Thread
), Viv Richards might not have been such an attacking batsman had he been playing as an Indian batsman of the 70s - because most of the times he would have to bat to save a match rather than win.
Though I don't like your methodology (we had a discussion before), can you do it for all bowlers with more than 30 wickets? I shall just try out my new formula (using longevity and number of wickets) with your adjusted averages just to see how the list looks like. I have already applied the formula using PEWS' adjusted averages, want to give it a try using your adjusted averages, if not for anything just for fun.
Home/away differences, perhaps.
I haven't got it automated, so it will be ton of work for me to incorporate so many bowlers. You have to download (copy-paste is what I do, no smart auto downloads) the list of batsmen dismissed by each bowler. If PEWS has some smart way of doing that, it can be tried. Appraoch is straightforward enough for PEWS to implement, and obviously he has no life and no shortage of time.
Rather than "average Test side", I tend to look at it as "a cross section of every Test side in history, averaged out". The average Test side is the midpoint of all these sides so it's the easiest to reconcile that sort of hard logic with, which is why I use it. Miller would be more useful to more Test sides in history than McGrath - is what I'm trying to say. Miller is probably not the best of examples anyway because he's the sort of guy who might actually be more useful to an All Time World XI than McGrath actually; Kapil is definitely a good example though because I think McGrath would be infinitely more useful to an AWTXI squad than he despite voting Kapil higher here.Which makes me think, why should I rate players according to their value in an average test side? I am not disagreeing with PEWS, just trying to decipher the reason. When McGrath played, he was part of a great side. He (probably) modelled his game based on the requirements. Who knows he might have been a completely different player had he been part of an 'average' test side. For other examples (pardon my cevnoing
Fair enough. Among the present test sides, I believe only India and Sri Lanka will prefer a McGrath over a Miller.
Perhaps. They'd be wrong though IMO.
At Test level, the difference between McGrath's bowling and Miller's bowling would be barely noticeable, IMO. Which was my whole point to begin with - in all our efforts to split hairs and separate the great bowlers (and batsmen), we exaggerate any differences we find and put too much space between them in our estimations. Miller and McGrath were both great bowlers so in real terms you'd barely notice the difference at Test level (theoretical levels above that being a different story).
Our bowling is so ****ed ATM that even that small difference would mean something for usPerhaps. They'd be wrong though IMO.
In the mean time, do you want to work with the my shortlisted bowlers, based on the status as of 1.5 years ago? I can share that worksheet.
Yeah, can obviously come up with the ranking among those 40 bowlers....will be good only for comparison among those 40...and to see how and if the order among those 40 is different from PEWS results...
Well it depends on the side. He'd make it as a bowler in all of them atm, easily. He would pretty well make it in everyone's AT team as an all rounder too.
