Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[Agent Nationaux]

How is his home record vs. PAK a hole in his record though? What are you suggesting of him? I'm not really sure I understand.

He's done well in WI, and he's also done well against Pakistan. The fact the two never coincided doesn't really say all that much to me?

As Watson said you can pick a hole in any cricketers career.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Eds]

Do you ever actually read my posts?

How exactly is it a hole?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

average of 29 with a strike rate of 72 is mediocre.

 

[watson]

How is his home record vs. PAK a hole in his record though? What are you suggesting of him? I'm not really sure I understand.

He's done well in WI, and he's also done well against Pakistan. The fact the two never coincided doesn't really say all that much to me?

Ambrose V Pakistan and India at home is a measurable category, and therefore we can make an assessment of the category. How much meaning is attached to the category is up to the person making the assessment. Another way of looking at the figures is to say that his bowling was ordinary during 17 Test matches against Pakistani and Indian batsman.

HowSTAT! Player Analysis by Country

HowSTAT! Player Analysis by Country

A similar example, but in a batting context, would be as assessment of Dennis Compton's tour of Australia in 1950-51 where he scored 53 runs in 4 Tests at an average of 7.57. To some people it is enough to remove him from the Gold Tier level, but for others it has less meaning. They simply say, like you did, that he was successful against Australia overall, and had other good tours of Australia, so what does it matter?

As I said before, I'm not concerned about Curtly's home record against Pakistan and India for reasons similar to yours, and therefore still have him in my Top 10. But those stats still look ugly when taken at face value just the same.

 

[Eds]

Cheers watson.

It seems we hold the same opinion really, but you still want to take those stats on face value. Why is that?

average of 29 with a strike rate of 72 is mediocre.

Yes. I understand. But that doesn't answer my question.

How is it a hole?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Cheers watson.

It seems we hold the same opinion really, but you still want to take those stats on face value. Why is that?



Yes. I understand. But that doesn't answer my question.

How is it a hole?

Because curtly was a beast and having a mediocre average against Pakistan doesn't look good when you come to compare him against others. It becomes a disadvantage.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Especially at home.

 

[Slifer]

Ambrose V Pakistan and India at home is a measurable category, therefore we can make an assessment of the category. How much meaning is attached to the category is up to the person making the assessment. Another way of looking at the figures is to say that his bowling was ordinary during 17 Test matches against Pakistani and Indian batsman.

HowSTAT! Player Analysis by Country

HowSTAT! Player Analysis by Country

A similar example, but in a batting context, would be as assessment of Dennis Compton's tour of Australia in 1950-51 where he scored 53 runs in 4 Tests at an average of 7.57. To some people it is enough to remove him from the Gold Tier level, but for others it has less meaning. They simply say, like you did, that he was successful against Australia overall, and had other good tours of Australia, so what does it matter?

As I said before, I'm not concerned about Curtly's home record against Pakistan and India for reasons similar to yours, and therefore still have him in my Top 10. But those stats still look ugly when taken at face value just the same.

And u know for the life of me I just can't wrap my brain around why he 'struggled' relatively speaking at home vs these 2 teams. Its not as if either were that particularly good vs pace (and he played them on WI wickets at that). Added to that, his bowling partner for most of his career Walsh had an exceptional record vs those two teams (especially away). Cricket can be quite peculiar sometimes I guess

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Curtly played 3 series against Pak at home. In 2 of those 3 series he average around 22. It's the first series (3 matches) where he averaged 55. Hence why it appears bad but actually isn't.

And thus Watson's point that anyone can be made to look bad.

 

[Slifer]

Because curtly was a beast and having a mediocre average against Pakistan doesn't look good when you come to compare him against others. It becomes a disadvantage.

Yeah but those same "Others' have their own set of holes which is the point I think Watson is making. Which is y I agree with him that yeah some bowlers are clearly better than others (ex: Mcgrath vs a Gillespie) but in the grand scheme of things u don't lose much if u interchange the top 15 or so great fast bowlers. I consider Sir Malcolm to be the best but even he averaged 32 in NZ (only 3 tests) and IMO he has the least holes in his resume, not to mention the other skills, stats, rep that he brings. But really and truly if u replaced him with the likes of a Joel Garner or a Holding there isn't that great of a drop off (and thats from WI only).

There is however, some point where we have to have a cut off. Someone here suggested that an Andy Bichel or Michael Kasprovicw could be interchangeable with the likes of a Mcgrath....no never sorry can't!!!!

 

[Eds]

Curtly played 3 series against Pak at home. In 2 of those 3 series he average around 22. It's the first series (3 matches) where he averaged 55. Hence why it appears bad but actually isn't.

And thus Watson's point that anyone can be made to look bad.

Such a good post until the last sentence.

How does it make him look bad? You still haven't answered me!

It only looks bad to those who take it on face value. Which evidently you, I, and watson all refuse to do.

 

[Slifer]

Imran in AUS
Tests = 13
Wickets = 45
Ave = 28.51
SR = 67.51

Imran in India
Tests = 10
Wickets = 27
Ave = 28.04
SR = 61.22

Those figures are very good although you probably wouldn't call them ATG standard as such.

BTW can hardly find a blemish in Hadlee's record. He was excellent in all countries he played in apart from 3 Tests in Pakistan where he averaged 44.70 a wicket.

However, Hadlee's 6 Tests in India show that he could bowl on the Subcontinent,

Hadlee in India
Wickets = 31
Ave = 22.23
SR = 44.10

Might have to review the number 8 batting spot in my ATG XI.

Ok i'm being a bit of a dick now, but care to find the blemish in Sir Malcolm's record that doesn't include 3 measly tests in NZ??

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I agree with you. I don't think his record against Pak was bad, it just looks bad, and can be exploited by people who don't rate him. Hence why I agreed with Watson that you can pick a hole in his record if you tried.

 

[Eds]

I agree with you. I don't think his record against Pak was bad, it just looks bad, and can be exploited by people who don't rate him. Hence why I agreed with Watson that you can pick a hole in his record if you tried.

And hence why I argued it wasn't a hole at all.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Such a good post until the last sentence.

How does it make him look bad? You still haven't answered me!

It only looks bad to those who take it on face value. Which evidently you, I, and watson all refuse to do.

Exactly the point Watson made originally (that if you tried hard enough you can find a hole and then use that put him down), which you kept challenging on.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

And hence why I argued it wasn't a hole at all.

Yes to you it isn't, but to to others it could be.

 

[watson]

Such a good post until the last sentence.

How does it make him look bad? You still haven't answered me!

It only looks bad to those who take it on face value. Which evidently you, I, and watson all refuse to do.

Curtly makes the Top 5 of some peoples list of ATG fast bowlers, but not all. So why not since he is supposedly a 'beast'?

It's understanding the 'why not' that I'm interested in, not making a value judgement on people's assessments which will be exactly what they want them to be.

I guess we're delving into psychology here, which may mean that the presentation of statistics is pointless as people will generally make up their mind according to a 'gut feeling'. The statistics are then interpreted 'after the fact' to suit their preconceived ideas. Why the 'gut feeling' should exist in the first place is probably the most interesting question and the crux of the matter.

 

[kyear2]

To say that one could poke holes on anyone's records to justify the lest that stellar numbers that Imran produced away from home argument is invalid when one is going to point out Marshall's average vs New Zealand which comprised of 3 Tests after a hard Aussie tour and when he was injured in one of the matches or one bad series by Sir Curtly Ambrose which coincidentally was his first series in Test cricket and playing tbe fiest two matches in Guyana and Trinidad.

 

[smash84]

To say that one could poke holes on anyone's records to justify the lest that stellar numbers that Imran produced away from home argument is invalid when one is going to point out Marshall's average vs New Zealand which comprised of 3 Tests after a hard Aussie tour and when he was injured in one of the matches or one bad series by Sir Curtly Ambrose which coincidentally was his first series in Test cricket and playing tbe fiest two matches in Guyana and Trinidad.

lolwut?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Kyear is now trolling.