Lance Gibbs vs Anil Kumble

[Xix2565]

I'm not quizzing you on whether Gibbs or Kumble is better. You're deflecting the point – that the logical conclusion of valuing bowling SR is valuing batting stodginess – by changing your initial conclusion. I might indeed be struggling to understand your posts, but your initial conclusion was pretty damn clear:



If you want to honestly engage rather than change your mind to suit your gut opinion, then it would be nice to get a response to the question of whether a bowling team would generally prefer 400 in 60 overs or 400 in 120 overs.

I'm not deflecting because it's not a logical connection to link bowling SR to balls faced in terms of valuation. For bowlers, taking wickets without giving away too many runs and not using up a lot of balls are both important to get Test wins. For batters, how slowly or quickly you score runs isn't as much of a factor because only the amount of runs made is that important when it comes to winning games. Why would anyone link the two is baffling.

400 in 60 overs is worse for the bowling opposition. And I didn't comment on what was worse for the bowling side before anyway, because I was making a point about the time needed to bowl teams out and how it's necessary for teams to ensure that they give their bowlers that to take wickets and win Tests. You would know this if you read and understood without going off on tangents.

 

[Xix2565]

What makes a good Test bowler isn't inversely found in a good Test batter.

 

[ataraxia]

I'm not deflecting because it's not a logical connection to link bowling SR to balls faced in terms of valuation. For bowlers, taking wickets without giving away too many runs and not using up a lot of balls are both important to get Test wins. For batters, how slowly or quickly you score runs isn't as much of a factor because only the amount of runs made is that important when it comes to winning games. Why would anyone link the two is baffling.

It isn't at all baffling as to why I am linking bowling strike rate and balls per innings. Because they are the same thing. Cricket is a zero-sum game. The most desirable outcome for one team in the context of a match is the least desirable outcome for the other team. If a team plays a bowling lineup that emphasises strike rate over economy, any advantage that gives can be directly negated by the opposing team fixing together a conservative batting lineup. And then the high strike rate bowlers are no longer. It's precisely why you want economical bowlers to bowl in T20s, where aggressive batting is most desirable.

400 in 60 overs is worse for the bowling opposition. And I didn't comment on what was worse for the bowling side before anyway, because I was making a point about the time needed to bowl teams out and how it's necessary for teams to ensure that they give their bowlers that to take wickets and win Tests. You would know this if you read and understood without going off on tangents.

Yes you didn't answer my question prior (you went off on a tangent to my extremely directed line of questioning), but you have answered it now. So it's interesting to see that you think 400 in 60 overs is worse for the bowling side (and obviously better for the batting side) than 400 in 120 overs. This is a scenario where better economy is clearly superior. What percentage of innings do you think would be better for the bowling side if they emphasised economy over strike rate?

 

[Xix2565]

It isn't at all baffling as to why I am linking bowling strike rate and balls per innings. Because they are the same thing. Cricket is a zero-sum game. The most desirable outcome for one team in the context of a match is the least desirable outcome for the other team. If a team plays a bowling lineup that emphasises strike rate over economy, any advantage that gives can be directly negated by the opposing team fixing together a conservative batting lineup. And then the high strike rate bowlers are no longer. It's precisely why you want economical bowlers to bowl in T20s, where aggressive batting is most desirable.


Yes you didn't answer my question prior (you went off on a tangent to my extremely directed line of questioning), but you have answered it now. So it's interesting to see that you think 400 in 60 overs is worse for the bowling side (and obviously better for the batting side) than 400 in 120 overs. This is a scenario where better economy is clearly superior. What percentage of innings do you think would be better for the bowling side if they emphasised economy over strike rate?

They are not the same thing in value to batters and bowlers. What a bowler wants isn't perfectly reflected in what a batter wants in Tests, especially with balls bowled and faced given how bowlers have no limits on how much they can bowl while batters do. This isn't that difficult to understand. Stop forcing things together when they have no business being so connected.

You made up a random question for no reason. I'm not interested in your bullshit ad-hoc reasoning to justify this line of discussion. My point has always been that in such discussions I do prefer the bowler who strikes more if they concede close to the same runs per wicket. It's that simple.

 

[Xix2565]

To put it another way, I don't think David Warner is the best Test opener post 2010. Or a top 5 Test batter in this period.

 

[ataraxia]

They are not the same thing in value to batters and bowlers. What a bowler wants isn't perfectly reflected in what a batter wants in Tests, especially with balls bowled and faced given how bowlers have no limits on how much they can bowl while batters do. This isn't that difficult to understand. Stop forcing things together when they have no business being so connected.

You made up a random question for no reason. I'm not interested in your bullshit ad-hoc reasoning to justify this line of discussion. My point has always been that in such discussions I do prefer the bowler who strikes more if they concede close to the same runs per wicket. It's that simple.

I hate to break it to you, but cricket is played by two teams. Both teams are involved in everything that happens. If runs are scored, that is good for the batting team and bad for the bowling team. If wickets are taken, that is bad for the batting team and good for the bowling team. If a batsman hits a four, that raises his career strike rate and raises the bowler's career economy. If a batsman grinds out 50 (180), that raises his career balls per innings and raises the bowler's career strike rate. Everything is connected. (Unfortunately, it's not as straightforward as I have dumbed down for you. Draws exist, and newsflash: slow batting leads to draws as well as slow wicket-taking.)

But since you permanently have one eye closed, the only reason you are participating in this conversation is you think that I am trying to convince you that a modern Indian player is worse than an older non-Indian player. It's very telling of your narrow-minded thinking that you can't even understand that batting and bowling statistics are connected.

 

[Xix2565]

I hate to break it to you, but cricket is played by two teams. Both teams are involved in everything that happens. If runs are scored, that is good for the batting team and bad for the bowling team. If wickets are taken, that is bad for the batting team and good for the bowling team. If a batsman hits a four, that raises his career strike rate and raises the bowler's career economy. If a batsman grinds out 50 (180), that raises his career balls per innings and raises the bowler's career strike rate. Everything is connected. (Unfortunately, it's not as straightforward as I have dumbed down for you. Draws exist, and newsflash: slow batting leads to draws as well as slow wicket-taking.)

But since you permanently have one eye closed, the only reason you are participating in this conversation is you think that I am trying to convince you that a modern Indian player is worse than an older non-Indian player. It's very telling of your narrow-minded thinking that you can't even understand that batting and bowling statistics are connected.

They are not connected in player comparisons without this ridiculous stretching to equate balls faced by batters to bowling SR in a comparison of two bowlers in Tests. Stop forcing this stupid connection.

I'm not interested in your fantasies here. I would really like if you didn't make **** up about what I posted. If I wanted a discussion on balls faced and how that correlates with player ratings that's an entirely different thread.

 

[capt_Luffy]

How the top teams performed against each other isn't really relevant.View attachment 47690

Sure, they did fine against each other. But yoy wouldn't defend 2000s Zim and Bangers for doing fine against each other.

And yup. India on paper is stronger. I'm considering all three collectively, with their results in mind. See above stats. And I think even the top 4 were weak in the 60s.

Anyways you put it, the rate of draws was roughly the same to the 80s, be it the top teams or all teams.

As I just said, I don't think even 60s NZ was comparable to 2000s BangZim

 

[Johan]

wtf, they weren't bad at all.

 

[Coronis]

How the top teams performed against each other isn't really relevant.View attachment 47690

Sure, they did fine against each other. But yoy wouldn't defend 2000s Zim and Bangers for doing fine against each other.

And yup. India on paper is stronger. I'm considering all three collectively, with their results in mind. See above stats. And I think even the top 4 were weak in the 60s.

Thought that was the question you were asking

 

[Bolo.]

Anyways you put it, the rate of draws was roughly the same to the 80s, be it the top teams or all teams.

As I just said, I don't think even 60s NZ was comparable to 2000s BangZim

From 2003 on, ya. I reckon Zim have a pretty good case to be better than any of them for a while before this?

ZimBang is 2/10 teams anyway. 1/9 from 2005 when Zim stopped playing.

PakIndNZ is 3/7. And RSA wasn't playing for a few years as well.

 

[capt_Luffy]

From 2003 on, ya. I reckon Zim have a pretty good case to be better than any of them for a while before this?

ZimBang is 2/10 teams anyway. 1/9 from 2005 when Zim stopped playing.

PakIndNZ is 3/7. And RSA wasn't playing for a few years as well.

I don't really see a case for Zimbabwe over India or Pakistan honestly. Both did more than Zim and had better players on paper as well.

Point was the draw rate. And it pretty much is the same between the top 4 and on including the other 4.

 

[Bolo.]

I don't really see a case for Zimbabwe over India or Pakistan honestly. Both did more than Zim and had better players on paper as well.

Point was the draw rate. And it pretty much is the same between the top 4 and on including the other 4.

Can't say I particularly know what I'm talking about here, but are you sure you aren't thinking of both of them at their early best? Pak didn't win a game vs quality opposition in the 60s. India was ahead, but I'm talking an average of the 3 teams.

The draw rate was a fair bit lower for the weaker teams against the 4 better ones. Looking at the draw rates, it probably does have less impact than I was assuming though.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Can't say I particularly know what I'm talking about here, but are you sure you aren't thinking of both of them at their early best? Pak didn't win a game vs quality opposition in the 60s. India was ahead, but I'm talking an average of the 3 teams.

The draw rate was a fair bit lower for the weaker teams against the 4 better ones. Looking at the draw rates, it probably does have less impact than I was assuming though.

Pak beat both England and WI once away IIRC (which tbf, could be wrong).

Still kinda marginal really. Like India - England had full 5 match Series drawn.

 

[ma1978]

I don't really see a case for Zimbabwe over India or Pakistan honestly. Both did more than Zim and had better players on paper as well.

Point was the draw rate. And it pretty much is the same between the top 4 and on including the other 4.

no, neither the India or Pakistan side of that era had anyone of the quality of Andy Flower and Heath Streak. And it’s not clear player for player anyone was better amongst the rest. I think you have rose tinted glasses about the past. All of the people you named other than an Unrigar or Engineer were mediocre

 

[capt_Luffy]

no, neither the India or Pakistan side of that era had anyone of the quality of Andy Flower and Heath Streak. And it’s not clear player for player anyone was better amongst the rest. I think you have rose tinted glasses about the past. All of the people you named other than an Unrigar or Engineer were mediocre

Prasanna, Bedi and Chandra weren't as good as Streak!?? And I already acknowledged no single bat was as good as Flower, but collectively they were stronger. And Pataudi>Umrigar.

 

[Thala_0710]

Pataudi>Umrigar.

No

 

[Bolo.]

Pak beat both England and WI once away IIRC (which tbf, could be wrong).

Still kinda marginal really. Like India - England had full 5 match Series drawn.

That's the 50s. Pak didn't win anything in the 60s. Pak did fine in their first few years. India was on 1 win out of 40 games vs the better sides if you want to go further back than the 60s though.

 

[capt_Luffy]

That's the 50s. Pak didn't win anything in the 60s. Pak did fine in their first few years. India was on 1 win out of 40 games vs the better sides if you want to go further back than the 60s though.

I was talking of the 60s here really, then it's fair. But I do think my Indian points stands.

 

[capt_Luffy]

That's the 50s. Pak didn't win anything in the 60s. Pak did fine in their first few years. India was on 1 win out of 40 games vs the better sides if you want to go further back than the 60s though.

Re Pak, they Won 2 out of 30, 8 losses, W/L: 0.25. Zim Won 3 out of 39, 17 losses, W/L: 0.17. They had a shitty bowling but had Hanif, Mushtaq, Asif Iqbal, Imtiaz, Saeed Ahmed, etc in batting. Think were better than Zimbabwe.