Between September 2001 and the day of this post...

[FRAZ]

There have been four bowlers who've averaged under 27, and six who've averaged between 27 and 30, in Tests against Test-class teams, with a qualification of 500 overs bowled.

.

Holy Mary !
I usualy pass through the bowlers comparing threads just to see if Shoaib is there or no .. And don't pay attention to any thing else.
Just saw sep 11 thingi !! Freaky stuff . Damn this Nostradamus's predicted **** !!!

 

[Beleg]

Just serves to illustrate how good Shoaib is.

 

[Perm]

Just serves to illustrate how good Shoaib is.

When he is actually bowling, yes. There is alot more to being an international player though.

 

[Beleg]

Well, yeah, my point was based around his bowling performance.

 

[Jono]

Let's not forget this period includes Shoaib bowling on two of the deadest (is that a word) wickets ever during India's tour of Pakistan in 2006.

Shoaib = Gun.

 

[Beleg]

Perhaps I will be accused of fanboyism, and there might be a small amount of truth in that - however, I truly believe that Shoaib's bowling during that period has been exceptional. The statistics barely reflect the impact he had on the Indian series, not to mention the series Pakistan won against England earlier. He has bowled with pace, aggression and venom while getting little support from both the fielders and other bowlers.

It's a pity things shaped up the way they did.

 

[Perm]

Yeah, wasn't denying that Shoaib was awesome when he's fit and bowling. Unfortunately it just hasn't happened enough, which is a real shame.

 

[Zinzan]

Hang on Richard, If your going stick to your removing stats involving minnows Zim and Bang, don't you by the same principle you should leave Australian palyers statistics out of any comparisions given their bowlers and batsmen have an unfair contest never facing the best in the world? Alternatively, if you do include them, remove non-australian players stats against Aust in the comparison.

 

[FRAZ]

Just serves to illustrate how good Shoaib is.

It's his attitude which is always like "Dude it's my last chance so don't mess up this time" ,and the cycle goes on every time.
OK ! Lets say the drawbacks include some minor disciplinary itsi bitsis or hmmm some God given injuries . But who else would have been competing with Murali at the top spot ?

 

[FRAZ]

Yup ! The Eng-Pak series was a true example of one man showmanship . He was the only difference b/w the both sides and the difference had more impact on the series than the other 10 players' combined together !

 

[Matt79]

Blame poor (flat) pitches, blame poor cricket-balls, blame lack of good bowlers, blame all three, heck even blame better batsmen if you must (denial of reality IMO).

All of those reasons are why I don't accept that bowler's themselves are any less skilled or able than in previous periods. The one thing I think you can point at that might have produced a decline in bowling standards is the amount of limited overs cricket, where bowlers play heaps, but never have to bowl more than 10 overs in a day, and have to bowl containment more than in Tests. Then they get put in a situation of needing to take 20 wickets in a match and maybe bowling 25 overs in a day, and unsurprisingly they get injured or drop in their performance.

BTW, do you have similar analyses for other periods, to provide some context for this stat? And when you're doing them, for the sake of consistency, you'll need to stick to your 'weak teams aren't test teams' policy and remove, at various times, SL, NZ, India, Pakistan, South Africa, and yes, even the Windies.

 

[Olwe]

Harbhajan Singh will be going up that list soon as he is one of the best bolwers at the present time and is only 27 and i have seen him play on many ocations both for India and for Surrey and his bowling is outstanding and he is very good in the field ass well, he has quite a few more years left for him in the Indian team if he keeps putting his 100% comitment as he is doing now!

 

[social]

There have been four bowlers who've averaged under 27, and six who've averaged between 27 and 30, in Tests against Test-class teams, with a qualification of 500 overs bowled.

These bowlers are:
Muttiah Muralitharan (average of 19.66 in 37 games - could almost certainly be more if SLC had played less against Bangladesh though)
Shoaib Akhtar (22.08 in 24 - missing 21 in that time)
Glenn McGrath (22.34 in 46)
Shane Warne (24.76 in 50)
Shaun Pollock (27.70 in 47)
Makhaya Ntini (28.47 in 58)
Chaminda Vaas (28.70 in 41)
Jason Gillespie (29.55 in 40)
Anil Kumble (29.89 in 51)
Harbhajan Singh (29.92 in 37)

Two of these are still playing and could very easily go over 30 with just a few runs.

Now, clearly this is not an exhaustive nor all-telling list: Vaas, as we all know, can go from brilliant to innocuous with no warning; Pollock was far better last season than at any point since 2000\01 (and has promptly been dropped...); and Ntini blows almost as hot-and-cold as Vaas, though with some element of a pattern there unlike the Lankan. Also, Andrew Flintoff since December 2003 has averaged 28.36 in 38 after going from hopeless to good. What's more, there are at least a couple of bowlers (Mohammad Asif and Stuart Clark) who are very likely to soon break into the qualification requirements, and a few other promising bowlers hovering just over 30 (James Franklin, Matthew Hoggard, Umar Gul, Andre Nel, Laaasith Maaalinga).

Nonetheless, this, more than any statistic regarding batting-average, runs-per-match, run-rate, etc. shows how bat has dominated ball in the time in question. Blame poor (flat) pitches, blame poor cricket-balls, blame lack of good bowlers, blame all three, heck even blame better batsmen if you must (denial of reality IMO).

But the fact that just three bowlers (two of whom are wristspinners) have truly convinced in the last 6 years, while 1 other has retained consistency and respectibility, tells one hell of a lot.

And by universal consensus, 5 rank as amongst the greatest bowlers in history (Murali, McGrath,Warne, Pollock and Kumble).

Obviously a very strong period for cricket when you consider that batsman have managed to prosper in the face of such quality

On the other hand, it could be argued that the 80s was a period of dire batting because virtually no batsman did anything of note

 

[Goughy]

On the other hand, it could be argued that the 80s was a period of dire batting because virtually no batsman did anything of note

and against some very ordinary attacks.

 

[steds]

I wonder why?

Date he stopped actually watching cricket and started memorizing cricinfo's ball by ball coverage for every single Test match.

 

[Jamee999]

I lol'd.

 

[BoyBrumby]

a few other promising bowlers hovering just over 30 (James Franklin, Matthew Hoggard, Umar Gul, Andre Nel, Laaasith Maaalinga).

Think a bloke like Hoggy who's 30 and has 240 test scalps might be surprised to be called "promising".

 

[Xuhaib]

What about Harmy Richards?

 

[Xuhaib]

Think a bloke like Hoggy who's 30 and has 240 test scalps might be surprised to be called "promising".

Haha love your avatar. I bet the guy is in shout for BBC sports personalty of the year.

 

[FRAZ]

On the other hand, it could be argued that the 80s was a period of dire batting because virtually no batsman did anything of note

For example Mr Border, Sunil Gawaskar and Javed Miandad ?