Lance Gibbs vs Anil Kumble

[Johan]

I care about getting wickets, and Gibbs regardless didn't manage to take them at the same rate in terms of balls. I'll easily take the person who doesn't have to bowl forever to get wickets.

Gibbs did get wickets though, he was the highest wicket taker in history when he retired, and nobody cares about Kumble taking more wickets if he leaks more runs anyway, Gibbs contributed to more tangible wins away from home too. Also, they bowled more overs per day back in the day

 

[Xix2565]

Gibbs did get wickets though, he was the highest wicket taker in history when he retired, and nobody cares about Kumble taking more wickets if he leaks more runs anyway, Gibbs contributed to more tangible wins away from home too. Also, they bowled more overs per day back in the day

Congrats for being the first I guess.

 

[Johan]

Congrats for being the first I guess.

Ok

 

[ataraxia]

It's outweighed by the other factors for me.

Something I've been thinking about recently: if you value bowling SR really highly like you do – the ability to take wickets quickly – doesn't it also make sense to rate batsmen primarily by the number of balls they face per innings? The aim of batsmen is to thwart bowlers, which under this framework is achieved by trying to make their bowling SR as high as possible, generally at the expense of batting SR.

 

[Xix2565]

Something I've been thinking about recently: if you value bowling SR really highly like you do – the ability to take wickets quickly – doesn't it also make sense to rate batsmen primarily by the number of balls they face per innings? The aim of batsmen is to thwart bowlers, which under this framework is achieved by trying to make their bowling SR as high as possible, generally at the expense of batting SR.

In Tests, runs matter more for batters than balls faced and batting SR, so I don't have them as a major factor unless it really stands out in the context. For bowlers, wicket taking and economy are both important, but when the averages are close relatively, I'd rather have the bowler who doesn't take forever to get batters out over a better economy. Otherwise you run the risk of not winning if you can't take 20 wickets with the time available.

 

[DrWolverine]

Gibbs is pretty mid, sort of the Ken Barrington of bowling

If Lance Gibbs had an overall average of 21 and averaged less than 25 in every country he played, he can be called as Ken Barrington of bowling.

 

[ma1978]

Yawn

 

[ma1978]

This isn't T20, Nobody cares about SR and Gibbs is from an era where everyone has high SR, as your own table shows Gibbs has the better average, and a much more balanced record to boot.

yes that’s why we discount that era completely

 

[ma1978]

If Lance Gibbs had an overall average of 21 and averaged less than 25 in every country he played, he can be called as Ken Barrington of bowling.

people saw through Ken Barrington’s averages as hollow in his time, sort of a Mohammed Yousuf or a Thilan Samaraweera. It’s only on this board where people think they found a hidden gem

 

[Johan]

yes that’s why we discount that era completely

Yeah a black person was the best player in the world at the time, no wonder you'd wanna discount that time.

 

[Johan]

people saw through Ken Barrington’s averages as hollow in his time, sort of a Mohammed Yousuf or a Thilan Samaraweera. It’s only on this board where people think they found a hidden gem

Yawns

majority didn't rate Imran and Javed from their era either but doesn't stop us from rating them.

 

[ma1978]

Yeah a black person was the best player in the world at the time, no wonder you'd wanna discount that time.

a black person was the best in the world in the 1970s, 1980s and arguably the 1990s with Lara. Those were the golden eras

 

[ma1978]

Yawns

majority didn't rate Imran and Javed from their era either but doesn't stop us from rating them.

wrong

 

[Johan]

a black person was the best in the world in the 1970s, 1980s and arguably the 1990s with Lara. Those were the golden eras

irrelevant imo, bats striked too slow, should be discarded entirely compared to modern era, totally inspid.

 

[ma1978]

Yeah a black person was the best player in the world at the time, no wonder you'd wanna discount that time.

I discount that era because of the percentage of draws

 

[Johan]

wrong

not a rebuttal.

 

[DrWolverine]

There are only two flaws in Barrington’s career imo
1. Peer rating : It doesn’t mean much to me.
2. His entire career barely lasted a decade.

 

[Johan]

I discount that era because of the percentage of draws

Funfact – 1960s, 1970s and 1980s all have draw percentage in the 40% range. It has fallen to 10% in recent times IE 2020s.

 

[Coronis]

See, my logic is simple, if the question is "who is the better spinner?" then Yes, I'd bring up CC and discuss both the positives and the negatives, but the distinction here is Test thus I won't, same thing with Barry Richards topics, if it's talking about better Batsman with no distinction then First Class Cricket plays a factor, if Test then No

My view is anyone can get dropped in some context, even Shane Warne was dropped when out of form, what makes Lance Gibbs being dropped when out of form for two serieses a huge deal?

Sure, but this just leads to discussion on the reputation of wickets, India, in the 90s and even 2000s was often seen as spin friendly, and the games in India are significantly lower scoring than the West Indies until a certain Michael Holding. If one is generally considered more spinner friendly and other termed batting paradises, the latter are probably tougher.

I disagree, they had plenty good batting, but I don't think you can compete with what India had in the 2000s and even the 1990s against spin.

For one match? When returning from a major injury? Quality comparison.

 

[ma1978]

Funfact – 1960s, 1970s and 1980s all have draw percentage in the 40% range. It has fallen to 10% in recent times IE 2020s.

nope - 60s were the worst.


Decade-wise result percentages since the 1950s

Decade	Mat	W/L	Result %	Ovrs/result
2010s	336	264	78.6	326
2000s	464	350	75.4	317
1990s	347	223	64.3	331
1980s	266	143	54.1	315
1970s	198	114	57.6	359
1960s	186	97	52.7	386
1950s	164	113	68.9	370