Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 43 of 43
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: The Barnes Standard

  1. #31
    International Regular OverratedSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Chennai, India
    Posts
    3,904
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    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
    Last edited by OverratedSanity; 21-09-2013 at 10:07 AM.
    Proud member of the Indian STFU: Sane Tendulkar Fanboy Union.
    Our motto: Sachin WAG, Don>>>Sachin

  2. #32
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,618
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    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.
    ~ Cribbage ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  3. #33
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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
    Every 5 years we have an election and have to decide who are the least obnoxious out of all the men. Then one gets in and they age really quickly. Which is always fun to watch.

  4. #34
    International Captain Migara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Just under your skin
    Posts
    5,811
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    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.
    Member of the Sanga fan club. (Ugh! it took me so long to become a real fan of his)


  5. #35
    International Vice-Captain kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    4,099
    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.
    Last edited by kyear2; 21-09-2013 at 01:17 PM.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3

  6. #36
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,935
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    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****.
    "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong" - Oscar Wilde

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,737
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    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.
    Last edited by smalishah84; 22-09-2013 at 12:47 AM.

  8. #38
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,935
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    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.

  9. #39
    International Captain hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    6,672
    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.
    Last edited by hendrix; 22-09-2013 at 03:49 AM.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,737
    but Crowe was an exception......I m sure other batsmen might have found the technique hard to follow

  11. #41
    International Vice-Captain kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    4,099
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    but Crowe was an exception......I m sure other batsmen might have found the technique hard to follow
    Just for the record, while Wasim could for some fit into that category, he is for most still is an ATG, just not top tier with some of the very elite. The original statement was intended for Larwood, Miller and Lindwall who for me doesn't quite fit into the ATG category for me and definitely doesn't deserve to be rared ahead of Marshall as Benaud has done. WPM and strike rate just not good enough.

  12. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,737
    I don't think Benaud rates Miller ahead of Marshall. Miller was in the pool of all rounders and lost out to Imran and Sobers in Benaud's team

  13. #43
    International Captain hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    6,672
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    but Crowe was an exception......I m sure other batsmen might have found the technique hard to follow
    Yes, but there's a reason we have the term "that ball was too good for the batsman" in cricket.

    I generally hate the X-factor category - especially when applied to batsmen - but there are certain players to whom it absolutely applies. Akram to me is the bowling equivalent of Lara. These are players who can make an excellent bowling attack look pedestrian and very good batsmen inept. Lara vs Warne and Akram vs Dravid are good examples.

    I think that DoG's analysis will come out with some statistical method for supporting players like this. The great opposition category, match-winning performances etc will hopefully come to Akram's aid here.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. SF Barnes
    By zaremba in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 396
    Last Post: 21-04-2013, 06:47 AM
  2. What did Sydney Barnes bowl?
    By chaminda_00 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 27-11-2011, 09:07 AM
  3. McGrath vs Sydney Barnes?
    By ganeshran in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 19-11-2011, 08:47 PM
  4. Sid Barnes
    By neville cardus in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 24-03-2009, 03:23 PM
  5. Simon Barnes
    By a massive zebra in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 22-05-2007, 07:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •