Who's Done the Most Damage?

[subshakerz]

Not trying to be a smartass (this time) but I really think maybe it's just you that does this

Don't think so but we don't need to belabor this point.

 

[TheJediBrah]

As an aside I'm of the opinion that the "playing in a stronger team makes average better" thing is overblown massively, particularly when talking about the greats of the game. I don't deny the logic behind it but I think it applies more to your average player than the ATGs. For this to hold up you're saying that Hadlee would have averaged, what, 17 or 18 if he played for the 80s West Indies? And Malcolm Marshall might have averaged closer to 25 if he played for NZ instead? And Andy Flower is the second best batsman if all time? I just don't buy it.

 

[subshakerz]

As an aside I'm of the opinion that the "playing in a stronger team makes average better" thing is overblown massively, particularly when talking about the greats of the game. I don't deny the logic behind it but I think it applies more to your average player than the ATGs. For this to hold up you're saying that Hadlee would have averaged, what, 17 or 18 if he played for the 80s West Indies? And Malcolm Marshall might have averaged closer to 25 if he played for NZ instead? And Andy Flower is the second best batsman if all time? I just don't buy it.

No I think we are talking at most 1-2 point variations in averages.

 

[Thala_0710]

As an aside I'm of the opinion that the "playing in a stronger team makes average better" thing is overblown massively, particularly when talking about the greats of the game. I don't deny the logic behind it but I think it applies more to your average player than the ATGs. For this to hold up you're saying that Hadlee would have averaged, what, 17 or 18 if he played for the 80s West Indies? And Malcolm Marshall might have averaged closer to 25 if he played for NZ instead? And Andy Flower is the second best batsman if all time? I just don't buy it.

It affects avg is what we said. Not to this ridiculous level ofc. It's not like Lillee or Hadlee would have a WPM of 2.5 playing for WI would it?
It affects WPM more, but it definitely affects avg too

 

[TheJediBrah]

Firstly I mentioned that in my scenario, both bowled in similar conditions and had similar level of bowling support. What other external circumstances could there be possibly?

Well in that case you've invented a very rare scenario tailored to fit your point, but not reflective of the general population being considered. If we're talking about most bowlers, then our scenario doesn't work, or suit your point

 

[Thala_0710]

Well in that case you've invented a very rare scenario tailored to fit your point, but not reflective of the general population being considered. If we're talking about most bowlers, then our scenario doesn't work, or suit your point

Yeah but even in my scenario you said you'd take the lower avg guy

 

[TheJediBrah]

Donald Pollock, Steyn Philander. Lindwall Miller. I'm sure there are more.

Lindwall/Miller is the only one that has some relevance. Miller is one of the rare examples of bowlers with a weirdly low average for how much they bowled (he didn't bowl much)

 

[subshakerz]

Lindwall/Miller is the only one that has some relevance. Miller is one of the rare examples of bowlers with a weirdly low average for how much they bowled (he didn't bowl much)

Why arent the others relevant? Bowlers with near same average but different WPM.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah but even in my scenario you said you'd take the lower avg guy

No you still misunderstand. I would take the lower avg guy assuming these were examples of most bowlers, not the cherry picked ones that you decided they should be. For most bowlers throughout history the lower average guy would win you more matches.

If you've manufactured 2 imaginary bowlers, where the lower average one is less wicket-taking, then sure, you're right. But it's not an accurate representation and therefore not a convincing scenario

 

[Thala_0710]

No you still misunderstand. I would take the lower avg guy assuming these were examples of most bowlers, not the cherry picked ones that you decided they should be. For most bowlers throughout history the lower average guy would win you more matches.

If you've manufactured 2 imaginary bowlers, where the lower average one is less wicket-taking, then sure, you're right. But it's not an accurate representation and therefore not a convincing scenario

Fine then.
But I think you're overestimating the external circumstances factor, vis a vis how it effects WPM vs Avg.

 

[subshakerz]

Fine then.
But I think you're overestimating the external circumstances factor, vis a vis how it effects WPM vs Avg.

Thala isn't Philander Steyn exactly this scenario?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Fine then.
But I think you're overestimating the external circumstances factor, vis a vis how it effects WPM vs Avg.

I'm not, you're entitled to the opinion though

Philander/Steyn is the exception, not the rule. They are vastly different bowling styles (also Philander's average is as low as it is because of conditions he played in, that bridged the gap in average between the 2. Steyn would have a significantly lower average and strike-rate on most pitches IMO)

 

[Johan]

Johan has probably done the most damage to his already pretty minor standing in this community tbh.

By continuing to post in it.

Good point, I'm procrastinating the departure even though I'm under strict orders to cut down screen time.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm not, you're entitled to the opinion though

Philander/Steyn is the exception, not the rule. They are vastly different bowling styles (also Philander's average is as low as it is because of conditions he played in, that bridged the gap in average between the 2. Steyn would have a significantly lower average and strike-rate on most pitches IMO)

And Lindwall/Miller.

But the whole point was to give an exceptional scenario and it does rarely exist in cricket.

 

[subshakerz]

Good point, I'm procrastinating the departure even though I'm under strict orders to cut down screen time.

Stick around. I appreciate our disagreements since I think you have your own perspective on cricket that I like to clash with.

 

[Johan]

Stick around. I appreciate our disagreements since I think you have your own perspective on cricket that I like to clash with.

I can't, Doctors told me to cut down on screentime, I haven't gotten 5 hours of sleep in the last week, don't have much choice in it.

 

[subshakerz]

I can't, Doctors told me to cut down on screentime, I haven't gotten 5 hours of sleep in the last week, don't have much choice in it.

Take care bro.

 

[shortpitched713]

I can't, Doctors told me to cut down on screentime, I haven't gotten 5 hours of sleep in the last week, don't have much choice in it.

Dude, look after your health, man. There's always time for arguments on the internet later.

 

[Thala_0710]

I can't, Doctors told me to cut down on screentime, I haven't gotten 5 hours of sleep in the last week, don't have much choice in it.

Take care man, we'll keep aside the Ws arguments on hold

 

[honestbharani]

I can't, Doctors told me to cut down on screentime, I haven't gotten 5 hours of sleep in the last week, don't have much choice in it.

Just give this subforum a miss and post only cricket chat and you will be sorted. Also a number of cricket podcasts, especially Kimber's always put me to sleep for some reason. It maybe his voice as his content is usually really good and interesting. You should try it.