Ravindra Jadeja vs Anil Kumble

[Xix2565]

Shh they don't want this context, they just want to be impressed by Jadeja's home averages.


Kumble is acknowledged as a great bowler pretty much the world over, just not an ATG.

Is Jadeja a great bowler? Outside of stat nerds here, pretty much the answer of world cricket is no. You want to know why? Because he is seen as a home basher whose ability is severely restricted outside of select conditions. And unlike Ashwin who has a sheer volume of wickets to make his home bashing case, Jadeja hasn't even played nearly as much to be in that conversation.

You can't escape simple facts. You are comparing a bowler with over 600 wickets with one with less than 300. Even if you think they are equally effective, the first will simply be rated a level higher by the entire world by virtue of sheer wicket tally and proving himself over a longer period.

My advice? Just be patient and less Jadeja play another 2-3 to solidify his case. Don't jump the gun because Jadeja is the flavor of the month on CW.

Again, none of this is anything other than personal bullshit dressed up as an argument. Stop pretending you want to actually debate cricketers and their performances here, you just want a nice little pat on the back for being "right" with your "ratings".

 

[subshakerz]

Again, none of this is anything other than personal bull**** dressed up as an argument. Stop pretending you want to actually debate cricketers and their performances here, you just want a nice little pat on the back for being "right" with your "ratings".

Stop dodging. Can you tell me why a 600 plus wicket bowler of supposedly comparable effectiveness shouldn't be rated ahead of another with less than 300 wickets?

 

[Xix2565]

Stop dodging. Can you tell me why a 600 plus wicket bowler of supposedly comparable effectiveness shouldn't be rated ahead of another with less than 300 wickets?

Jadeja isn't just a bowler dimwit, as I've already stated before. I consider his allrounder ability to be more valuable than Kumble's bowling. That's always been my case here, you just forgot how to read for some reason.

 

[_00_deathscar]

So Jadeja averages 55 in an entire decade based on 4-5 years of good form while ignoring the earlier 4-5 years when he wasn't in good form. Got it.

And he averages 45 if you do a 7 year period…during which by your own admission these pitches are a bitch to bat on
Even the home team is struggling to put up 300 on a regular basis, nevermind 400, forget away sides.
Bonafide great Kohli is averaging 20-odd on these same pitches the last few years.

Isn’t the argument that the flattest pitches known to mankind of the 2000s are what bumped up Kumble’s bowling average at home? Then why would the same not apply to Jadeja’s batting average, seeing as transporting him back in time to 2000s hurts his bowling average, supposedly.

The point is you can’t have it both ways

 

[subshakerz]

And he averages 45 if you do a 7 year period…during which by your own admission these pitches are a bitch to bat on
Even the home team is struggling to put up 300 on a regular basis, nevermind 400, forget away sides.
Bonafide great Kohli is averaging 20-odd on these same pitches the last few years.

Isn’t the argument that the flattest pitches known to mankind of the 2000s are what bumped up Kumble’s bowling average at home? Then why would the same not apply to Jadeja’s batting average, seeing as transporting him back in time to 2000s hurts his bowling average, supposedly.

The point is you can’t have it both ways

I concede the point that Jadeja would get a bump in average, but more along 45 than 55 which is dreamland.

 

[CricAddict]

Shh they don't want this context, they just want to be impressed by Jadeja's home averages.


Kumble is acknowledged as a great bowler pretty much the world over, just not an ATG.

Is Jadeja a great bowler? Outside of stat nerds here, pretty much the answer of world cricket is no. You want to know why? Because he is seen as a home basher whose ability is severely restricted outside of select conditions. And unlike Ashwin who has a sheer volume of wickets to make his home bashing case, Jadeja hasn't even played nearly as much to be in that conversation.

You can't escape simple facts. You are comparing a bowler with over 600 wickets with one with less than 300. Even if you think they are equally effective, the first will simply be rated a level higher by the entire world by virtue of sheer wicket tally and proving himself over a longer period.

My advice? Just be patient and less Jadeja play another 2-3 to solidify his case. Don't jump the gun because Jadeja is the flavor of the month on CW.

It is not flavor of 2 or 3 months. Jadeja has been doing well for several years.

 

[CricAddict]

So Jadeja averages 55 in an entire decade based on 4-5 years of good form while ignoring the earlier 4-5 years when he wasn't in good form. Got it.

4-5 years is not good form. He has genuinely improved his batting from a low level all-rounder who can hit useful runs to a genuine batsman.

 

[CricAddict]

Stop dodging. Can you tell me why a 600 plus wicket bowler of supposedly comparable effectiveness shouldn't be rated ahead of another with less than 300 wickets?

Dennis Lillee has "only" 355 wickets. You don't rate Anderson ahead of him because of that.

 

[subshakerz]

4-5 years is not good form. He has genuinely improved his batting from a low level all-rounder who can hit useful runs to a genuine batsman.

I agree but I only say he needs a few more years of the same to rate ahead of Kumble because at the moment he doesn't have enough of an overall sample for comparing with other great cricketers.

 

[subshakerz]

Dennis Lillee has "only" 355 wickets. You don't rate Anderson ahead of him because of that.

Anderson isn't comparably effective as Lillee as Jadeja is being suggested with Kumble (though I believe Kumble is notably better as a bowler).
If Anderson was taking 5 wickets a test @23 for 160 tests yeah I would put him ahead of Lillee.

Jadeja isn't just a bowler dimwit, as I've already stated before. I consider his allrounder ability to be more valuable than Kumble's bowling. That's always been my case here, you just forgot how to read for some reason.

Then I assume we agree Kumble is a better bowler. Good.

 

[Xix2565]

Then I assume we agree Kumble is a better bowler. Good.

Don't assume **** please.

 

[shortpitched713]

Get the best of both worlds. The answer is Ashwin.

 

[subshakerz]

Don't assume **** please.

Ok then explain your position clearly to me once you are done with your insults.

 

[Xix2565]

Ok then explain your position clearly to me once you are done with your insults.

There isn't much between them as bowlers to say one is conclusively better, and the AR ability decisively tilts the comparison into Jadeja's favour. You would have reached this if you had bothered to actually read my posts rather than argue with your imagination.

 

[subshakerz]

There isn't much between them as bowlers to say one is conclusively better, and the AR ability decisively tilts the comparison into Jadeja's favour. You would have reached this if you had bothered to actually read my posts rather than argue with your imagination.

Wow so you think they are basically equal as bowlers. No point arguing with you then, you are too far gone.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Wow so you think they are basically equal as bowlers. No point arguing with you then, you are too far gone.

I don’t think they’re quite as far apart as you suggest either though…

 

[subshakerz]

I don’t think they’re quite as far apart as you suggest either though…

I think they are. Even if we assume they are equally effective, one has 600 plus wickets and the other less than 300, so the former already is a level ahead of proving himself.

But Kumble was a better bowler anyways, especially away from home, on top of his longevity and sheer wicket tally advantage.

 

[Xix2565]

Wow so you think they are basically equal as bowlers. No point arguing with you then, you are too far gone.

Have you ever given a point to argue with? Yet to see one from you so far.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I think they are. Even if we assume they are equally effective, one has 600 plus wickets and the other less than 300, so the former already is a level ahead of proving himself.

But Kumble was a better bowler anyways, especially away from home, on top of his longevity and sheer wicket tally advantage.

Number of wickets doesn't prove anything.
Stuart Broad took 600 plus wickets and he wouldn't make India's strongest XI...

 

[subshakerz]

Number of wickets proves nothing.
Stuart Broad took 600 plus wickets and he wouldn't make India's strongest XI...

Do you think Broad got rated higher when he had 200 odd wickets or over 600?

You don't get my point clearly. I am saying when comparing bowlers of supposedly similar effectiveness, we would rate the bowler with a much larger haul and longer performance naturally ahead.