Lance Gibbs vs Anil Kumble

[ataraxia]

I think that when the bowling averages are close to each other. It's not something applicable overall for every bowler around. For batters, runs are their primary currency, not balls faced, since Tests are determined by having more runs than the opposition when one side is bowled out completely. So I don't look at that when it comes to evaluating batters.

There's no doubt that runs and wickets are the primary currency of batters and bowlers. We're looking at the secondary currencies. If the secondary currency of bowlers is how quickly they take wickets, then isn't the secondary currency of batters how slowly they make their runs?

To give an analogy, in T20s it is vital for bowlers to concede runs slowly (have a good economy) and for batters to score runs quickly. If you think the same logic shouldn't apply on the other side of the coin, then why?

 

[Xix2565]

There's no doubt that runs and wickets are the primary currency of batters and bowlers. We're looking at the secondary currencies. If the secondary currency of bowlers is how quickly they take wickets, then isn't the secondary currency of batters how slowly they make their runs?

To give an analogy, in T20s it is vital for bowlers to concede runs slowly (have a good economy) and for batters to score runs quickly. If you think the same logic shouldn't apply on the other side of the coin, then why?

Not really, because of how you have to use the time available to win the game. You can't bat forever and win Tests, because at some point you do need to bowl the other team out. Making 400 in 60 overs vs 120 overs only really has a material impact if you have the bowling attack to get 20 wickets, and this is where I like strike bowlers more so that they can get teams out without using up too much time and getting a draw.

And let's be clear, I'm not really accounting for how pitches affect the way teams have to play and use up the 5 days, but you should know what can happen based on watching recent Tests.

 

[ataraxia]

Not really, because of how you have to use the time available to win the game. You can't bat forever and win Tests, because at some point you do need to bowl the other team out. Making 400 in 60 overs vs 120 overs only really has a material impact if you have the bowling attack to get 20 wickets, and this is where I like strike bowlers more so that they can get teams out without using up too much time and getting a draw.

Haven't you already stated that the bowling team would rather 400 in 60 overs? They get a better bowling strike rate that way and the possibility of a draw is lessened. It naturally follows that the batting team would rather 400 in 120 overs.

 

[Xix2565]

Haven't you already stated that the bowling team would rather 400 in 60 overs? They get a better bowling strike rate that way and the possibility of a draw is lessened. It naturally follows that the batting team would rather 400 in 120 overs.

They wouldn't like 400 in 60 overs because that's giving away too many runs. I don't know how this is still unclear, but my SR love/factor for bowlers only applies to comparable averages between the players. I'm not okay with bowlers averaging 30 or more in such comps regardless of how quickly they take their wickets, and it's why I rate strike bowlers like Rabada quite highly over others in his range who are more economical in comparison. Or in case of spinners, why I rate Ashwin higher than most people.

In this case, I'll take Kumble's worse economy for the better SR since on the whole the two players averages aren't that different. That's all it is for me.

Fixed.

 

[Bolo.]

What do the win percentages look like for the 60s if we exclude NZ, India, and Pak? I suspect the top teams drew against each other more frequently. And they represent a high proportion of games.

A whole lot of CWers exclude ZIm 90s from records as minnows. Were these three cumulatively much better? I know their win rate was cumulatively a bit higher, but I assume a bit of that was due to beating each other?

 

[capt_Luffy]

What do the win percentages look like for the 60s if we exclude NZ, India, and Pak? I suspect the top teams drew against each other more frequently. And they represent a high proportion of games.

A whole lot of CWers exclude ZIm 90s from records as minnows. Were these three cumulatively much better? I know their win rate was cumulatively a bit higher, but I assume a bit of that was due to beating each other?

India and Pakistan were easily better than 90s Zimbabwe, NZ same level.

 

[ma1978]

India and Pakistan were easily better than 90s Zimbabwe, NZ same level.

in the 1960s, they were a lot worse

 

[Coronis]

What do the win percentages look like for the 60s if we exclude NZ, India, and Pak? I suspect the top teams drew against each other more frequently. And they represent a high proportion of games.

A whole lot of CWers exclude ZIm 90s from records as minnows. Were these three cumulatively much better? I know their win rate was cumulatively a bit higher, but I assume a bit of that was due to beating each other?

 

[capt_Luffy]

in the 1960s, they were a lot worse

They weren't LoL

 

[ataraxia]

They wouldn't like 400 in 60 overs because that's giving away too many runs. I don't know how this is still unclear, but my SR love/factor for bowlers only applies to comparable averages between the players. I'm not okay with bowlers averaging 30 or more in such comps regardless of how quickly they take their wickets, and it's why I rate strike bowlers like Rabada quite highly over others in his range who are more economical in comparison. Or in case of spinners, why I rate Ashwin higher than most people.

In this case, I'll take Kumble's worse economy for the better SR since on the whole the two players averages aren't that different. That's all it is for me.

Fixed.

Christ almighty 'I wouldn't even consider Kumble's SR if he averaged 0.4 more' is quite a rapid change from saying average is "outweighed by the other factors for me". You could at least argue honestly; I'm not trying to own you.

 

[Bolo.]

India and Pakistan were easily better than 90s Zimbabwe, NZ same level.

Late 90s to early 2000s Zim, before the political exodus?

In 12 series, they beat India, Pak, and Bangers. Drew with NZ and India.

 

[Bolo.]

View attachment 47688

You have cropped this a bit much. Who is playing?

 

[Coronis]

You have cropped this a bit much. Who is playing?

The same four teams

 

[capt_Luffy]

Late 90s to early 2000s Zim, before the political exodus?

In 12 series, they beat India, Pak, and Bangers. Drew with NZ and India.

60s India and Pakistan are getting a bit underrated. They bit India and Pakistan once each. In the 60s India beat England in a Series at Home and drew one each to Australia and England, and first away series win in NZ. And in the very first two series of the 70s, We won them in WI and England, away. India had MAK Pataudi, Polly Umrigar, Vijay Manjrekar, Chandu Borde, ML Jaisimha in batting. None close to Flower but significantly better than the others. In bowling we had Prasanna, Bedi, Chandrashekhar, Nadkarni, Venkatraghavan and early on Gupte. Pretty decent really spin attack, if I must say so. Among pacers, Ramakant Desai was actually serviceable.

Anyways, in the 60s, they actually drew a lot between themselves. There was a 5 match Series between India-Pakistan that was complete draw as no team really even pushed for a win (mostly India having more upper hand).
Without India, Pakistan and NZ in the 60s:
Draw rate = 48.8%
Without SL in the 80s:
Draw rate = 46.8%

Such a huge difference.....

 

[Coronis]

60s India and Pakistan are getting a bit underrated. They bit India and Pakistan once each, and drew once each too. In the 60s India also bit Australia a Series at Home and Pakistan beat a game WI away. India had MAK Pataudi, Polly Umrigar, Vijay Manjrekar, Chandu Borde in batting. None close to Flower but significantly better than the others. In bowling we had Subhash Gupte and Vinoo Mankad. And later on Bedi and Chandrashekhar. Pretty decent really.

Anyways, in the 60s, they actually drew a lot between themselves. There was a 5 match Series between India-Pakistan that was complete draw as no team really even pushed for a win (mostly India having more upper hand).
Without India, Pakistan and NZ in the 60s:
Draw rate = 43%
Without SL in the 80s:
Draw rate = 46%

How do you get 43%?

 

[capt_Luffy]

How do you get 43%?

Ah my bad. 48.8% for the 60s (86 matches, 42 draws) and 46.8% for the 80s (237 matches, 111 draws).

 

[Bolo.]

The same four teams

How the top teams performed against each other isn't really relevant.

60s India and Pakistan are getting a bit underrated. They bit India and Pakistan once each. In the 60s India beat England in a Series at Home and drew one each to Australia and England, and first away series win in NZ. And in the very first two series of the 70s, We won them in WI and England, away. India had MAK Pataudi, Polly Umrigar, Vijay Manjrekar, Chandu Borde, ML Jaisimha in batting. None close to Flower but significantly better than the others. In bowling we had Erapalli Prasanna. Bedi, Chandrashekhar, Nadkarni, Venkatraghavan all played a decent few games later on and early on there was Gupte. Pretty decent really.

Anyways, in the 60s, they actually drew a lot between themselves. There was a 5 match Series between India-Pakistan that was complete draw as no team really even pushed for a win (mostly India having more upper hand).
Without India, Pakistan and NZ in the 60s:
Draw rate = 48.8%
Without SL in the 80s:
Draw rate = 46.8%

Such a huge difference.....

Sure, they did fine against each other. But yoy wouldn't defend 2000s Zim and Bangers for doing fine against each other.

And yup. India on paper is stronger. I'm considering all three collectively, with their results in mind. See above stats. And I think even the top 4 were weak in the 60s.

 

[peterhrt]

After the County Championship opened up to overseas players in 1968, the Test records of New Zealand, India and Pakistan improved as their players gained more experience against world-class opponents in different conditions. Before then they tended not to be competitive against the stronger nations, especially away from home.

NZ/I/P versus E/A/SA/WI before 1968 English season:

Home: Won 9, Lost 33. Away: Won 4, Lost 55. Two of the four away wins were by New Zealand in South Africa during the same series. The other two were by Pakistan in England and West Indies.

NZ/I/P versus E/A/WI 1968-1989:

Home: Won 28, Lost 27. Away: Won 19, Lost 51

During the 1970s and 1980s the three held their own at home. It was much tougher away, but they did prove more capable of winning matches.

 

[Xix2565]

Christ almighty 'I wouldn't even consider Kumble's SR if he averaged 0.4 more' is quite a rapid change from saying average is "outweighed by the other factors for me". You could at least argue honestly; I'm not trying to own you.

It's not an argument I was making ffs. Do you want to be illiterate or not? The averages are close enough for me to consider other factors but the general comment about averages isn't relevant to Gibbs vs Kumble, both of whom are just under 30.

I would really like it if people weren't interested in losing reading comprehension when they see my posts. They're not that difficult to understand.

 

[ataraxia]

It's not an argument I was making ffs. Do you want to be illiterate or not? The averages are close enough for me to consider other factors but the general comment about averages isn't relevant to Gibbs vs Kumble, both of whom are just under 30.

I would really like it if people weren't interested in losing reading comprehension when they see my posts. They're not that difficult to understand.

I'm not quizzing you on whether Gibbs or Kumble is better. You're deflecting the point – that the logical conclusion of valuing bowling SR is valuing batting stodginess – by changing your initial conclusion. I might indeed be struggling to understand your posts, but your initial conclusion was pretty damn clear:

So average doesn't matter for you?

It's outweighed by the other factors for me.

If you want to honestly engage rather than change your mind to suit your gut opinion, then it would be nice to get a response to the question of whether a bowling team would generally prefer 400 in 60 overs or 400 in 120 overs.