• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

If Bumrah ends his test career with 330 wickets @19.0, how do you think he will be rated?

Bumrah with 330 wickets @ 19.0 & SR of 41?

  • Total voters
    22
Thala_0710

Thala_0710

International Captain
smash84 said:
It's a criterion in the same way that the 5fers are, or centuries are.

They are arbitrarily defined but they do show wicket taking (or in the case of runs, centuries). In many cases it also shows that you can take bigger hauls across a match compared to your peers.

Why would that not be relevant?
Click to expand...
He has a good number of 9fers, taking a 10fer vs a 9fer is not really a big difference, especially for bowlers as a lot of times he takes a high percentage of top order batters, and doesn't come back to clean up the tail. Some others might have done that. Again, not much of an impact. Also, most guys have 3-4 10fers in a 100 match career. It doesn't tell you about they were doing consistently at all
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
Thala_0710 said:
He has a good number of 9fers, taking a 10fer vs a 9fer is not really a big difference, especially for bowlers as a lot of times he takes a high percentage of top order batters, and doesn't come back to clean up the tail. Some others might have done that. Again, not much of an impact. Also, most guys have 3-4 10fers in a 100 match career. It doesn't tell you about they were doing consistently at all
Click to expand...
When did I say that it was the most revealing statistic of all?

You can literally say the same thing about batsmen getting out in the 90s and those making to 100. It's an arbitrary number but does show the higher ceiling of the one with the century. Similarly a 10fer will in general show a bowler's ability to have higher output across the whole match.

I am not sure what's so difficult to understand about the above? It is one criteria among many and would provide more information to pick among similarly rated bowlers.

What exactly are you trying to disagree with? Or are you making up things that I never claimed?
 
Thala_0710

Thala_0710

International Captain
smash84 said:
You can literally say the same thing about batsmen getting out in the 90s and those making to 100. It's an arbitrary number but does show the higher ceiling of the one with the century. Similarly a 10fer will in general show a bowler's ability to have higher output across the whole matches
Click to expand...
Yes I would say the same. Also, 100s are a much more common occurrence for a batsman than 10fer is for a bowler and hence its not a same thing. It's not a higher ceiling imo as the difference in number of wickets is mostly one guy picking up top order wickets and not bowling at the tailenders. Hence even in a tiebreaker I wouldn't use it. You can just as easily argue that in a case of similar qualities overall, such a guy didn't have to rely on hot streaks to maintain his stats, and hence was more consistent and better in general.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Y'all are just coping that Harry Brook is dethroning Hutton and is from now on, "The Discovery of a generation."
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
Thala_0710 said:
Yes I would say the same. Also, 100s are a much more common occurrence for a batsman than 10fer is for a bowler and hence its not a same thing. It's not a higher ceiling imo as the difference in number of wickets is mostly one guy picking up top order wickets and not bowling at the tailenders. Hence even in a tiebreaker I wouldn't use it. You can just as easily argue that in a case of similar qualities overall, such a guy didn't have to rely on hot streaks to maintain his stats, and hence was more consistent and better in general.
Click to expand...
Well, it is the same thing. A batsman getting out on 99 and another getting out on 100. There is just a single run gap. How is that different from difference between 10fer and 9fer? A wicket is more valuable so the difference between 99 and 100 is even less significant. But it is used as just one criteria.

Sure, you are free to use that criteria if that is what you value. I can assign a higher weight to destructive ability and that is perfectly fine too.

But as a statistic 10fer indicates something. Heck it indicates higher output in certain matches by definition. So it's not like it indicates nothing.

It's like saying Lara had a higher ceiling than Sachin because he could score those big double and triple centuries. Would be a perfectly valid argument. Would that decide everything? No. Would that mean that counting double or triple hundreds is useless? No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top