Javagal Srinath vs Zaheer Khan

[Muloghonto]

Just now, kira said:

lol 50 wickets   are you seriously going to compare a sample set of 300+ wickets with a sample of 50 wickets, that's your comeback? LMAO 

Sure, because in most cases, those are not complete careers anyways, as the timeline is chopping several people's careers into half.

Not to mention, sample of time is also relevant. Guy who plays 7-8 years and ends up playing 50-60 internationals has normalized data compared to a guy playing 50-60 internationals in 2 years.

I don't see why we should discount samples of 50 wickets from the situation, given that most 50-wicket guys arnt '2 seasons and done' people but people who genuinely played way less frequently and/or had half their careers falling in the 80s/2000s and thus artificially cut off.

 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, kira said:

lol that doesn't mean anything because it doesn't fit your agenda? you are ridiculous

No it doesnt mean anything because as i said, the bowlers you listed are mostly ordinary bowlers. So both bowlers have a whole bunch of ordinary bowlers (the majority in that list are not leaders of pace attacks and are tertiary bowlers) who did worse...doesnt really make a case for who is better.

 

[kira]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

No it doesnt mean anything because as i said, the bowlers you listed are mostly ordinary bowlers. So both bowlers have a whole bunch of ordinary bowlers (the majority in that list are not leaders of pace attacks and are tertiary bowlers) who did worse...doesnt really make a case for who is better.

 

Let's look at it another way shall we, lets see the runs per over of the teams during the 2 eras

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;filter=advanced;orderby=runs_per_over;spanmax1=1+jan+2004;spanmin1=1+jan+1991;spanval1=span;team=1;team=2;team=25;team=3;team=4;team=5;team=6;team=7;team=8;team=9;template=results;type=team

During Srinath's era almost all teams (top 7) scored a comfortably above srinath's career economy rate of 4.44

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;filter=advanced;orderby=runs_per_over;spanmax1=1+jan+2013;spanmin1=1+jan+2000;spanval1=span;team=1;team=2;team=25;team=3;team=4;team=5;team=6;team=7;team=8;team=9;template=results;type=team

 

During Zaheer's career barring (top 3 teams), the team scored almost at a similar rate or less than zaheer's career ecomoy of 4.94

 

pwnd with stats again 

Edited April 5, 2017 by kira

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, kira said:

Let's look at it another way shall we, lets see the runs per over of the teams during the 2 eras

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;filter=advanced;orderby=runs_per_over;spanmax1=1+jan+2004;spanmin1=1+jan+1991;spanval1=span;team=1;team=2;team=25;team=3;team=4;team=5;team=6;team=7;team=8;team=9;template=results;type=team

During Srinath's era almost all teams (top 7) scored a comfortably above srinath's career economy rate of 4.44

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;filter=advanced;orderby=runs_per_over;spanmax1=1+jan+2013;spanmin1=1+jan+2000;spanval1=span;team=1;team=2;team=25;team=3;team=4;team=5;team=6;team=7;team=8;team=9;template=results;type=team

 

During Zaheer's career barring (top 3 teams), the team scored almost at a similar rate or less than zaheer's career ecomoy of 4.94

 

pwnd with stats again 

That is largely irrelevant, because it is not isolating data on pacers- where the comparison lies. 

It has f-all to do with how good/bad Srinath or Zaheer was compared to the other pacers by your stats, since overall run-rates are also influenced by spinners bowling their overs.

 

Whatever way you like to slice it and dice it, the gulf between top pacers and their economy rates with Srinath was much wider than with Zaheer and top pacers of his time.

 

[kira]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

That is largely irrelevant, because it is not isolating data on pacers- where the comparison lies. 

It has f-all to do with how good/bad Srinath or Zaheer was compared to the other pacers by your stats, since overall run-rates are also influenced by spinners bowling their overs.

 

Whatever way you like to slice it and dice it, the gulf between top pacers and their economy rates with Srinath was much wider than with Zaheer and top pacers of his time.

 

Everything is irrelevant accoring to you but I haven't seen you make one relevant point in this thread, Zaheer is better because F-all, I just proved to you that srinath was better both economically and average wise but no, zaheer was better because you said so LMAO, what a waste of time this has been

 

P.S If you have to try so hard and nitpick so fking hard to prove your player is better, then your player most likely isn't better 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, kira said:

Everything is irrelevant accoring to you but I haven't seen you make one relevant point in this thread, Zaheer is better because F-all, I just proved to you that srinath was better both economically and average wise but no, zaheer was better because you said so LMAO, what a waste of time this has been

 

P.S If you have to try so hard and nitpick so fking hard to prove your player is better, then your player most likely isn't better 

You clearly need better comprehension classes if you think I haven't made a point.

My point is simple and you chose to ignore it to fit your narrative : the margin between the most economical pace bowlers in the 90s and Srinath, is wider than the same with Zaheer in the 2000s. 

As i said, there are 14 pace bowlers who've taken 50+ wickets in the 90s, who sport 20% or better economy rate than Srinath.

There are only 8 such in Zaheer's timeframe. Meaning,economically, Zaheer was a lot closer to the highest standards of his time, than Srinath was.

 

[kira]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

That is largely irrelevant, because it is not isolating data on pacers- where the comparison lies. 

It has f-all to do with how good/bad Srinath or Zaheer was compared to the other pacers by your stats, since overall run-rates are also influenced by spinners bowling their overs.

 

Whatever way you like to slice it and dice it, the gulf between top pacers and their economy rates with Srinath was much wider than with Zaheer and top pacers of his time.

 

Btw Srinath played in the era of greatest fast bowlers this game has ever seen, the mcgraths and donalds, wasim waqar pollock, so ofcourse they were gonna be a lot better than srinath, who were the great bowlers of zaheer's era? mcgrath played till 2007 but that's about it, might add akhtar as well altough his economy wasn't great at all. Even after all the nitpicking you did, Srinath comes out on top, if zaheer was better odi bowler than srinath then he shouldve been in the top 5 bowlers of his era because his era didn't include wasim, waqar, donald etc

[kira]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

You clearly need better comprehension classes if you think I haven't made a point.

My point is simple and you chose to ignore it to fit your narrative : the margin between the most economical pace bowlers in the 90s and Srinath, is wider than the same with Zaheer in the 2000s. 

As i said, there are 14 pace bowlers who've taken 50+ wickets in the 90s, who sport 20% or better economy rate than Srinath.

There are only 8 such in Zaheer's timeframe. Meaning,economically, Zaheer was a lot closer to the highest standards of his time, than Srinath was.

 

Yet almost all teams scored at a similar economy rate to zaheer's carreer economy, what this tells us is that zaheer's contemporaries weren't as great as Srinath's contemporaries and still zaheer comes up short against Srinath the odi bowler 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, kira said:

Btw Srinath played in the era of greatest fast bowlers this game has ever seen, the mcgraths and donalds, wasim waqar pollock, so ofcourse they were gonna be a lot better than srinath, who were the great bowlers of zaheer's era? mcgrath played till 2007 but that's about it, might add akhtar as well altough his economy wasn't great at all. Even after all the nitpicking you did, Srinath comes out on top, if zaheer was better odi bowler than srinath then he shouldve been in the top 5 bowlers of his era because his era didn't include wasim, waqar, donald etc

Zaheer could've been the best pacer of his era and it still wouldn't have made a difference comparing his net RPO with that of overall team RPO if the spinners compensated adequately.

The post you are quoting, is in response to something completely irrelevant from you - namely, trying to gauge how good a fast bowler is, by comparing his ER to the overall ER of an entire team, that is composed of spinners AND pacers......

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, kira said:

Yet almost all teams scored at a similar economy rate to zaheer's carreer economy, what this tells us is that zaheer's contemporaries weren't as great as Srinath's contemporaries and still zaheer comes up short against Srinath the odi bowler 

No, it tells us no such thing, because it fails to account for spinners. I can have the best ER of a pace bowler of my era at 4.2 If all the spinners are going for 3.75, then chances are high that my ER > or = most team's total ER. 

You are drawing false conclusions in this case.

 

[Muloghonto]

Eg:

I am the best pacer in the team. Lets say my ER is 4.5

Lets say this is a 'normal' team, with 3 pacers and 2 spinners. 

My stat : 10-0-45-2

pacer#2: 10-0-50-2

pacer#3: 10-0-55-2

spinner#1: 10-0-35-2

spinner #2: 10-0-37-2

Net ER of the batting side: 4.44

My ER (despite being the best pacer) > batting team's net ER.

 

 

Alternate scenario: I am worst pacer in the team. Lets say my ER = 4.8

 

My stat: 10-0-48-2

Pacer #2: 10-0-40-2

Pacer #3: 10-0-44-2

Spinner#1: 10-0-65-2

Spinner#2: 10-0-70-2

 

Net ER of batting side: 5.34

My ER (despite being the worst pacer) < batting team's net ER.

 

Hence your argument, comparing individual bowler's ER to the whole batting side's RR, is a false analogy.

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Muloghonto

[kira]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Zaheer could've been the best pacer of his era and it still wouldn't have made a difference comparing his net RPO with that of overall team RPO if the spinners compensated adequately.

The post you are quoting, is in response to something completely irrelevant from you - namely, trying to gauge how good a fast bowler is, by comparing his ER to the overall ER of an entire team, that is composed of spinners AND pacers......

 

Again you miss the point completely, as usual.

 

Srinath doesn't suffer from this comparison when we include the spinners, he's able to stand tall among all bowlers when comparing economy, this alone proves that srinath is better because he doesn't need the clutch of being compared to only fast bowlers. But even after comparing with only top fast bowlers of his era ( which was unfair to srinath because his contemporaries were far more greater than zaheer's contemporaries) Srinath still comes out on top. So you further want to dumb down this discussion by bringing 50+ test wicket bowlers into the discussion. So what does that prove exactly? It proves that there were a lot of bowlers in the 90s who were able to maintain a good economy over a very short career (even though I haven't even cross checked this fact but let's assume you are not lying). How does this prove that Zaheer was better than Srinath economically when Srinath's carreer economy rate is less than what the teams of the 90s used to score at? 

[Muloghonto]

If Srinath's contemporaries are far greater than Zaheer's contemporaries, given that they played in different eras with very little overlap, it would mean that Zaheer was closer to the top of his time, than Srinath was to his. And this is the whole point of comparing people across the eras : you have to compare how good they were relative to their peers as first and foremost point of comparison, since direct comparison cannot be made.

 

And we are talking ODIs here, not tests. 50+ ODI wickets don't prove they had short careers. There are people like Oram, Gough, deVilliers, etc. who all played 50-60 ODIs in the qualifying periods that spanned 6-7 years! That isn't a short career.

 

And as i demonstrated, comparing a bowler's ER to that of a whole team's RR, is a false analogy.

[kira]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Eg:

I am the best pacer in the team. Lets say my ER is 4.5

Lets say this is a 'normal' team, with 3 pacers and 2 spinners. 

My stat : 10-0-45-2

pacer#2: 10-0-50-2

pacer#3: 10-0-55-2

spinner#1: 10-0-35-2

spinner #2: 10-0-37-2

Net ER of the batting side: 4.44

My ER (despite being the best pacer) > batting team's net ER.

 

 

Alternate scenario: I am worst pacer in the team. Lets say my ER = 4.8

 

My stat: 10-0-48-2

Pacer #2: 10-0-40-2

Pacer #3: 10-0-44-2

Spinner#1: 10-0-65-2

Spinner#2: 10-0-70-2

 

Net ER of batting side: 5.34

My ER (despite being the worst pacer) < batting team's net ER.

 

Hence your argument, comparing individual bowler's ER to the whole batting side's RR, is a false analogy.

 

What kind of retarded logic is this? This logic would only work if all the spinners of zaheer's era were great and all the spinners of Srinath's era were dog$hit, you do understand that your hypothetical scenario doesn't apply in the real world,do you?

 

Your one match scenario would get balanced out over a huge sample set. This is the most absurd comment I've read in the history of cricketing forums. 

 

[kira]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

If Srinath's contemporaries are far greater than Zaheer's contemporaries, given that they played in different eras with very little overlap, it would mean that Zaheer was closer to the top of his time, than Srinath was to his.

Exactly, Zaheer shouldve have been closer to the top than srinath but he wasn't, do you get it now? 50 odi wickets is a $hity sample set, agarkar was the fastest bowler to 50 odi wickets that's how small this set is, you can't compare 300+ wickets with a 50 wicket sample set, are you asinine? Even after trying so hard, you are failing badly? Please stop spewing more crap and bring some logical evidence to the table, you think you making good point by painting those hypothetical example, please go back and apply those examples on a real dataset and comeback, stop wasting my time with these foolish comments, its like talking to a child

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, kira said:

What kind of retarded logic is this? This logic would only work if all the spinners of zaheer's era were great and all the spinners of Srinath's era were dog$hit, you do understand that your hypothetical scenario doesn't apply in the real world,do you?

 

Your one match scenario would get balanced out over a huge sample set. This is the most absurd comment I've read in the history of cricketing forums. 

 

It is not about hypothetical scenarios- the hypothetical was to demonstrate the flaw in your comparison. That your comparison between RR of a team and individual ER has no value unless you normalize for spinners AND pacers.

 

And lets say its not one match scenario- lets say that is '50 match running average'. You clearly do not understand what logical fallacies are, because when you try to draw a direct correlation between two sets of data ( individual ER and overall team RR) that are otherwise not directly linked, it demonstrates this.

 

[kira]

16 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Eg:

I am the best pacer in the team. Lets say my ER is 4.5

Lets say this is a 'normal' team, with 3 pacers and 2 spinners. 

My stat : 10-0-45-2

pacer#2: 10-0-50-2

pacer#3: 10-0-55-2

spinner#1: 10-0-35-2

spinner #2: 10-0-37-2

Net ER of the batting side: 4.44

My ER (despite being the best pacer) > batting team's net ER.

 

 

Alternate scenario: I am worst pacer in the team. Lets say my ER = 4.8

 

My stat: 10-0-48-2

Pacer #2: 10-0-40-2

Pacer #3: 10-0-44-2

Spinner#1: 10-0-65-2

Spinner#2: 10-0-70-2

 

Net ER of batting side: 5.34

My ER (despite being the worst pacer) < batting team's net ER.

 

Hence your argument, comparing individual bowler's ER to the whole batting side's RR, is a false analogy.

 

Also one more thing to add, barring asia, spinner have a very little role in odi cricket, espically in the 90s, also most team only played 1 spinner, you tried so hard to furnish this stupid scenario by picking 2 spinner but you do understand that there are more pace bowlers than spinners in world cricket, don't you? So the team's rpo will be more impacted by the pacers than spinners, lol this is too easy

[kira]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

It is not about hypothetical scenarios- the hypothetical was to demonstrate the flaw in your comparison. That your comparison between RR of a team and individual ER has no value unless you normalize for spinners AND pacers.

 

And lets say its not one match scenario- lets say that is '50 match running average'. You clearly do not understand what logical fallacies are, because when you try to draw a direct correlation between two sets of data ( individual ER and overall team RR) that are otherwise not directly linked, it demonstrates this.

 

Again back with more BS, let's not say anything, let's show some data? Do you even know how debating works?

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, kira said:

Exactly, Zaheer shouldve have been closer to the top than srinath but he wasn't, do you get it now? 50 odi wickets is a $hity sample set, agarkar was the fastest bowler to 50 odi wickets that's how small this set is, you can't compare 300+ wickets with a 50 wicket sample set, are you asinine? Even after trying so hard, you are failing badly? Please stop spewing more crap and bring some logical evidence to the table, you think you making good point by painting those hypothetical example, please go back and apply those examples on a real dataset and comeback, stop wasting my time with these foolish comments, its like talking to a child

Err he was. Like i said, 14 bowlers with 10% or more better ER than Srinath, from a smaller sample size(i.e. total number of bowlers meeting criteria) while there are 8 bowlers with 10% or more ER than Zaheer.

Hence Zaheer is closer to the top than Srinath.

Pretty simple, really.

 

[kira]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Err he was. Like i said, 14 bowlers with 10% or more better ER than Srinath, from a smaller sample size(i.e. total number of bowlers meeting criteria) while there are 8 bowlers with 10% or more ER than Zaheer.

Hence Zaheer is closer to the top than Srinath.

Pretty simple, really.

 

So this is the only point you have, which you have repeated for the 20th time (which I haven't even bothered to check myself). Barring this do you have anyother point or basis for proving that zaheer is better, cause if you don't then there's no point wasting more time