Yuvraj Singh

[Swervy]

i think he probably had a much better average when he played for Surrey than when he played for warwickshire.

[Richard]

Whether for Surrey or Warwickshire, it's still domestic cricket.

[Swervy]

but the point is that Willis found domestic cricket unchallenging when compared to tests especially in the time he was with warwickshire

[marc71178]

Originally posted by Richard
Don't judge a bowler by how many wickets he took, judge him by how cheaply he took them.

And you'll do the same?

[Swervy]

yeah will you do the same for Mcgrath then

[marc71178]

And Brett Lee

[Richard]

Originally posted by marc71178
And you'll do the same?

Well, obviously (if you can) judge on how many of the wickets were earned through good deliveries. Surely that goes without saying?
But averages are far more important than number of wickets. I'd prefer 45 wickets at 20 for a season's work than 90 at 34 anyday.
But of course, if you possibly can it's fair to judge how many of the wickets were actually to the credit of the bowler.

[Richard]

Originally posted by Swervy
but the point is that Willis found domestic cricket unchallenging when compared to tests especially in the time he was with warwickshire

Of course he found domestic cricket unchallenging compared to Tests - duh, anyone would. Test-cricket is a hell of a lot harder than domestic cricket, whoever you play for.
So what? Willis still did better at domestic cricket than internationals, as you'd expect.

[Swervy]

taken from wisden 1985

Bob Willis-An assessment by David Frith

'he was not always quite a universal favourite at Edgbaston.many warwickshire supporters were resentful because he seemed to be giving more for his country than his county'

'Willis took 285 Championship wickets for his county (Warwickshre) at an average of 25.51.Clearly, with 325 test wickets at 25.20 he takes his place in the Hall Of fame as an England bowler of immense stature,but with relatively scant county acheivement to go with it'

For warwickshire:

1979 11wickets at 36.45
1980 35wickets at 27.40
1981 13wickets at 28.53
1982 26wickets at 34.30
1983 21wickets at 37.38
1984 9wickets at 42.22

For england
season 1978/79 20wickets at 23.05
season 1979 10wickets at 29.80
season 1979/80 3wickets at 74.66
season 1980 14wickets at 29.07
season 1981 29wickets at 22.96
season 1981/82 15wickets at 30.06
season 1982 25wickets at 22.08
season 1982/83 18wickets at 27.00
season 1983 20wickets at 13.65
season 1983/84 14wickets at 25.14
season 1984 6wickets at 61.16

they kinda look like the figures of a man who maybe wasnt so successful in domestic cricket but very successful at test level..for those last few seasons at least...hence Warwickshire fans attitude towards him.

i dont think he meant it like that, but that was the kind of person he was..same with Gower, and really Botham,and probably a number of players....the rush one must get from playing test cricket seems to gee these players up

PS willis actually had a lower bowling average in tests than he did in championship cricket for warwickshire

[masterblaster]

Im sorry to sound rude, but this is a thread about Yuvraj Singh.....

[Swervy]

yeah sorry

[marc71178]

Originally posted by Richard
Well, obviously (if you can) judge on how many of the wickets were earned through good deliveries. Surely that goes without saying?

So in other words, we have to take Willis as a success on number of wickets, but you don't have to take McGrath or Lee because you're changing the rules.

Originally posted by Richard
But averages are far more important than number of wickets.

Yet you slagged Waqar off for being uneconomical when he took his wickets at 23 last season...

[Richard]

Originally posted by Swervy
taken from wisden 1985

Bob Willis-An assessment by David Frith

'he was not always quite a universal favourite at Edgbaston.many warwickshire supporters were resentful because he seemed to be giving more for his country than his county'

'Willis took 285 Championship wickets for his county (Warwickshre) at an average of 25.51.Clearly, with 325 test wickets at 25.20 he takes his place in the Hall Of fame as an England bowler of immense stature,but with relatively scant county acheivement to go with it'

For warwickshire:

1979 11wickets at 36.45
1980 35wickets at 27.40
1981 13wickets at 28.53
1982 26wickets at 34.30
1983 21wickets at 37.38
1984 9wickets at 42.22

For england
season 1978/79 20wickets at 23.05
season 1979 10wickets at 29.80
season 1979/80 3wickets at 74.66
season 1980 14wickets at 29.07
season 1981 29wickets at 22.96
season 1981/82 15wickets at 30.06
season 1982 25wickets at 22.08
season 1982/83 18wickets at 27.00
season 1983 20wickets at 13.65
season 1983/84 14wickets at 25.14
season 1984 6wickets at 61.16

they kinda look like the figures of a man who maybe wasnt so successful in domestic cricket but very successful at test level..for those last few seasons at least...hence Warwickshire fans attitude towards him.

i dont think he meant it like that, but that was the kind of person he was..same with Gower, and really Botham,and probably a number of players....the rush one must get from playing test cricket seems to gee these players up

PS willis actually had a lower bowling average in tests than he did in championship cricket for warwickshire

And nothing changes the basic fact that he did better overall in domestic First-Class cricket that in Test-matches. Whatever the season-by-season figures of the later part of his career, the fact is Bob Willis' domestic record, overall, is better than his Test record. In this instance, this is what counts.
You're not going to get any blood out of this stone, I'm afraid. The basic fact of the matter is, you tried to use Willis as an example of an anomaly in a trend, when in fact he fits the trend like most people.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by ReallyCrazy
What?? What the hell u on about?? You have to get through me first!

what am i on about???
the fact that he can't do field placements for crap along with the fact that he can't field himself, the last time i saw him score a decent amount of runs was too long ago and he has one of the best sides in the world and yet he can't harness themm well enough to win!....that's what i'm on about!....so quite frankly this entire anti ganguy club is about the best club i've heard of in a while.
that's what i'm on about!!!!!!!!!

[Richard]

Originally posted by marc71178
So in other words, we have to take Willis as a success on number of wickets, but you don't have to take McGrath or Lee because you're changing the rules.

Yet you slagged Waqar off for being uneconomical when he took his wickets at 23 last season...

What has that to do with anything? Did any part of my post mention economy-rates? In any case I didn't slag him off, I simply said I was disappointed he hadn't taken the opportunity to improve his economy-rates, and had in fact made them worse.
Yes, in the case of older players we to have to take skill on averages (not number of wickets, I've already said that - averages are more important than wickets) much more than those we can analyse in detail.
However, given that our analysis does indicate that Willis was a multi-skilled bowler who could get batsmen out in many ways, it is safer to assume that the average tells an accurate story as it does with the like of Donald and Ambrose. With Lee and McGrath, we know otherwise.