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

[Thala_0710]

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.

And I would object to that too, if that were the case.
And Lara's ceiling being higher than Sachin for example isn't based on him making 300s and 400s. Lara doesn't have a higher ceiling than Bradman because he made 400!
Lara's higher ceiling than Sachin is based on him producing a higher quality innings on his day, not number of runs scored imo, or it is based on the ability to produce an ATG series. Similarly for a bowler, it would be a great spell by quality and not just wickets taken, or performance over a whole series.

 

[subshakerz]

Maco & Glen don’t have a 15WPM
Hadlee has done it once

It would be impossible for them give the other bowlers

 

[smash84]

And I would object to that too, if that were the case.
And Lara's ceiling being higher than Sachin for example isn't based on him making 300s and 400s. Lara doesn't have a higher ceiling than Bradman because he made 400!
Lara's higher ceiling than Sachin is based on him producing a higher quality innings on his day, not number of runs scored imo, or it is based on the ability to produce an ATG series. Similarly for a bowler, it would be a great spell by quality and not just wickets taken, or performance over a whole series.

So you're saying that Sachin never scored a double hundred and that Lara scored 200s, 300s, and 400s but that doesn't tell us anything about their abilities to score higher in a match at all? Yeah, no. I don't buy this.

Bradman had a high ceiling precisely because he could score lots of big 100s, 200s and 300s. Lara had output in a couple of innings where he could outscore Bradman but he had nowhere near the consistency of getting to those levels. Output matters but so does consistency of that output.

 

[Thala_0710]

So you're saying that Sachin never scored a double hundred and that Lara scored 200s, 300s, and 400s but that doesn't tell us anything about their abilities to score higher in a match at all? Yeah, no. I don't buy this.

Bradman had a high ceiling precisely because he could score lots of big 100s, 200s and 300s. Lara had output in a couple of innings where he could outscore Bradman but he had nowhere near the consistency of getting to those levels. Output matters but so does consistency of that output.

Sachin scored multiple 200s, never scored a 300. Scoring a 300 has almost always happened on flat surfaces in drawn games. Lara, if his innings was actually declared before reaching 400* would have probably given his team a better chance. Sachin and other ATG batsmen have multiple scores of 200+ not outs where they could have gone on and scored 300+ if they wanted to. But the innings was declared because team the team winning is more important. It doesn't show that they couldn't if they wanted to.

 

[Johan]

Harry lad will retire Bumrah in June/July.

 

[smash84]

Sachin scored multiple 200s, never scored a 300. Scoring a 300 has almost always happened on flat surfaces in drawn games. Lara, if his innings was actually declared before reaching 400* would have probably given his team a better chance. Sachin and other ATG batsmen have multiple scores of 200+ not outs where they could have gone on and scored 300+ if they wanted to. But the innings was declared because team the team winning is more important. It doesn't show that they couldn't if they wanted to.

So? How does that negate any of what I have said?

 

[Thala_0710]

So? How does that negate any of what I have said?

You said Sachin and others not scoring 300s tells us about their inability to go big. I'm saying that most have had scores of 200+ and not out, but the innings was declared in order to give the team a chance of winning the game. Hence, it is circumstancial and not a reflection on their cricketing abilities. They could have scored that 300 if they wanted too in most cases.
Another side point, going to 200+ is big enough. Going to 300+ has almost no practical use in a game (until it's a very close decisive game, which it never is when someone scores 300+).

 

[smash84]

You said Sachin and others not scoring 300s tells us about their inability to go big. I'm saying that most have had scores of 200+ and not out, but the innings was declared in order to give the team a chance of winning the game. Hence, it is circumstancial and not a reflection on their cricketing abilities.

Dude, have you even tried to understand my argument? Did I ever say that context doesn't matter?

Can you please rephrase my argument for me so that I at least know that you actually get my argument?

 

[Thala_0710]

Dude, have you even tried to understand my argument? Did I ever say that context doesn't matter?

Can you please rephrase my argument for me so that I at least know that you actually get my argument?

"So you're saying that Sachin never scored a double hundred and that Lara scored 200s, 300s, and 400s but that doesn't tell us anything about their abilities to score higher in a match at all? Yeah, no. I don't buy this"

This is your quote. Please tell me what you mean by this then.

 

[smash84]

"So you're saying that Sachin never scored a double hundred and that Lara scored 200s, 300s, and 400s but that doesn't tell us anything about their abilities to score higher in a match at all? Yeah, no. I don't buy this"

This is your quote. Please tell me what you mean by this then.

Ok, maybe I shouldn't have used Sachin here. I even remember his highest score so it's somewhat misleading. I should have said two comparable batsmen. If one has double and triple hundreds, and the other doesn't. Will that make any difference in their evaluation? It seems to me that it will. If a batsman is scoring double and triple hundreds and the other one isn't, it definitely shows that one of them can go really big while the other can't go as big. How is this controversial in any sense?

 

[Thala_0710]

Ok, maybe I shouldn't have used Sachin here. I even remember his highest score so it's somewhat misleading. I should have said two comparable batsmen. If one has double and triple hundreds, and the other doesn't. Will that make any difference in their evaluation? It seems to me that it will. If a batsman is scoring double and triple hundreds and the other one isn't, it definitely shows that one of them can go really big while the other can't go as big. How is this controversial in any sense?

Well I would agree for double hundreds. But not for triple hundreds is my point. There comes a point, and if you reach that, going above doesn't really matter. It may/may not be exactly 200, but 300/400 is too much imo.
And the thing is most people who score double hundreds score more than exactly 200. So I still get the basic point.
In my case, where I compared Bumrah and McGrath it's just 1 single wicket, three times in his entire career. At some point, surely it just gets pointless. For example, people say that if Viv averaged just below 50 instead of just above, he would be held much lower by the public. But the public is wrong in that case is what I'd say.

 

[smash84]

Well I would agree for double hundreds. But not for triple hundreds is my point. There comes a point, and if you reach that, going above doesn't really matter. It may/may not be exactly 200, but 300/400 is too much imo.
And the thing is most people who score double hundreds score more than exactly 200. So I still get the basic point.
In my case, where I compared Bumrah and McGrath it's just 1 single wicket, three times in his entire career. At some point, surely it just gets pointless. For example, people say that if Viv averaged just below 50 instead of just above, he would be held much lower by the public. But the public is wrong in that case is what I'd say.

Good on you to finally concede something.

The second thing is that nobody is arguing that context doesn't matter. In the case of McGrath, yes, he only has 3 10fers and that too as you say 10 wickets and not more (I cbf looking it up).

Richard Hadlee has 9(10?) 10 fers where he even ended up taking 15 wickets as Johan so nicely pointed out. To me it does indicate his wicket taking prowess across the whole match. Now one can argue that Hadlee was a lone wolf and McGrath had competition but if two bowlers were in similar positions i.e. lone wolf fast bowlers and one had more 10fers that would surely provide some small piece of information about them.

 

[Thala_0710]

Good on you to finally concede something.

The second thing is that nobody is arguing that context doesn't matter. In the case of McGrath, yes, he only has 3 10fers and that too as you say 10 wickets and not more (I cbf looking it up).

Richard Hadlee has 9(10?) 10 fers where he even ended up taking 15 wickets as Johan so nicely pointed out. To me it does indicate his wicket taking prowess across the whole match. Now one can argue that Hadlee was a lone wolf and McGrath had competition but if two bowlers were in similar positions i.e. lone wolf fast bowlers and one had more 10fers that would surely provide some small piece of information about them.

Yeah I completely agree with all of this.
But does it tell you something in Bumrah's case?

 

[smash84]

Yeah I completely agree with all of this.
But does it tell you something in Bumrah's case?

If I had never seen Bumrah play and hadn't followed him, I would be curious to look up as to why he doesn't have any 10fers, just as Joel Garner's lack of 10fers seems a bit surprising and makes one go looking for context.

All it tells me is that Bumrah doesn't have the same ability to take wickets across both innings of a match as let's say Hadlee or Marshall or Steyn. But that is all it tells me.

What it certainly DOES NOT say is whether he was a worse bowler than any of them just because he didn't have any 10fers.

 

[Thala_0710]

All it tells me is that Bumrah doesn't have the same ability to take wickets across both innings of a match as let's say Hadlee or Marshall or Steyn. But that is all it tells me.

Yeah this is the point I don't agree with. In the matches he took 8-9 wkts, if he comes back to wipe out the tail once or twice, to me, that doesn't change his ability of overall wicket taking over both innings as you say. 3,4,5 such occurrences (10fers) happen over an entire career. That isn't a good metric for me to decide the wicket taking ability.

 

[smash84]

Yeah this is the point I don't agree with. In the matches he took 8-9 wkts, if he comes back to wipe out the tail once or twice, to me, that doesn't change his ability of overall wicket taking over both innings as you say. 3,4,5 such occurrences (10fers) happen over an entire career. That isn't a good metric for me to decide the wicket taking ability.

Well, it doesn't tell us about wicket taking ability in general but if a bowler isn't able to come back and wipe out a tail maybe he isn't that good at wiping out tails? Or that his stamina over the course of the match faltered? Or some other xyz minor reason. For bowlers who are able to do this, it surely counts in their favour? Why not?

 

[Thala_0710]

Well, it doesn't tell us about wicket taking ability in general but if a bowler isn't able to come back and wipe out a tail maybe he isn't that good at wiping out tails? Or that his stamina over the course of the match faltered? Or some other xyz minor reason. For bowlers who are able to do this, it surely counts in their favour? Why not?

I mean, if a bowler is coming back and not able to pick wickets then yes, count it against him. In particularly the case for Bumrah, it generally feels like why bother even working Bumrah who is just too valuable when siraj/shami will do a sufficient job. The captain only goes to him if the others can't. Maybe it can still count against him, but I don't think so.
Anyway, I don't think I've much more to add now. Good debate mate.

 

[smash84]

I mean, if a bowler is coming back and not able to pick wickets then yes, count it against him. In particularly the case for Bumrah, it generally feels like why bother even working Bumrah who is just too valuable when siraj/shami will do a sufficient job. The captain only goes to him if the others can't. Maybe it can still count against him, but I don't think so.
Anyway, I don't think I've much more to add now. Good debate mate.

Good on you to concede where you thought the other point was reasonable. Good spirit indeed.

 

[vidiq]

Steyn was only 26 years old when he took 200 wickets .
Rabada was only 25,
Cummins was 28/29 years old.
But sadly bumrah is already 31 .l..

 

[reyrey]

Steyn was only 26 years old when he took 200 wickets .
Rabada was only 25,
Cummins was 28/29 years old.
But sadly bumrah is already 31 .l..

James Anderson took around 380 wickets after turning 31