How good a pair are Harmison and Flintoff ?

[Richard]

It explains why Gough, Caddick, Cork and White can be treated as England's greatest seam attack - one bowler is as good as any other because bowlers do not affect batsmens averages - they 'don't come into it at all'.

Ah, the randomness of it all.

I never said they don't come into judgement of an average - I did say that first-chance averages do not affect the judgement of a bowler.

 

[marc71178]

Shoaib's caught-and-bowled, meanwhile, I wouldn't have blamed him if he'd dropped that, either. Had his hands been even a few centimetres in any direction, I don't reckon he'd have caught it.

So how is Strauss' different? A few centimetres and he'd not have caught it.

 

[Richard]

No, it would have had to have been at least a foot further away for it to have been uncatchable.

 

[marc71178]

Except when it was Shoaib.

 

[Richard]

Eh?
From what I can tell you're saying here "you claim that Shoaib had different reaction-time than Strauss".
If so, yes, Hinds' shot hit the middle of the bat and travelled, what, about 15-16 yards; Sarwan's hit the middle and would have travelled at least 20 yards.
At those speeds, the reaction-times are significantly different, Strauss having significantly more and hence having a significantly larger ring which he would be expected to reach.

 

[SJS]

I would say that they are far, far more valuable to the side than Caddick and Gough for obvious reasons (Freddie being an all-rounder and a fantastic slipper to boot).

As a bowling pair, that's quite difficult to say at the moment. Although it's likely that England would like to use Flintoff as an opening bowler on occasion, they would be crazy to do so.

There's also the duration of tenure - Caddick and Gough formed the bowling spearhead for a number of years, whereas Harmison has had just a year as a regular.

Ask me in 2006

Lets ask a year earlier ..in 2005 itself !!

Seriously, that was a good call Eddie and we all know now why. Just shows to go how unrealistic it is to suddenly dub a current player who runs into great form as amongst the all time greats , nay better than them all.

We have seen it happen so often on this thread.

 

[wpdavid]

Lets ask a year earlier ..in 2005 itself !!

Seriously, that was a good call Eddie and we all know now why. Just shows to go how unrealistic it is to suddenly dub a current player who runs into great form as amongst the all time greats , nay better than them all.

We have seen it happen so often on this thread.

I also think it illustrates how unreliable the PWC ratings can be. Harmy coming from nowhere to number 1 always seemed excessive, but this winter's series has shown just how outrageous it was.

 

[Neil Pickup]

They're a form ranking.

 

[Richard]

And the problem comes from people who think otherwise.
Seriously, how many times was Harmison called "The World's number-one bowler"... even by people on here who should know better.

 

[Richard]

We have seen it happen so often on this thread.

Not. By. Me!

 

[marc71178]

Seriously, how many times was Harmison called "The World's number-one bowler"... even by people on here who should know better.

World ratings said he was number 1 - since they've now been made official under the same formula, please explain how he wasn't?

 

[Richard]

Because they attempt an impossible task, and as most people notice, the only thing they rank (very approximately) is form.

 

[wpdavid]

Because they attempt an impossible task, and as most people notice, the only thing they rank (very approximately) is form.

But they've never just done that, have they, otherwise Harmison would have been number 1 straight after the Jamaica test. They've always tried to take a longer term view of who's hot and who's not, AFAICS.

 

[Richard]

They rank - very approximately - recent form.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Not all of them, but a spell of 5 wickets where not one has come through a wicket-taking delivery is, IMO, a stat caused by luck.

It's also taking into account your idea of a wicket-taking delivery, and possibly denying the fact that a bowler can make a batsman look decidedly ordinary.

 

[Son Of Coco]

This is hilarious

How about when a batsman is wrongly given out? Besides treating that innings as not out, how many runs to be added to his score ?

How about doubling his score so that if he is out for 0 he ends up getting....er....well...better ideas anyone ?

What if bowlers are denied a wicket by a wrong decision ? Count all the wrong decisions as wickets actually taken. Great. So you could, theoretically beat Laker's match haul of 19 wickets in a single innings ?

After all cricket is nothing but a comlicated and 'boring' method to generate simple, exciting and debate-generating statistics isn’t it ??

Ridiculous !

Hallelujah! There's so many others! I didn't realise.......I thought I was one of few who considered Richard's ideas to be slightly off kilter.

 

[marc71178]

Hallelujah! There's so many others! I didn't realise.......I thought I was one of few who considered Richard's ideas to be slightly off kilter.

It's far from just a few, but he arrogantly refuses to accept any criticism.

 

[Richard]

Rubbish, I simply try to point-out the flaws in the criticism.

 

[Richard]

Hallelujah! There's so many others! I didn't realise.......I thought I was one of few who considered Richard's ideas to be slightly off kilter.

I've already answered SJS's post... quite a while ago, too, if you look at the dates.

 

[Richard]

It's also taking into account your idea of a wicket-taking delivery, and possibly denying the fact that a bowler can make a batsman look decidedly ordinary.

Err... eh?
Where have I denied that a bowler can make a batsman look decidedly ordinary?