A Tribute to Anil Kumble-For Completing 100 Tests

[Slats4ever]

refer post # 39. Still waiting for your 'hard cold facts'

SCG McGill Test bowling avg 27.73
Anil Kumble Test bowling avg 28.02

SCG McGill Test Strike Rate with ball 52.6
Anil Kumble Test Strike Rate with ball 65.1

SCG McGill wickets per test match 4.88
Anil Kumble wickets per test match 4.02

SCG McGill's avg away from home 32
Anil Kumble avg away from home 36

SCG McGill's avg in calender year of 2005: 18.37
Anil Kumble's test avg in calender year of 2005: 30.20

Stats and figures courtest of cricinfo.com

 

[Slats4ever]

statistical argument has been presented but you seem to be oblivious to that.

Refer to above post. Statistical argument now presented back.

Kumble's record against the best spin-playing nations are significantly better than McGill's.

Mcgill's record is far better against Pakistan and South Africa. the only nation where Kumble is signficantly better is Sri Lanka. And Mcgill's only played 2 tests against them making statistics rather light weight

 

[Deja moo]

SCG McGill Test bowling avg 27.73
Anil Kumble Test bowling avg 28.02

SCG McGill Test Strike Rate with ball 52.6
Anil Kumble Test Strike Rate with ball 65.1

SCG McGill wickets per test match 4.88
Anil Kumble wickets per test match 4.02

SCG McGill's avg away from home 32
Anil Kumble avg away from home 36

SCG McGill's avg in calender year of 2005: 18.37
Anil Kumble's test avg in calender year of 2005: 30.20

Stats and figures courtest of cricinfo.com

Virender Sehwag averages 55 with the bat compared to Steve waughs 51. He scores a hundred every 3.8 games opposed to Waughs 5.25 . Would you say Sehwag > Waugh ?

 

[Deja moo]

And, oh care to compare Kanerias record to MacGills, especially against India ?

 

[Slats4ever]

in many cases i believe an argument can be made for sehwag being superior. In my opinion steve waugh was highly overrated. So yes Sehwag > Waugh

 

[Slats4ever]

And, oh care to compare Kanerias record to MacGills, especially against India ?

i'd probably rate kaneria in the same class as mcgill. That being above Kumble

 

[Deja moo]

in many cases i believe an argument can be made for sehwag being superior. In my opinion steve waugh was highly overrated. So yes Sehwag > Waugh

Dude, I'm Indian, and even I wouldnt say that yet..

 

[Buddhmaster]

Virender Sehwag averages 55 with the bat compared to Steve waughs 51. He scores a hundred every 3.8 games opposed to Waughs 5.25 . Would you say Sehwag > Waugh ?

Nah, caus Steve Waugh is Steve Waugh

 

[open365]

Virender Sehwag averages 55 with the bat compared to Steve waughs 51. He scores a hundred every 3.8 games opposed to Waughs 5.25 . Would you say Sehwag > Waugh ?

Yes,next question

 

[Deja moo]

Yes,next question

Erm wise guy, the 'next question' has already been conveniently ignored. The Kaneria one.

 

[Pratters]

MacGill vs Kumble?

MacGill - a bowler who bowls bad bowls and eases the pressure on the opposing team. Tends to bowl one if not more bad balls per over.

Kumble - a bowler renowned for his accuracy.

It is very vital that slats hasnt posted the economy rates of the two players in question. Now at first glance it can be said - its test cricket so economy rate doesnt matter! But when you analyse it, if you are more expensive - it means you give a breather to the batsmen. The easing of pressure at one end proves very vital.

 

[Sanz]

Virender Sehwag averages 55 with the bat compared to Steve waughs 51. He scores a hundred every 3.8 games opposed to Waughs 5.25 . Would you say Sehwag > Waugh ?

V Sehwag is @ his peak. Not a fair comparison.

Slats does have a very valid point and IMO looking @ the stats Mcgill does look the better bowler of the two. Yes he may bowl more bad balls than Kumble, but that's not the point, the point is he has a better record than Kumble in almost every category.

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...1;.cgifields=cplayerid;.cgifields=comparetype

 

[C_C]

Refer to above post. Statistical argument now presented back.



Mcgill's record is far better against Pakistan and South Africa. the only nation where Kumble is signficantly better is Sri Lanka. And Mcgill's only played 2 tests against them making statistics rather light weight

1. Overall statistics is irrelevant and you've got your figures wrong- Kumble has nearly 5 wickets/match, not barely 4.

2. Pakistan and South Africa are pretty poor players of spin - WI ( barring the contract dispute side), IND, SL and OZ are the only teams good against spin.

3. The fact remains that McGill's statistics are extremely skewered, considering that he :

a) gets picked when wickets are very much spinning wickets - OZ rarely play 2 spin + 2 pace options unless they really have to

b) gets the best damn support he could dream of- significantly better than Kumble's and thus has a slightly better record

 

[Tom Halsey]

Would you say Sehwag > Waugh ?

Depends what you want. If you want a run a ball hundred, Sehwag. If you want stickabilty and someone to bat for your life, Waugh. Overall, I'd rate them quite similar considering their respective strengths/weaknesses.

 

[Run like Inzy]

I reckon Magill has been overshadowed by Warne and due to this he hsnt played half as much of the tests as he would. I think in just about any other team he would be a no.1 choice for leg spinner. However that said Kumble is the one with almost 500 wickets something which is always a measure of quality. If one was not to base this on stats but sheerly on the ability Kumble and Magill are too spinners which are not comparable. One is a premier spinner for his side who doesn't spin the ball (usually bowls the top spinner and wrong un) much and is known for accuracy which is what gets him wickets. The other is a secondary option who is an attacking bowler able to spin the ball a long way and thus gets wickets in a completely dfifferent way. Both are even in my view as they are both so good at what they are meant to do.

 

[C_C]

Except the difference between McGill and kumble is that the only thing McGill can do is spin the ball a mile and half and the only thing Kumble can't do is spin the ball a mile and half !

 

[Run like Inzy]

Except the difference between McGill and kumble is that the only thing McGill can do is spin the ball a mile and half and the only thing Kumble can't do is spin the ball a mile and half !

So what did I say?

 

[Deja moo]

V Sehwag is @ his peak. Not a fair comparison.

Slats does have a very valid point and IMO looking @ the stats Mcgill does look the better bowler of the two. Yes he may bowl more bad balls than Kumble, but that's not the point, the point is he has a better record than Kumble in almost every category.

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...1;.cgifields=cplayerid;.cgifields=comparetype

And he also has a better support cast, Sanz. Look at his figures when he doesnt have Warne at the other end.

 

[Jono]

why can't u guys provide major statistical/logical arguments, besides the fact you think australian fans are biased?

It's getting very old and painful every time we say something that we get labelled as being biased. Averages point to McGill being a more superior bowler yet some of you base your opinions solely on the strength of your emotions and claim that he can't be in the same class as kumble...

The main point where people started claiming you were biased was, whilst I don't believe it true, its not that ridiculous for someone to believe MacGill is the better spinner than Kumble. But you claimed MacGill was also better than Murali, and hence the second best spinner in the world. That's simply not true, and only bias can make you believe that because all your statistics wouldn't be able to prove MacGill is even in the same league as Murali.

And since you're so strong on statstics, doesn't Murali have a better strike rate than Warne as well? Average too? Yet I know you wouldn't say he's better than Warne, so why does MacGill get off lightly when he has inferior stats?

 

[Slats4ever]

imho murali is equal to shane warne. the only reasons stats have been included here is because you guys all found it so laughable when i suggested mcgill could conceivably be in the same league/better than kumble!!!

In my opinion McGill is better than Kumble, but if you think otherwise then it's ok. i don't really mind, he's a pretty good bowler. but to laugh at the suggestion like some of you did that mcgill is in the same class is just plain ignorant and single minded, and the purpose of this argument of including statistics was to show that mcgill has a valid case of being considered equal to kumble.