Vaas vs Srinath vs Lee vs Zaheer vs Sobers

[Ikki]

Stop clutching at straws 9? Hey that is the the same difference between the SR's of Waqar and the great Mcgrath/Lillee

Yes, but Waqar was not consistent across the board like McGrath or to a lesser extent Lillee. That's why he is never revered to the same extent. I also find it troubling how underrated he is and in fact have made this argument for him elsewhere, as well as for Donald, but you're comparing apples and oranges.

Here we have two very inconsistent bowlers so their records are very much alike in their flaws; apart from the gulf in SR and the fact that Vaas is a different bowler away from home.

Oh wait, now average is more important, no average, no home SR, no away average, no the problem actually is that mcgrath, lillee and lee are Aussies so naturally they are better than everyone else since sliced bread.Speaking of SR,Sehwag owns Ponting doesn't he? Btw Vaas played a lot of his cricket in the very place Lee averages 56

Both average and SR are important. If Vaas averaged 26 and struck at a career SR of 60, for example, I'd consider him superior to a bowler that averaged 29 and struck at 55 for example.

Yes, Sehwag does own Ponting in terms of SR, and every other cricketer bar Gilchrist. However, batting SR and bowling SR are two different beasts. If I were as biased as you claim I am, I'd be saying Gilchrist > Tendulkar.

Anyway, you're digressing. You claimed that I lied about their home and away form and I proved you wrong. Vaas is way more effective at home than he is away whereas Lee does not swing as much.

P.S. I am Asian.

P.P.S. Use your brain, it's good for you.

Ikki, post the Economy rates as well.

2.68 vs 3.46.

This is not ODIs or T20s. You have to take wickets to win. As an opening bowler, that's your job. Not to contain runs.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd take Vaas. I probably didn't witness the best of Srinath, he was pretty toothless when I saw him in Australia.

People have pointed out about the Sri Lankan conditions, although the ball can swing quite a bit early in the day there. Plus the fact that quite often, you are a product of your cricketing upbringing. The arguments about home vs away with regards to Subcontinent pacers can be difficult to really determine a purpose.

Yeah, I think the point about Sri Lankan fast bowlers having it hard can be quite overstated. Sri Lanka is nowhere near as bad a place to bowl pace as India, or even the West Indies at the moment. Here's the obligatory statistical extrapolations to demonstrate my point.

 

[Migara]

2.68 vs 3.46.

This is not ODIs or T20s. You have to take wickets to win. As an opening bowler, that's your job. Not to contain runs.

Avg is SR x ER. So don't be intellectually dishonest. At the end of the day Vaas gives less runs per wicket than Lee. Whether Lee takes it quickly or Vaas takes it slowly does not matter, because the SRs have to change massively to affect the time factor.

 

[Ikki]

Avg is SR x ER. So don't be intellectually dishonest. At the end of the day Vaas gives less runs per wicket than Lee. Whether Lee takes it quickly or Vaas takes it slowly does not matter, because the SRs have to change massively to affect the time factor.

Yes, he gives 1 run less per wicket but takes more than 2 overs longer per wicket to strike than Lee. We know, thanks for nothing. It does matter, because there are only so many overs and the quicker you take your wickets the better it is for your team. Unlike batting, bowlers don't slow down their SR; they're trying to take wickets all the time. It's the prime way to win matches. It's not containing runs. If Vaas was the average spinner, you'd have some sort of argument; but he is an opening bowler. It is his duty to take wickets and as early as possible.

If both take 5 wickets for example:

Vaas: 5 wickets for 55 overs and 147 runs.
Lee: 5 wickets for 44 overs and 152 runs.

So Lee saves you 11 overs but will concede 5 runs more. A third of a whole session saved, for 5 runs.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yeah, I think the point about Sri Lankan fast bowlers having it hard can be quite overstated. Sri Lanka is nowhere near as bad a place to bowl pace as India, or even the West Indies at the moment. Here's the obligatory statistical extrapolations to demonstrate my point.

It isn't insanely great as well. If I were a pacer and if I were told pacers average 35 where I am going to bowl, I'd not be over the moon with the news.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yes, he gives 1 run less per wicket but takes more than 2 overs longer per wicket to strike than Lee. We know, thanks for nothing. It does matter, because there are only so many overs and the quicker you take your wickets the better it is for your team. Unlike batting, bowlers don't slow down their SR; they're trying to take wickets all the time. It's the prime way to win matches. It's not containing runs. If Vaas was the average spinner, you'd have some sort of argument; but he is an opening bowler. It is his duty to take wickets and as early as possible.

Overs don't matter in tests, but runs do. Hypothetically if Vaasy were to take all 10 wickets, then I'd have the opposition under 300 (295 to be precise) while with Lee it would be 308. It doesn't matter whether Vaasy achieves it in 110 overs against Lee's 90 overs. Runs are a t a premium in test cricket, not overs.

 

[Uppercut]

It isn't insanely great as well. If I were a pacer and if I were told pacers average 35 where I am going to bowl, I'd not be over the moon with the news.

Pacers average 36 in Australia over that period though, so for the purposes of the Vaas vs. Lee argument it's a bit of a non-starter.

 

[Sir Alex]

Pacers average 36 in Australia over that period though, so for the purposes of the Vaas vs. Lee argument it's a bit of a non-starter.

Doesn't help Aussie batsmen used to be bowler killers during the period right?

 

[Ikki]

Overs don't matter in tests, but runs do. Hypothetically if Vaasy were to take all 10 wickets, then I'd have the opposition under 300 (295 to be precise) while with Lee it would be 308. It doesn't matter whether Vaasy achieves it in 110 overs against Lee's 90 overs. Runs are a t a premium in test cricket, not overs.

Lee will concede 10 more runs, but save you 22 overs in taking those wickets. That's almost a whole session worth of play...for 10 runs. There is no guarantee that there will be 110 overs in a day - in fact, that's a stretch, the match in reality would probably end in a draw if Vaas is taking wickets at such a slow clip. Lee, on the other hand, will win you the match in time if his team has scored more than the 308 he conceded and if he is bowling in the 2nd match innings has given his team a session more to bat with. All for 10 more runs. Yeah, I think I'll that.

And as for pitches and whether they help or not, lest we forget almost the entirety of Lee's career has been played in the 00s where Vaas debuted in 94 IIRC.

 

[Sir Alex]

Lee will concede 10 more runs, but save you 22 overs in taking those wickets. That's almost a whole session worth of play...for 10 runs. There is no guarantee that there will be 110 overs in a day - in fact, that's a stretch, the match in reality would probably end in a draw if Vaas is taking wickets at such a slow clip..

Didn't get quite the logic of it. it is not as if Vaas takes up 3 or 4 days to get those wickets. If I possessed the same type of batsmen. I'd go for Vaas than lee considering my batsmen would've to make 26 fewer runs every match.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Lee will concede 10 more runs, but save you 22 overs in taking those wickets. That's almost a whole session worth of play...for 10 runs. There is no guarantee that there will be 110 overs in a day - in fact, that's a stretch, the match in reality would probably end in a draw if Vaas is taking wickets at such a slow clip. Lee, on the other hand, will win you the match in time if his team has scored more than the 308 he conceded and if he is bowling in the 2nd match innings has given his team a session more to bat with. All for 10 more runs. Yeah, I think I'll that.

That is a very good point.

 

[Ikki]

Didn't get quite the logic of it. it is not as if Vaas takes up 3 or 4 days to get those wickets. If I possessed the same type of batsmen. I'd go for Vaas than lee considering my batsmen would've to make 26 fewer runs every match.

The logic you were bringing seemed to suggest that a result was capable in a day and relying on their overall stats to take 10 wickets that somehow Vaas benefits his team more. When it is unlikely that with the time he takes to take those 10 wickets that he'll even force a result in that day.

Yes, your batsmen will have to take ~20 less runs, but my batsmen if they are chasing get almost 2 sessions worth to make up that 20 or so runs - which is frankly possible to do in 1/3rd of a session, let alone 2. So Lee is giving them a very surmountable feat. On the occasion that my batsmen are setting a total, they'll get an extra 2 sessions to make even more runs.

In reality, Lee is helping his team much much more. Of course in reality, it wouldn't work exactly like this. 1 run per wicket difference is rarely going to be the difference, but saving 2 whole sessions can change the game completely.

 

[Sir Alex]

The logic you were bringing seemed to suggest that a result was capable in a day and relying on their overall stats to take 10 wickets that somehow Vaas benefits his team more. When it is unlikely that with the time he takes to take those 10 wickets that he'll even force a result in that day.

Yes, your batsmen will have to take ~20 less runs, but my batsmen if they are chasing get almost 2 sessions worth to make up that 20 or so runs - which is frankly possible to do in 1/3rd of a session, let alone 2. So Lee is giving them a very surmountable feat. On the occasion that my batsmen are setting a total, they'll get an extra 2 sessions to make even more runs.

In reality, Lee is helping his team much much more. Of course in reality, it wouldn't work exactly like this. 1 run per wicket difference is rarely going to be the difference, but saving 2 whole sessions can change the game completely.

You forget the crucial aspect here. It is not as if Vaas takes up 3 days to bowl the oppositioon team out. The fact is he too gets the opposition out within decent time to enforce a result and with similar batsmen I''d love to chase less, as I'd have enough time anyway on my hands.

 

[Ikki]

You forget the crucial aspect here. It is not as if Vaas takes up 3 days to bowl the oppositioon team out. The fact is he too gets the opposition out within decent time to enforce a result and with similar batsmen I''d love to chase less, as I'd have enough time anyway on my hands.

But you don't know how much time you have, so you can't be certain at all. That is why it is ALWAYS better to take those wickets quicker. And that's when you're chasing. If you are setting a target you always want more time to score those runs and Lee gives you that. He gives you the best of both worlds for 10 runs. It's a trade-off:

if you're chasing: would you sacrifice 10 more runs for 1 session more to chase them?
if you're setting a total: would you rather 1 session more than the opposition or not have to score 10 runs more?

Having Lee lets you have both situations. It's not going to make a difference in the first situation much as it's unlikely a set of batsmen can't make up 10 runs in 1 session. And in terms of setting a result you are far more likely to make more than 10 runs batting an extra session. So in the first scenario Lee or Vaas is not going to make a difference; Vaas' batsmen won't have to score 10 and Lee's will have so much time to score those 10 that it's negligible. In the second scenario, Lee is the clear winner as he is giving his team time Vaas can't match. I daresay any set of Test batsmen will score more than 10 runs in 1 session.

There may be games where 10 runs itself is so important that it makes the Vaas argument strong, but Tests rarely go down to the wire like that with respect to time and runs. In fact, they probably occur less frequently than weather interrupting play and creating less time (which would be a positive for Lee's quick wicket taking). So Lee's positives outweigh Vaas' the majority of the time. About every captain will take the above deal and would rather the extra time.

 

[Migara]

Lee will concede 10 more runs, but save you 22 overs in taking those wickets. That's almost a whole session worth of play...for 10 runs. There is no guarantee that there will be 110 overs in a day - in fact, that's a stretch, the match in reality would probably end in a draw if Vaas is taking wickets at such a slow clip. Lee, on the other hand, will win you the match in time if his team has scored more than the 308 he conceded and if he is bowling in the 2nd match innings has given his team a session more to bat with. All for 10 more runs. Yeah, I think I'll that.

And as for pitches and whether they help or not, lest we forget almost the entirety of Lee's career has been played in the 00s where Vaas debuted in 94 IIRC.

Too hypothetical. The amount that is bowled is much less than that. Ideally you should take average balls per match and then compare

 

[Athlai]

Overs per innings average
Vaas 20
Lee 18

(for a point of reference, McGrath is 20, Waqar 17.5)

 

[Sir Alex]

Overs per innings average
Vaas 20
Lee 18

(for a point of reference, McGrath is 20, Waqar 17.5)

Top order wickets % please?

 

[Athlai]

Top order wickets % please?

Lee

Vaas

 

[Sanz]

So Lee saves you 11 overs but will concede 5 runs more. A third of a whole session saved, for 5 runs.

And then injure himself and will be out for rest of the series, while Vaas will be back again taking more wickets and again and and again.

 

[Sir Alex]

Lee

Vaas

Lee

Top - 36
Middle - 37
Lower - 27

Vaas

Top - 42
Middle - 35
Lower - 23


Significant difference that. Thank you.