• 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.

Progression of the 'best fast bowler' title post war

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Here's a recap of this thread, people.

MM: "**** YOUR STATS, THIS HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO FAR REMOVED FROM REALITY TRUMPS EVERY STATISTICAL TREND WE'VE SEEN."
Everyone else: "Don't think that's quite how that works."
MM: "GET ON MY LEVEL, YOU NEANDERTHAL!"
 

Bolo

State Captain
Miyagi- your position is logically self evident. I don't think you need to justify it any more. I think everyone understands by now that you are correct in that this will impact his ability to take wickets.

And i don't think you are disputing the fact that the weakness of the bowling around him will increase his chance to take wickets.

What is in question is the relative advantage offered by each. The fact that his higher wpm is a function of bowling more rather than strike rate suggests that the weakness of his bowling attack had a greater impact than the weakness of his batting team. If you disagree, argue the relative merits of the positions.

Nice point by the way. Interesting seeing something beyond the truisms of cricket knowledge.
 

Mr Miyagi

Banned
Once again you stumble around in the dark. The fact that Murali is a spin bowler and is capable of bowling more overs than Hadlee is more important.
Let me elucidate this for you, Hadlee averaged roughly 42 overs per game. On average, at 2 to 1 split, he bowled 28 first innings overs and 14 second innings overs. Coupled with this is the fact that Hadlee did in fact bowl more in wins than losses. Murali bowls 55 overs a game, do either seem anywhere near maxed to you, on average?
 

Mr Miyagi

Banned
Miyagi- your position is logically self evident. I don't think you need to justify it any more. I think everyone understands by now that you are correct in that this will impact his ability to take wickets.

And i don't think you are disputing the fact that the weakness of the bowling around him will increase his chance to take wickets.

What is in question is the relative advantage offered by each. The fact that his higher wpm is a function of bowling more rather than strike rate suggests that the weakness of his bowling attack had a greater impact than the weakness of his batting team. If you disagree, argue the relative merits of the positions.

Nice point by the way. Interesting seeing something beyond the truisms of cricket knowledge.
Thankyou Bolo. Appreciate your post :)

In fact - quite the opposite to your fear, I argue the weakness of the bowling around him hurts his average and SR on two distinct facets, but I suspect that you can see this already :P
 
Last edited:

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Here's a recap of this thread, people.

MM: "**** YOUR STATS, THIS HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO FAR REMOVED FROM REALITY TRUMPS EVERY STATISTICAL TREND WE'VE SEEN."
Everyone else: "Don't think that's quite how that works."
MM: "GET ON MY LEVEL, YOU NEANDERTHAL!"
Scary how accurate that is

Miyagi- your position is logically self evident. I don't think you need to justify it any more. I think everyone understands by now that you are correct in that this will impact his ability to take wickets.

And i don't think you are disputing the fact that the weakness of the bowling around him will increase his chance to take wickets.

What is in question is the relative advantage offered by each. The fact that his higher wpm is a function of bowling more rather than strike rate suggests that the weakness of his bowling attack had a greater impact than the weakness of his batting team. If you disagree, argue the relative merits of the positions.

Nice point by the way. Interesting seeing something beyond the truisms of cricket knowledge.
It's not really though. The stats back up quite convincingly that stronger team = lower wpm. Whether or not this is the case is not in question (well, it shouldn't be), the interesting discussion arises in trying to identify what those factors are and quantifying, when possible, the effect of each.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Let me elucidate this for you, Hadlee averaged roughly 42 overs per game. On average, at 2 to 1 split, he bowled 28 first innings overs and 14 second innings overs. Coupled with this is the fact that Hadlee did in fact bowl more in wins than losses. Murali bowls 55 overs a game, do either seem anywhere near maxed to you, on average?
Boo, Hadlee was a ***** who couldn't handle getting carted in the 2nd innings. :laugh:
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
TJB, I have been very polite with you despite you using words like "crazy" and "moronic".
Being polite is more than just not swearing. It involves treating others considerately and respectfully. You haven't done that.

If you point out that neither did I, well I never claimed to be polite.
 

Bolo

State Captain
Thankyou Bolo. Appreciate your post :)

In fact - quite the opposite to your fear, I argue the weakness of the bowling around him hurts his average and SR, but I suspect that you can see this already :P
Agreed. Taking 5 per match with these type of stats puts him on the next level and is a large part of why I rate him above almost all the other greats. I think though that in spite of the argument you have made he did have more opportunity to take wickets, and what elevates him to the next level is how well he rose to the opportunity.
 

Mr Miyagi

Banned
Being polite is more than just not swearing. It involves treating others considerately and respectfully. You haven't done that.

If you point out that neither did I, well I never claimed to be polite.
Well if I havn't, I can honestly say that I demonstrated far more respect than I received by

a) not referring to ad hominem
b) staying on topic
c) by providing details where I said something was illogical
d) avoiding words like "crazy" and moronic".

Now, if I transgressed in any post, I will apologise, but I will expect the same courtesy back. Is that fair?
 

Mr Miyagi

Banned
Agreed. Taking 5 per match with these type of stats puts him on the next level and is a large part of why I rate him above almost all the other greats. I think though that in spite of the argument you have made he did have more opportunity to take wickets, and what elevates him to the next level is how well he rose to the opportunity.
Well, I argue he did have more opportunity than some ultimately suffered, but he pays this price elsewhere, and yet had much less opportunity than he could have with better batting :P
 
Last edited:

Bolo

State Captain
Well, I argue he did have more opportunity than some ultimately suffered, but he pays this price elsewhere, and yet had much less opportunity than he could have with better batting :P
Agreed, and I don't think you and Starfighter have any disagreement here as you are phrasing it here other than getting entangled in a debate.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'll simplify it even further.

- wpm is purely a function of Strike-rate and overs bowled per match
- if 2 bowlers have a similar strike rate then indisputably the only factor affecting wpm is overs bowled per match
- Hadlee (in a weaker team) bowled more overs per match than McGrath (in a stronger team)
- If he were in McGrath's position, in a stronger team, he would have bowled less overs per match, as McGrath did
- His wpm would be lower

It's that simple
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Agreed, and I don't think you and Starfighter have any disagreement here as you are phrasing it here other than getting entangled in a debate.
No one ever disagreed with any of Mr Miyagi's logic or reasoning. This was explained to him repeatedly. The issue was his assumption that his reasoning for his premise led to a conclusion that is statistically proven to be false from the get go.
 
Last edited:

Mr Miyagi

Banned
Agreed, and I don't think you and Starfighter have any disagreement here as you are phrasing it here other than getting entangled in a debate.
I actually didn't mind him testing my view. He was rigorous and wanted to get into details. And he asked some good questions. But it stands up.
 

Mr Miyagi

Banned
No one ever disagreed with any of Mr Miyagi's logic or reasoning. This was explained to him repeatedly. The issue was his assumption that his reasoning for his premise let to a conclusion that is statistically proven to be false from the get go.
TJB, please elaborate on this. What is proven to be false?
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I actually didn't mind him testing my view. He was rigorous and wanted to get into details. And he asked some good questions. But it stands up.
It doesn't stand up in the real world. I'm sorry to say but TBJ has nailed it. You simply haven't made the leap from hypothetical to real.
 

Top