If Bumrah ends his test career with 330 wickets @19.0, how do you think he will be rated?

[smash84]

If he does so he will be the GOAT for sure.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

GOAT easily!!!

 

[capt_Luffy]

No, I meant he probably can confirm the current opinion of general people.

After Australia I think a near majority want them out, while a few did maintained they will understand when to go on their own since they are so much *more qualified* than us on this matter. Those Ranji matches did them no good and turned Virat especially into an almost meme. But then....... We won the CT and both of them, especially Virat, did pretty Good. Now, they again have the public with them.

 

[reyrey]

He'd need to play another 25 Tests. Age wise it's doable, but staying injury free to do it is the difficult part.

From a neutral and realistic point of view I'd be happy to see him do really well against England and eventually get to 270ish wickets averaging 20. That would put him close to ATG status for me. Alongside Garner and Donald.

330 at 19 puts him up there with the very best.

 

[Johan]

After Australia I think a near majority want them out, while a few did maintained they will understand when to go on their own since they are so much *more qualified* than us on this matter. Those Ranji matches did them no good and turned Virat especially into an almost meme. But then....... We won the CT and both of them, especially Virat, did pretty Good. Now, they again have the public with them.

dicksucking.

 

[CartyDurham]

Only 400 wickets behind Anderson

he maybe the goat of Indian seamers but overall not

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Curious, if he doesn't get that elusive 10 for, would it diminish his greatness??

 

[Thala_0710]

Curious, if he doesn't get that elusive 10 for, would it diminish his greatness??

No

 

[DrWolverine]

Curious, if he doesn't get that elusive 10 for, would it diminish his greatness??

@Coronis

 

[vidiq]

No

It's like A batsman Without a 200 or 250 .

 

[Thala_0710]

It's like A batsman Without a 200 or 250 .

Sachin, Smith, Gavaskar, Kallis etc no one scored a 250, no one really cares about it.
Sutcliffe, Cowdrey etc. no one scored a 200, no one really cares about it.

 

[Johan]

Sachin, Smith, Gavaskar, Kallis etc no one scored a 250, no one really cares about it.
Sutcliffe, Cowdrey etc. no one scored a 200, no one really cares about it.

no one cares about Herbert and Cowdrey in general.

 

[Thala_0710]

It's literally irrelevant, he has many 8fers and 9fers, if he comes back once at the end to statpad tailender wickets in those games, does it make him a better bowler? Ofc not.

 

[smash84]

Curious, if he doesn't get that elusive 10 for, would it diminish his greatness??

It actually would diminish it slightly in comparison to someone who has them.

But overall, 330 @ 19 would still make him the GOAT. He has the match-winning 5fers to boost his case which should offset any weaknesses on the 10fers.

 

[smash84]

It's literally irrelevant, he has many 8fers and 9fers, if he comes back once at the end to statpad tailender wickets in those games, does it make him a better bowler? Ofc not.

In comparison with a bowler who has similar stats but more 10fers, he would suffer on this count though. It's not like he'll be competing with Ishant Sharma for the GOAT. He will be competing with Marshall and McGrath and Hadlee so of course 10fers will matter at that elite level.

 

[Thala_0710]

In comparison with a bowler who has similar stats but more 10fers, he would suffer on this count though. It's not like he'll be competing with Ishant Sharma for the GOAT. He will be competing with Marshall and McGrath and Hadlee so of course 10fers will matter at that elite level.

I mean why is number of 10fers a criteria for measuring bowlers anyway? McGrath did thrice in a 124 match career (in which he took exactly 10 wickets each time). If he had taken just a wicket less each time, it would have made him a less of a bowler? Makes no sense to me. A 520 wicket, 124 matches career having a dependency on some random 3 wickets is ludicrous!

 

[reyrey]

In comparison with a bowler who has similar stats but more 10fers, he would suffer on this count though. It's not like he'll be competing with Ishant Sharma for the GOAT. He will be competing with Marshall and McGrath and Hadlee so of course 10fers will matter at that elite level.

Why would he suffer?

If he has no 10fers and still averages 19 it would just make his bowling average even better. He wouldn't have needed to rely on hot streaks to help his average and wasn't a feast or famine bowler. Just ultra consistent

 

[smash84]

I mean why is number of 10fers a criteria for measuring bowlers anyway? McGrath did thrice in a 124 match career (in which he took exactly 10 wickets each time). If he had taken just a wicket less each time, it would have made him a less of a bowler? Makes no sense to me. A 520 wicket, 124 matches career having a dependency on same random 3 wickets same ludicrous!

It's a criterion in the same way that the 5fers are, or centuries are.

They are arbitrarily defined but they do show wicket taking (or in the case of runs, centuries). In many cases it also shows that you can take bigger hauls across a match compared to your peers.

Why would that not be relevant?

 

[smash84]

Why would he suffer?

If he has no 10fers and still averages 19 it would just make his bowling average even better. He wouldn't have needed to rely on hot streaks to help his average and wasn't a feast or famine bowler. Just ultra consistent

Bowlers taking more 10fers may indicate higher ceiling no?

 

[sayon basak]

Don't think no. of ten wicket hauls is useful at all. We don't downgrade a batter for not having a 200.