-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Progression of the 'best fast bowler' title post war
- Thread starter trundler
- Start date
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Perhaps you should provide the details that prove that your assertion stands up in the real world. You're asking me to prove a negative.
Prove that the 'second innings denial effect' as we might call it exists at a significant level in the real world by showing a direct relationship between (correctly adjusted) WpM and team batting average. Showing the relationship is the only thing that will prove the postulated causal mechanism is effectual in practice.
The fact that Hadlee has a better WpM than other comparable bowlers in stronger batting teams is evidence that the effect is not significant in the real world.
The fact that Hadlee bowled more balls per match is proof that other effects are more important. You seem to have no ability at all to discern that just because something is logically true that doesn't mean it's significant.
You're still trying to support your reasoning, which no-one disagrees with. Now prove its significance.
Last edited:
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Constantly asking for details when you have been provided with a very considerable number of both logical and statistical reasons as to why the effect you postulate is not significant in the real world is while you consistently refuse to provide very simple evidence that would prove your assertion for once and for all is very frustrating and when couched in your constant condescending one-line replies is also very rude. It's classic pseudo-intellectual 'I only want evidence that suits me' stuff.
Mr Miyagi
Banned
I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to see a limit.
How can they ever be inverse if Murali jumps with good batting, and McGrath goes down? That's the whole point.
This is multi dimensional. There are two limits for taking wickets if bowling - 20 wickets (and declarations) and running out of runs.
As for significance for wpm- If Hadlee averages 28 overs and 14 overs, and takes a wicket every 8 overs on average, if he bowls on average 8 more second innings overs, even 4 overs more each game on average, his potential to get more wickets has increased.
Now I really must get some sleep. Goodnight.
Last edited:
Mr Miyagi
Banned
Details please.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You are asking me to prove a negative. You're asking me to show somehow that this effect is not significant. I can only point to its absence.
I'm going to be a man and admit that I confused myself and wrote 'inversely' where I meant directly, due to batting/bowling average relationship which isn't actually relevant. But the logic of my question still stands, and I got it correct when I wasn't using that particular phrasing.
Now, what part of Murali is a spin bowler and capable of bowling more overs than Hadlee without loss of effectiveness is hard to understand? Hadlee can only be compared with other pace bowlers, or it would be an apples to oranges comparison.
Now I will restate correctly: prove that great bowlers in teams with higher batting averages take more wickets per match than those in teams with low batting averages.
Last edited:
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Search for them yourself. They're there. I'm not here to help your wilful ignorance.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Is anyone else willing to actually prove that the 'second innings denial' effect is actually significant in terms of the number of wickets a bowler takes a match, in relation to team batting average?
Mr Miyagi
Banned
So does my reply above. I am not going to cross reference the team bowling averages (this will be fun for 5th bowlers) as well as the team batting averages for these players. If you want it done, you do it.
The same part that you tell me that Hadlee was limited to averaging only 14 overs in the second. I am dealing and explaining a limit than even Murali suffers, but to a lesser degree with his 55 overs per game. Same ground as above.
And I repeat, How can they ever be inverse if Murali jumps with good batting, and McGrath goes down? That's the whole point.
This is multi dimensional. There are two limits for taking wickets if bowling - 20 wickets (and declarations) and running out of runs.
As for significance for wpm- If Hadlee averages 28 overs and 14 overs, and takes a wicket every 8 overs on average, if he bowls on average 8 more second innings overs, even 4 overs more each game on average, his potential to get more wickets has increased.
Now I really must get some sleep. Goodnight.
Mr Miyagi
Banned
No, you do it yourself. You provide me proof that wpm does not get effected for great bowlers in great teams, weak teams with good batting, and weak teams.
Because I am dealing with the potential limits. You want to prove the limits not being accurate to what happens, you show me. Or if you concede one limit does, explain to me why the batting limit does not. Cos right now, you want to have your cake and eat it too.
You want competition for wickets to stand, but not having enough runs to bowl with too before losing (or drawing unfavourably).
You want to split limits from both having an effect, you show me. And then explain why Hadlee was too tired to ever bowl more than 14 overs in the second innings on average as against 28 in the first vs the runs running out. I mean Murali is 33 and 22 over split. I take it the innings defeats are a given? What about the 4th innings totals under 150 in losses? And those bully declarations when the opposition already had a big lead? I'm sure we can agree on a benchmark somewhere.
Last edited:
jaideep
U19 12th Man
Can you make a similar list for batsman?
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Shaun Pollock is a little surprising in that list. It's not as clear cut between him and McGrath as I had thought previously. McGrath ended on a high and Pollock tailed off quite terribly though.
Everyone knows Hadlee, Curtly, and Steyn are god-tier but it's still baffling how friggin awesome they were consistently. Probably one of the few quicks who didn't get significantly worse by the end of their careers as opposed to say Dev, Donald, Waqar, Akram, etc.
Everyone knows Hadlee, Curtly, and Steyn are god-tier but it's still baffling how friggin awesome they were consistently. Probably one of the few quicks who didn't get significantly worse by the end of their careers as opposed to say Dev, Donald, Waqar, Akram, etc.
StephenZA
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Steyn status of making an ATG world team will depend on him making a come back..... if he somehow manages it and is only even a mediocre ATG for 3/4 years, would truly push his status up. Of course as a SA supporter I just want to see Steyn, Rabada and Philander playing together for the next few years.
Steyn has already gone the Pollock route in one sense by trading pace for ccuracy.
In terms of effectiveness, it's not going to happen. Not sure if he'd be happy playing as a shell of himself, but if he was he'd get dropped. Pollock could bat, plus RSA bowling sucked at the tail end of his career. Steyn has very little margin for error.
In terms of effectiveness, it's not going to happen. Not sure if he'd be happy playing as a shell of himself, but if he was he'd get dropped. Pollock could bat, plus RSA bowling sucked at the tail end of his career. Steyn has very little margin for error.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It looks a little weird that, despite the increase in the number of tests (and team to some extent) the post 1980 period seems to have fewer bowlers occupying the top spot rather than more.
Borges
International Regular
Steyn would comfortably make an ATG world team even if he does not do anything more. He has an insane career strike rate: 41.5
Some of the other high strike rates: Waquar 43, Marshall, Donald 47, Philander, Trueman 49, Hadlee, Holding 51, McGrath, Lillee 52
They would form one of the greatest pace attacks in the game. Rabada hasn't played enough games; but his current strike rate is in the Steyn league: 39.2
Mr Miyagi
Banned
Morkel was improving too pre retirement and Abbott had a great brief career. But Ngidi looks useful. The production line is not finished yet it would appear.
Last edited:
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
****ing sleep already, mate!
