Flem274*
123/5
Spin off from the batting thread. TL;DR - No one cares if you average 25 now you're not special. Here are some cricinfo links for 2001-2010 and 2018-2021.
Disclaimer that I'm comparing 4 years with 9 and 63 players with 31, and I think the bowlers of this era are genuinely very good, but I think it is interesting to see who is the best and who just has pretty numbers. Also I am sorry in advance for my extremely poor maths and Excel skills. My bank balance, sports statistics and your mums' are the only numbers I care about.
The window of who is good bowler has moved a lot further than I suspected it had statistically. It has probably reverted to historical normal but I cbf checking, and I hope this thread boosts the reputations of 2001-2010 bowlers rather than diminishes the current players.
Below is a chart of the bowlers who took at least 50 test wickets in their era at an average less than 35, which I think is the vague cut off for a test standard bowler, and how many bowlers averaged each number.
I think that if you are in the top 20% of test standard bowlers then you will be discussed in World XI conversations and qualify as world class. In 2001-2010 averaging 27.99 was enough to get you well inside that bracket. If you want to be there now, you need to average 21.99 or less. It is imperfect for obvious reasons but still interesting to look. Those bowlers are;
2001-2010: Murali, McGrath, Bond, Shoiab, Shabbir, Steyn, Clark, Asif, Warne, Pollock, Bollinger, Swann
2018-2021: Holder, Cummins, Yadav, Ishant, Southee, Hasan Ali
What has really advanced between eras are the performances of the top 50% of test standard bowlers, who by being in the top 50% definitely qualify as good bowlers. In the previous era averaging 30.99 or less put you in the top 41% of test standard bowlers. Now the same average places you in the..top..96% of test standard bowlers. If you want to make the top half (with a free percent on the house for luck) you need to average 23.99 or less.
If you average 24 or more now, it looks good on paper but you aren't special.
I put the red zone at the bottom 20% of all test standard bowlers. In this zone you are good enough, but this is where you become expendable if someone better arises. This boundary has moved from averaging 34 or more to 28 or more. The bowlers in the red zone are almost all spinners;
2001-2010: Hilfenhaus, Panesar, Kaneria, Vettori, Herath, Sreesanth, Hauritz, Broad, Gul, Price, Ishant, Taylor and Razzaq
2018-2021: Gabriel, Jadeja, Leach, Taijul, Miraz, Moeen, Lyon, Yasir, Maharaj and Perera
The mediocre test bowler used to average 31-33. Now they average 24-27. A quirk I find interesting but is probably nothing is bowlers really don't like averaging 26. Both lists show a clear gap between 25 and under versus 27 and over.
Conventional wisdom dictates the players control their era. I have begun to suspect for about a year now the cricketers are shaped and controlled by the conditions and the conventions of their era. I don't think the 2001-2010 period miraculously lacked talent (it definitely lacked fit talent) but I do think various factors made the good and mediocre bowlers look worse than they were. Conversely I think the names below might be fortunate to bowl today. Their statistics look very good at first glance, but they are not as valuable relative to their peers as you might initially think if you started watching cricket from 2000 onwards.
Imagine Bowling in 2006, I think I'd rather Kill Myself: Shami, Lakmal, Shaheen, Hazlewood, Boult, Starc, Stokes
I'm not saying these guys are secretly bad or even mediocre. They might compare very favourably to the rest of cricketing history (because 2001-2010 is a batting anomaly imo) but I do think this further builds on my growing case for adjusting our expectations of modern test cricketers.
Disclaimer that I'm comparing 4 years with 9 and 63 players with 31, and I think the bowlers of this era are genuinely very good, but I think it is interesting to see who is the best and who just has pretty numbers. Also I am sorry in advance for my extremely poor maths and Excel skills. My bank balance, sports statistics and your mums' are the only numbers I care about.
The window of who is good bowler has moved a lot further than I suspected it had statistically. It has probably reverted to historical normal but I cbf checking, and I hope this thread boosts the reputations of 2001-2010 bowlers rather than diminishes the current players.
Below is a chart of the bowlers who took at least 50 test wickets in their era at an average less than 35, which I think is the vague cut off for a test standard bowler, and how many bowlers averaged each number.
I think that if you are in the top 20% of test standard bowlers then you will be discussed in World XI conversations and qualify as world class. In 2001-2010 averaging 27.99 was enough to get you well inside that bracket. If you want to be there now, you need to average 21.99 or less. It is imperfect for obvious reasons but still interesting to look. Those bowlers are;
2001-2010: Murali, McGrath, Bond, Shoiab, Shabbir, Steyn, Clark, Asif, Warne, Pollock, Bollinger, Swann
2018-2021: Holder, Cummins, Yadav, Ishant, Southee, Hasan Ali
What has really advanced between eras are the performances of the top 50% of test standard bowlers, who by being in the top 50% definitely qualify as good bowlers. In the previous era averaging 30.99 or less put you in the top 41% of test standard bowlers. Now the same average places you in the..top..96% of test standard bowlers. If you want to make the top half (with a free percent on the house for luck) you need to average 23.99 or less.
If you average 24 or more now, it looks good on paper but you aren't special.
I put the red zone at the bottom 20% of all test standard bowlers. In this zone you are good enough, but this is where you become expendable if someone better arises. This boundary has moved from averaging 34 or more to 28 or more. The bowlers in the red zone are almost all spinners;
2001-2010: Hilfenhaus, Panesar, Kaneria, Vettori, Herath, Sreesanth, Hauritz, Broad, Gul, Price, Ishant, Taylor and Razzaq
2018-2021: Gabriel, Jadeja, Leach, Taijul, Miraz, Moeen, Lyon, Yasir, Maharaj and Perera
The mediocre test bowler used to average 31-33. Now they average 24-27. A quirk I find interesting but is probably nothing is bowlers really don't like averaging 26. Both lists show a clear gap between 25 and under versus 27 and over.
Conventional wisdom dictates the players control their era. I have begun to suspect for about a year now the cricketers are shaped and controlled by the conditions and the conventions of their era. I don't think the 2001-2010 period miraculously lacked talent (it definitely lacked fit talent) but I do think various factors made the good and mediocre bowlers look worse than they were. Conversely I think the names below might be fortunate to bowl today. Their statistics look very good at first glance, but they are not as valuable relative to their peers as you might initially think if you started watching cricket from 2000 onwards.
Imagine Bowling in 2006, I think I'd rather Kill Myself: Shami, Lakmal, Shaheen, Hazlewood, Boult, Starc, Stokes
I'm not saying these guys are secretly bad or even mediocre. They might compare very favourably to the rest of cricketing history (because 2001-2010 is a batting anomaly imo) but I do think this further builds on my growing case for adjusting our expectations of modern test cricketers.
