Comparing Bowlers

Entertainment Cricket and Other Sports
1

In this post I am talking about comparing bowlers. Whenever we compare bowlers we talk on number of wickets ,strike rate and averages. But isnt it misleading. We dont talk about quality of opposition or more importantly whether the victim was a top order bastman or a tailender. Obviously wicket of Sachin Tendulkar is more important that that of Macgrath.
I came across this statistice.Isnt it intresting..
**
Best bowlers against the top order **



         Wkts  % of top six victims 
1 Donald 330 67.27 
2 Statham 252 66.27 
3 McGrath 430 66.05 
4 McDermott 291 65.98 
5 Willis  325 65.54 
6 Underwood 297 64.65 
7 Kapil  434 64.29 
8 Ambrose 405 63.70 
9 Lillee  355 63.38 
10 Marshall 376  63.30

**
Where some of the modern-day bowlers figure in the list **



       Rank Wkts  % of top six victims 
Waqar 12 373 62.73 
Pollock 13 310 62.58 
Kumble 20 358 59.50 
Muralitharan 22 459 56.21 
Akram  23 414 56.04 
Warne  24 491 55.40

PS: I am against the discussion where we compare bowlers of 2 different era.Its really difficult. But then its a different story.

what do you guys think?

2

That doesn't prove anything, and btw you got that from that Indian guy @ cricinfo.

3

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UMAIR316: *
That doesn't prove anything, and btw you got that from that Indian guy @ cricinfo.
[/QUOTE]

yes ..I didnt want to post the whole article it has many things.

if it doesnt proof anything then you agree wicket of Macgrath and Sachin is same for a bowler?
Would you mind giving your arguement rather than giving your verdict??

And yes OBE for finding out where the data came from.

4

Ah!!! Yes lot of variables can come into play, for eg what was the wicket like, maybe it is easier to take Sachin's wicket on the fast and bouncy Australian wickets then on the subcontinent wickets. How far do you go in bringing all these variables into it. Sachin was an example, please no stats to prove otherwise. :)

Ask the current and past top batsmen who were they more afraid of, facing Donald or Waqar or Akram or Marshall.

Regardless of what the stats say I regard Lillee, Waqar, Akram, Marshall and Underwood from the above list to be more fearsome bowlers than others.

5

Well it is statistics anomaly, within the last few months Cricinfo has gone through major hidian merge purge process .. merging dumb facts and purging sanity .. interesting enough in the articles mentioned above the ‘fair & impartial’ ‘analyst’ does mention how numbers can truly hide the real picture … and that is exactly what this dumbo did … if he is dissecting these stats at this level , than the important factor he is leaving out is the presence of great pair of bowlers in the same team i.e. Akrram and Waqar peaked at the same time … Marshall, Garner, Walsh, Holding were four great bowlers who were teamed up with each other .. thus the distribution of wickets were not by the same ratio, Donald and Kapil were one-eyed kings in the land of blind .. for that matter McGrath also never played (not until recently) with top notch strike bowlers … not that the later 3 are not great bowlers but putting them above the greats like Warne, Imran, Garner, Walsh, Marshall, Waseem and Waqar is only a futile statistical maneuver to prove that they are not as great as perceived … pathetic display from once a good cricket website now converted to Cricindia.com
The ultimate success is measured in results .. how many matches did Kapil or Donald and even for that matter McGrath have single handedly won for their nations as compare to Imran, Waseem, Waqar, Garner, Holding and Warne??? The answer … if you are a cricket fan you will know … only if you are trying to prove non-existing reality you will look up cricinfo.com …

6

I think F&B has got enough replies...no need for me to answer :)

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Decent 6Chora: *
I think F&B has got enough replies...no need for me to answer :)
[/QUOTE]

Here we are not discussion who is great bowler or not?
Point here was that should these kinda statistics be used while comparing players.
I wonder if replies could have been different if Wasim or Waqar were in top 10 list. :)

8

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fair_&_balance: *
I wonder if replies could have been different if Wasim or Waqar were in top 10 list. :)
[/QUOTE]

dont wonder, be sure :)

9

I think this pretty stupid how you can judge who's wicket is more valuable. Then you'll have to keep track of what kinda form a batsman is in, has he been having a lean patch, was this his off day. You cant say that any given day Sachin's wicket is as important as others. Many a times Dravid's wicket is more important. So basically going by this you cant prove anything. Sachin and McGrath might be a big differrence but at time there are a lot of batmsna who wickets gain more or less importance. Would I have said all this if Wasim & Waqar were in the top 10. Honestly .. probably not but that doest mean I wont think this is a crappy way of judging bowlers.

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by LahoriMunda: *
Would I have said all this if Wasim & Waqar were in the top 10. Honestly .. probably not but that doest mean I wont think this is a crappy way of judging bowlers.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for being Honest.

Well comparision of Sachin and Dravid isnt good example.Here we are talking about top 6 and bottom 5 batsmen.
Though some of your points are valid.

11

Re: Comparing Bowlers

Magrath /murals wicket won't matter? or should I say indian front line bolwers can't get them out. Very depressing.

Why pick out stats that makes your bowlers little less pathetic

:p