO or at least not quite as much that other factors (such as their own team strength, bench strength, opposition etc) will not mitigate i.e. if Wasim were to be put into the great Aus or WI sides the fielding would have been good enough to subtract a few runs off his average.

 

[watson]

So how exactly does one figure out if romanticism and hyperbole are matching the stats or not?

The top 15 or 20 fast bowlers have very little between them IMO or at least not quite as much that other factors (such as their own team strength, bench strength, opposition etc) will not mitigate i.e. if Wasim were to be put into the great Aus or WI sides the fielding would have been good enough to subtract a few runs off his average.

Romanticism and hyperbole is a bit like porn - hard to define at times, but you certainly recognise it when you see it.

As for the numbers - I guess the difficult part is deciding just how exacting and fussy you want to be with the them before you make that "ATG" declaration.

 

[hendrix]

My explanation of Akram's career numbers not quite being in that upper tier and his slight underachievement is due to the way he operated.

Massive, hooping swing both ways was too good for batsmen on so many occasions, but could still fail to get them out. I think if there was an imaginary "beaten the batsman" average then Akram would most certainly be top tier. Thinking about the way Martin Crowe played Akram explains this further: he simply played every single delivery as if it was an inswinger. Cover the stumps and expect it to come in. When Akram bowled the outswinger he completely befuddled Crowe but it didn't get him out because of the fact that he was playing miles inside the line.

Deception as a wicket taking mechanism is sometimes not as effective as more simplistic methods.

 

[smash84]

but Crowe was an exception......I m sure other batsmen might have found the technique hard to follow