Progression of the 'best fast bowler' title post war

[Burgey]

Yeah that’s a fair comment. Snow was bouncing blokes in the early 70s but Lillee and Thommo really kicked off the pace dominant era (temporally if not causally).

 

[AndrewB]

It was noticeable when I was putting together the list for the top 3 fast bowlers in the rankings each year - in the early 70s there were often 7 or more spinners in the top 10.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah it was a dark era indeed. The lights came on again for Cricket in 74/75

 

[Daemon]

You weren’t meant to take a **** while you were away? That can’t be good for you.

Who said I was taking a dump? Backed up so far I might get mankeded.

 

[Engle]

Like disco, the 70's was one of the most glittering eras of the game - fast bowlers, spinners, all-rounders, batsmen, captains, keepers. Perhaps only batsmen-keepers were missing.

 

[bagapath]

If you wanted to choose three pacers during different eras, post war, may be one would go...

Lindwall, Miller, Bedser
Trueman, Davidson, Hall
P. Pollock, McKenzie, Snow
Lillee, Roberts, Willis
Imran, Botham, Holding
Marshall, Hadlee, Garner
Ambrose, Akram, Waqar
McGrath, Donald, S. Pollock
Steyn, Johnson, Anderson
Rabada, Philander, Starc

 

[Burgey]

Who said I was taking a dump? Backed up so far I might get mankeded.

So you sit down to piss?

 

[Coronis]

If you wanted to choose three pacers during different eras, post war, may be one would go...

Lindwall, Miller, Bedser
Trueman, Davidson, Hall
P. Pollock, McKenzie, Snow
Lillee, Roberts, Willis
Imran, Botham, Holding
Marshall, Hadlee, Garner
Ambrose, Akram, Waqar
McGrath, Donald, S. Pollock
Steyn, Johnson, Anderson
Rabada, Philander, Starc

Interesting concept of eras.

 

[Starfighter]

If you wanted to choose three pacers during different eras, post war, may be one would go...

Lindwall, Miller, Bedser
Trueman, Davidson, Hall
P. Pollock, McKenzie, Snow
Lillee, Roberts, Willis
Imran, Botham, Holding
Marshall, Hadlee, Garner
Ambrose, Akram, Waqar
McGrath, Donald, S. Pollock
Steyn, Johnson, Anderson
Rabada, Philander, Starc

No. Call me up when he has significantly better average than Cummins and Haze.

 

[cnerd123]

Yes we are. Shut up, ****.

Details?

 

[Burgey]

Details?

Just like your posts.

 

[cnerd123]

Just like your posts.

No one is disagreeing with your logic

The reasoning your hypothesis doesn't translate into a factual conclusion is because there are clearly other factors you're not taking into account. It's really that simple.

There's no point trying to argue against statistical certainty because you thought of a factor that should hypothetically affect said statistical certainty. That's insane. Because it's already statistical certainty!

 

[Mr Miyagi]

No one is disagreeing with your logic

The reasoning your hypothesis doesn't translate into a factual conclusion is because there are clearly other factors you're not taking into account. It's really that simple.

There's no point trying to argue against statistical certainty because you thought of a factor that should hypothetically affect said statistical certainty. That's insane. Because it's already statistical certainty!

Which is like saying a correlation does not imply causation. To suggest a correlation is causation without support is illogical and a fallacy. So how this not a logical disagreement?

Its like you cut and paste this from someone I know.

 

[Starfighter]

Which is like saying a correlation does not imply causation. To suggest a correlation is causation without support is illogical and a fallacy. So how this not a logical disagreement?

Its like you cut and paste this from someone I know.

Details please

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Details please

What a splendid role model you seem to have chosen. Fine choice.

 

[Burgey]

No one is disagreeing with your logic

The reasoning your hypothesis doesn't translate into a factual conclusion is because there are clearly other factors you're not taking into account. It's really that simple.

There's no point trying to argue against statistical certainty because you thought of a factor that should hypothetically affect said statistical certainty. That's insane. Because it's already statistical certainty!

Just like your posts.

 

[Starfighter]

Just like your posts.

Details?

 

[Burgey]

Which is like saying a correlation does not imply causation. To suggest a correlation is causation without support is illogical and a fallacy. So how this not a logical disagreement?

Its like you cut and paste this from someone I know.

 

[cnerd123]

Which is like saying a correlation does not imply causation. To suggest a correlation is causation without support is illogical and a fallacy. So how this not a logical disagreement?

Its like you cut and paste this from someone I know.

Just like your posts

 

[Starfighter]

Just like your posts

Details?