That's not true. McGrath not playing cut Aus W/L in half. Evidence of MCGrath having an impact on team's fortune does exist.
Or if someone could make a really good win predictor and run it for all those matches, it could be instead of bookies' data
You need to factor in against who and where were the matches missed as well... For the last 10-15 tests, India's results are much better without Bumrah than with him. The reason being they play without him mostly at home, where the spin friendly pitches suit them, and with him away against tough opposition, + there has been some real dumb bad luck even away, like these tests vs England. So that necessarily doesn't give the right picture.
Pakistan did win at home without imran(84&90 nz series &87 eng series) in 80s. But would they have drawn 1-1 in wi without imran is doubtful
Barnes level again
The main criticism of Bradman's captaincy came after his first two Tests in charge, both of which were lost, leaving Australia 2-0 down in the 1936-37 series. Four players appeared before the board accused of not supporting the captain. Some members of the team wanted to play under McCabe. Alan Fairfax claimed that Bradman was too focused on his own game to look after his players' welfare and get the best out of them, like Armstrong and Woodfull had done. After the series was turned around most of this was forgotten.
Yah, I did think of it. It only works if sample size is normal and big one for two players. Bumrah's case is unique, he simply has been playing most games on away tough tours. That's not the norm for most players. Hypothetically, if Bumrah plays 125 tests like McGrath, luck/condition factor should even out. Realistically he is never going to play 125 tests, just using it as an example.
Well there I vehemently disagree.
Speculation and correlation-causation. Bottomline, none of it is proof.
So batsmen are footnotes. Explains why a batting allrounder rises significantly higher than a bowling allrounder would for you.
You'll are acting like I'm saying that this is a major factor in ratings. It was a small footnote at the end of a detailed post.
It's as direct it can be.
Bowlers win tests.
Put on ignore forever to keep your cw feed healthy. Initially not only starts the instigation with a personal tirade (in reply to 70s cricket) but then starts using the most unfortunate foul language, going down to whatever extent to try to prove some points to random people. It's not a huge shock as we have seen this line of posting in player comparisons, but probably a good idea to never to see it again.
How is Sobers better than Imran if batsmen are not the match winners?
Would like to see Imran, Steyn, Ambrose and Murali as the attack so that it looks as good as (if not better than) the first XI's attack. But looks like Barnes will make it to spoil the party. Oh well it is an 'all' time xi afterall
Well said.
