***best Bowlers***

[chaminda_00]

Interesting that Stephen Fleming seems to be the best at playing both of those bowlers.

I thought that was interesting too, i wonder what his record against Vaas, Gillespie and Warne is but

 

[Tim]

Well, considering out of all those names mentioned..Fleming would probably be regarded as being the player with the least amount of talent or ability.

I think you'll find that when players like Kallis, Ul Haq etc cash in on average bowlers...Fleming throws his wicket away.

 

[C_C]

This is why i think McGarth is slightly a little bit better then Murali:
Murali McGrath
Out Ave Out Ave
J Kallis 6 34.8 6 9.8
I Ul Haq 5 39.6 5 23.8
B lara 5 56.8 13 30
R Dravid 4 32.3 4 12.5
S Fleming 3 56.7 5 33.6
S Tendulkar 2 75.5 6 22.2

These are the best 6 batsmen IMO throught majority of both of these batsmen careers. As u can see McGarth got a better record aganist then all. I hate to admitt it but Murali gets allot of wickets against tailenders which brings down his average and other stats.

The average against a said batsman is utterly inconsequential.
It merely denotes what is the average score you dismissed the batsman on, not what the batsman scores off of you in average.

ie, if Lara for eg. scores 300*,5,15,200* against McGrath, with both wickets taken by McGrath and he scores 50,40,60,50 vs Murali, with all four taken by murali, his ave. against McGrath is 10.00 and 50.00 vs Murali....

Murali has 163 wickets for the tail, at 30.6% which means 369 wickets for #1 to 7. ( 140 @ 26.3% for 1-3 and 229 @ 43% for 4-7). This from 91 tests

McGrath has 122 wickets for the tail @ 25.4% which means 359 wickets for #1 to 7 ( 191 @ 39.7% for 1-3 and 168 @ 34.9% for 4-7). This from 106 test.
So while mural takes more lower order wickets than McGrath,he also takes more top order wickets than McGrath.

 

[Tom Halsey]

No, I'm assuming they've totted up total runs scored against that bowler, and total amount of times they've been out to that bowler, and divided it.

And we'll have to agree to disagree WRT Australian pithces, because we're never going to see eye-to-eye on it.

 

[social]

What logic did the selectors use for naming Warne as the best spinner in 2004?

To those saying that Aus and SA pitches (leave NZ pitches out of it) favour pace as much as the sub-continent favours spin - NONSENSE.

If anything, both countries pitches are flatter than they have ever been and favour batting more than anything else.

Indian and SL pitches rarely, if ever, favour anything other than spin or batting. Why should they? That is where their teams strength lies.

 

[C_C]

No, I'm assuming they've totted up total runs scored against that bowler, and total amount of times they've been out to that bowler, and divided it.

That isnt true.
For a simple check, add up all the innings scores when Lara(for example) was dismissed by Gillespie and divide it by the number of times Gillespie got him.
You will find that this is the average that is being talked about above.

To those saying that Aus and SA pitches (leave NZ pitches out of it) favour pace as much as the sub-continent favours spin - NONSENSE.

If anything, both countries pitches are flatter than they have ever been and favour batting more than anything else.

Well RSA and AUS of recent times have been more suitable for batting but whether it is the lack of bowlers ( OZ does manage to get out opposition for low scores but the opposition lack bowlers of quality) or pitch is the question.

But i am not disputing the balance between bowlers and batsmen when it comes to pitch favouritism...i am debating on whether the pitch suits pacers more or spinners more.....for a pitch can be a batting beauty but it still can aid pacers more than spinners or vice versa.

 

[chaminda_00]

The average against a said batsman is utterly inconsequential.
It merely denotes what is the average score you dismissed the batsman on, not what the batsman scores off of you in average.

ie, if Lara for eg. scores 300*,5,15,200* against McGrath, with both wickets taken by McGrath and he scores 50,40,60,50 vs Murali, with all four taken by murali, his ave. against McGrath is 10.00 and 50.00 vs Murali....

The averages aren't worked out like that it is how many runs each batsmen score of each bowler divided by how many times a batsmen gets out to that bowler.

Murali has 163 wickets for the tail, at 30.6% which means 369 wickets for #1 to 7. ( 140 @ 26.3% for 1-3 and 229 @ 43% for 4-7). This from 91 tests

McGrath has 122 wickets for the tail @ 25.4% which means 359 wickets for #1 to 7 ( 191 @ 39.7% for 1-3 and 168 @ 34.9% for 4-7). This from 106 test.
So while mural takes more lower order wickets than McGrath,he also takes more top order wickets than McGrath.

It is the % that count and McGarth has lower % aganist tailenders and higher aganist % aganist 1-7 batsmen.

 

[C_C]

The averages aren't worked out like that it is how many runs each batsmen score of each bowler divided by how many times a batsmen gets out to that bowler.

*NO IT ISNT*

just check.

For example, Tendulkar has been dismissed thrice by Price. His average against price is 84.66
His 3 innings scores are 176,36 and 42 ( total of 254). Divide the total by 3 and you get 84.66

Akhtar's average against Tugga is 0.66 and hehas dismissed him 3 times.
His 3 innings scores are 1,1 and 0. 2/3 = 0.66

Average against a particular bowler is simply the average score the said bowler dismissed you on.

It is the % that count and McGarth has lower % aganist tailenders and higher aganist % aganist 1-7 batsmen.

% doesnt apply here...as the question is, does Murali take more top order wickets than McGrath or not. The answer is yes.
Simply because he has more top order wickets than McGrath in lesser # of games.
Your % of wickets for a particular position is determined by # of wickets from that position divided by total # of wickets.

If you take 100 top order wicekts and 5 tail ender wickets and i take 100 top order wickets and 20 tail ender wickets in same # of matches or less, i will have a less % of top order wickets but i still have taken more top order wickets.

 

[marc71178]

Interesting that Stephen Fleming seems to be the best at playing both of those bowlers.

Lara's only just below him but has played the 2 far more times..

 

[marc71178]

Murali has 163 wickets for the tail, at 30.6% which means 369 wickets for #1 to 7. ( 140 @ 26.3% for 1-3 and 229 @ 43% for 4-7). This from 91 tests
McGrath has 122 wickets for the tail @ 25.4% which means 359 wickets for #1 to 7 ( 191 @ 39.7% for 1-3 and 168 @ 34.9% for 4-7). This from 106 test.
So while mural takes more lower order wickets than McGrath,he also takes more top order wickets than McGrath.

You'd expect him to take more, he's got more overall.

But look at the percentage of top order out of all their wickets - 40% of McGrath's are the top 3 - that is phenomenal!

 

[C_C]

well Murali doesnt come on till the 15th-16th over or so while McGrath opens..
You will find that bowlers who've consistently opened tend to have higher % of top order wickets.

The fact that Murali has more top order wickets in less matches than McGrath rubbishes any claim that McGrath is more effective against quality batsmen than Murali.
% top order or lower order wickets are irrelevant if you have more top order wickets in less # of matches.

Like i said,what you are saying is if A takes 100 top order wicket and 10 lower order wicket in 25 matches, he is more successful than B, who takes 110 top order wickets and 20 lower order wickets in 25 matches.
Which is bull.

 

[marc71178]

well Murali doesnt come on till the 15th-16th over or so while McGrath opens..

Yes I know that, but then again how often have SL had good opening bowlers?

The fact that Murali has more top order wickets in less matches than McGrath rubbishes any claim that McGrath is more effective against quality batsmen than Murali.

And that has nothing to do with Murali being SL's only World Class bowler, and Murali having played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe so frequently?

 

[Top_Cat]

Best bowler currently playing; Glenn McGrath

Quote me stat after stat and I won't change my opinion. Sorry.

 

[C_C]

Yes I know that, but then again how often have SL had good opening bowlers?

Vaas is pretty decent. But thats irrelevant. If you come later down, you WILL take less wickets....its not like mediocre bowlers NEVER take wickets....but an opening bowler ALWAYS gets the first crack.

And that has nothing to do with Murali being SL's only World Class bowler, and Murali having played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe so frequently?

Irrelevant.
I am not debating the hows and why but the fact whether "McGrath is more effective against top order batsmen" is true or not.
My contention is that Murali is more effective....atleast going by # of wickets taken in matches played.
Once we have established that, we can debate on hows and whys thats the case.

 

[C_C]

Best bowler currently playing; Glenn McGrath

Quote me stat after stat and I won't change my opinion. Sorry.

Otherwise known as a biassed and pre-determined opinion which will not see reason.

 

[Top_Cat]

Otherwise known as a biassed and pre-determined opinion which will not see reason.

You couldn't be more wrong. I just don't think the stats you're quoting are instructive in this case. And no, I'm not going to start a debate with you on this so don't even bother. I had zero time last week and this week, I have so little time, I'm actually planning on travelling into the past a few times so I can get all of my work done.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Best bowler in the world today without question in my view is Glenn McGrath. After him there is a whole lot of daylight, and then you have the likes of Warne, Murali and Kumble for spinners and Gillespie, Pollock, Kasprowicz, Vaas, Harmison etc for pace bowlers.

As far as the Murali vs McGrath debate is concerned. I have watched Murali bowl quite a lot, and my view on him is that while he is a great spinner by any standard, he does not entirely convince me on pitches which do not favour spinners. Pace bowlers in today's cricketing world (read: post-2000) have to deal with the majority of pitches in the majority of countries being flat with little in them for seamers. The WACA is a good pace bowling wicket certainly, and there are others, but if you look at the pitches mostly offered up for tests in Australia, South Africa and the West Indies in recent years they offer virtually nothing for seamers in comparison to what was the standard a decade ago. When was the last time we saw a genuine Gabba green-top, for example? How does the WACA of the last two series against Zimbabwe and Pakistan compare to the WACA of the early to mid 90s? No comparison whatsoever. Taking this into account, my view is that McGrath, while perhaps not the best fast bowler ever (far too much competition to claim anybody for that position alone), I consider him the greatest ever bowler on a flat wicket, or at least among the best few, and he has tailored his game perfectly to play in the conditions most difficult for fast bowling. For evidence, look at his sublime record in the subcontinent compared to other pace bowlers.

Murali however has the advantage of playing on pitches which offer noticable assistance for spin very regularly. Not every wicket in Sri Lanka is an unplayable dustbowl by any means, but they offer plenty of assistance for spin bowling, as is evident in the records of bowlers who play there. Warne for example, who is regularly decried on this board as the most overrated bowler to ever walk the earth, and even placed behind the likes of Anil Kumble (who, while great, averages over 35 playing outside of India over his career), took 26 wickets at 20.04 last year against extremely proficient players of spin over three tests. Murali on these wickets is an absolutely lethal bowler, and is perhaps even better than the likes of Kumble and Warne (excluding the series last year) on them. However, I simply don't rate Murali that highly playing on wickets which offer absolutely nothing for spinners, like say the WACA. And given that I percieve this as a weakness of his (and undoubtedly some may disagree) I find it hard to rate him as the best bowler in the world when he plays the vast majority of his matches on wickets built for his bowling. Bowlers in South Africa and Australia, for example, cannot avoid playing on flat wickets or wickets with something for spin but not so much for pace. Murali has avoided such wickets quite successfully, and while his away average of 26.92 isn't too bad (only slightly worse than Warne's 25.10), I do not find his bowling so menacing on pitches which are not suited to his style. Until I get the opportunity to see him tour (preferably Australia) and play on flat pitches and perform well, I'm not convinced.

 

[C_C]

Like i said, wickets have been flatter everywhere in the world as of late.
But i see no reason to believe that SL pitches suit spinners more than OZ pitches suit pacers on average.

Anyways....

The claim is McGrath performs better on pitches which offer little for pacers than Murali perfroms on pitches which offer little for spinners.

Well which countries predominantly favour pacers ? NZ,ENG,AUS,WI,RSA.

Which countries predominantly favour spinners : IND, SL and PAK


Murali overall in these 'predominantly pacer friendly places' :

19 matches, 100 wickets @ 26.14 B-B : 9-65 5-fer:10 10-fer :2 St/R : 61.60

McGrath overall in these 'predominantly spin friendly places' :

17 matches, 62 wickets @ 25.54 B-B: 5-66 5-fer:1 10-fer: 0 St/R: 60.24

Both are very close. While McGrath has a marginally better average and strike rate, Murali has a whole bucketload more wickets and is significantly more destructive ( 10 five-fers as opposed to 1 by McGrath)...i know..the argument is gonna be 'mcgrath has more competition'...well more competition or not, one fivefer in 17 matches is definately below par.


And besides, the argument is about the past couple of yers.

In the past couple of years, Murali has far more wickets at a better average and strike rate than McGrath, has a better away record and the only common 'away' venue they played in is the caribbean-where Murali outshone McGrath by a LONG margin.


Based on the past couple of years, its UNQUESTIONABLY muralitharan.

 

[benchmark00]

Like i said, wickets have been flatter everywhere in the world as of late.
But i see no reason to believe that SL pitches suit spinners more than OZ pitches suit pacers on average.

Anyways....

The claim is McGrath performs better on pitches which offer little for pacers than Murali perfroms on pitches which offer little for spinners.

Well which countries predominantly favour pacers ? NZ,ENG,AUS,WI,RSA.

Which countries predominantly favour spinners : IND, SL and PAK


Murali overall in these 'predominantly pacer friendly places' :

19 matches, 100 wickets @ 26.14 B-B : 9-65 5-fer:10 10-fer :2 St/R : 61.60

McGrath overall in these 'predominantly spin friendly places' :

17 matches, 62 wickets @ 25.54 B-B: 5-66 5-fer:1 10-fer: 0 St/R: 60.24

Both are very close. While McGrath has a marginally better average and strike rate, Murali has a whole bucketload more wickets and is significantly more destructive ( 10 five-fers as opposed to 1 by McGrath)...i know..the argument is gonna be 'mcgrath has more competition'...well more competition or not, one fivefer in 17 matches is definately below par.


And besides, the argument is about the past couple of yers.

In the past couple of years, Murali has far more wickets at a better average and strike rate than McGrath, has a better away record and the only common 'away' venue they played in is the caribbean-where Murali outshone McGrath by a LONG margin.


Based on the past couple of years, its UNQUESTIONABLY muralitharan.

If Mcgrath has a better strike rate and a better average then murali on his own turf compared to Murali on Mcgraths turf, how is it 'UNQUESTIONABLY muralitharan'.... and the fact that he has more wickets just shows how much the SL attack relies on him and how often he is bowled

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The claim is McGrath performs better on pitches which offer little for pacers than Murali perfroms on pitches which offer little for spinners.

Well which countries predominantly favour pacers ? NZ,ENG,AUS,WI,RSA.

Which countries predominantly favour spinners : IND, SL and PAK

Far too simplistic. The entire point I was making in my post is that pitches, particularly in Australi, South Africa and the West Indies, no longer significantly favour pacers. They are mostly flat with little in them for bowlers at all, and whatever they might offer for pace bowling is minimal in comparison to what the same pitches offered for pace bowling a decade ago. A decade ago all three countries were, in many places, absolute paradises for pace bowling. Now they are absolutely nothing of the sort and only rarely favour pacers to a small degree. It is true, however, that they largely fail to assist spin as well. They are simply predominately flat wickets with little in them for bowling compared to the past.

This is not true at all in the subcontinent, particularly in Sri Lanka where, quite rightly, pitches are prepared with Murali in mind as he is the absolute basis of the Sri Lankan attack. Comparing McGrath's record in the subcontinent where (outside of Pakistan perhaps, where has has hardly played) pitches offer next to nothing for pace bowlers and a massive amount for spinners to Murali's record in the entire rest of the world where pitches vary much more but are in recent times mostly flat with nothing in them for any bowlers is not a valid comparison.