ATG Test 11 Pace Bowlers

[kira]

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

Me too, but I don't agree with the results either.

 

To me, it's Steyn, Marshall, and Waqar. These 3 were the most dangerous bowlers among those who are considered ATGs, as evidenced by their SRs and their relative consistency across countries. 

 

Steyn is by miles the best fast bowler of all time in my eyes. He SR is decisively better than McGraths, (10 balls better! ), who seems to be leading the poll. McGrath only has total wickets and a 1 point average over Steyn. Basically he played almost 40 more tests than Steyn, so he has the wicket total. Of course, Anderson seems to be on pace to overtake him there...

 

Waqar is far better than Wasim, and is criminally underrated. I guess Indians are wowed by his ODI exploits but don't realize that Waqar consistently outperforms him in Tests. I guess the padoisis love Wasim more and thus promote him as an ATG far more than Waqar.  

Waqar was only great in the first few years of his career and he bullied nz a lot, he averaged around 31 (if I remember correctly ) for the last 8-9 years of his career, Waqar also has a lot of holes in his career, he's no where close to akram. Also Mcgrath is better than Steyn, Steyn is still playing though and has a chance to overtake mcgrath if he manages to reach 500 wickets with similar average and strike rate, longevity pushes mcgrath over steyn for now

Edited August 9, 2018 by kira

[express bowling]

On a tangential issue ...

 

Interestingly, our own Md. Shami has a better strike rate ( balls taken per wicket )   than Wasim, Ambrose, McGrath, Lillee ( pacers in the above list ) and also Walsh , Pollock, Roberts, Gillespie, Imran.

 

*  Bowlers with 100+ test wickets considered.

 

If only this guy were fitter  !

 

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by express bowling

[Global.Baba]

To the OP. Are we talking about 3 ATG pacers I would pick because they would be flexible to play in any area or are we talking about pacers who are the top 3 of all time based on their stats etc. ?

 

I personally don't think Marshall or Dennis Lillee would be successful in this era. I will come back to this.

 

On the other hand guys like Steyn or even Jimmy Anderson from this era would have made it big in any era. Especially Jimmy Anderson would have been much more successful than he is if he played few generations before.

 

Similarly a Guy like Hadlee might not be successful in T20 or modern ODI but I am sure he would do real well these days in test cricket.

 

I am biased towards guys like Wasim,Ambrose,McGrath because I think they are the closest to the perfect bowler I have seen who did well in every condition or every type of situation.

 

Now coming to Marshall, I know it is a blasphemy to compare him with Fidel Edwards but I remember Edwards had probably the most lethal short ball I have seen in the modern era after Mitchell Johnson and maybe Morne Morkel. However,just like Marshall didn't have the height advantage. Had a brisk pace but if the batsmen could get through the 1-2 short balls they could play him off.Similarly Marshall who probably had the most killer short ball of that generation had the advantage of playing mind games and kept the batsman guessing, not like Marshall was known for his banana swing. I don't think he was 150 plus. At best 140K's.

 

My pick is going to be McGrath,Steyn and 3rd seamer between Wasim and Ambrose(Wasim edges slightly ahead as he is a left armer)

[Tibarn]

@kira

Disagree on both 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Moochad said:

Just looked thorugh statsguru, I didn't realize waqar was so good!

The stats are crazier than at first glance when you deep dive into them

 

Waqar vs Wasim

 

Overall Career Stats

Waqar

Career averages

	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
overall	1989-2003	87	154	2704.0	516	8788	373	7/76	13/135	23.56	3.25	43.4	22	5

 

Wasim

Career averages

	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
overall	1985-2002	104	181	3771.1	871	9779	414	7/119	11/110	23.62	2.59	54.6	25	5

 

 

Waqar has a better average and a far better SR, takes a wicket every 44 balls vs Wasim every 55. Wasim has 40 more wickets from playing 27 more innings. Wasim 2.29 wickets an innings, Waqar is again better at  2.42. 

 

Ability wise, Waqar overall was better. Wasim just accumulated stats from playing longer. 

 

Performance by country

Waqar

Career summary

Grouping	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
in Australia	1990-1999	7	12	190.0	42	567	14	3/15	3/41	40.50	2.98	81.4	0	0
in Bangladesh	2002-2002	2	4	41.1	7	137	12	6/55	7/82	11.41	3.32	20.5	1	0
in England	1992-2001	10	16	362.1	65	1237	45	5/52	8/154	27.48	3.41	48.2	3	0
in India	1999-1999	2	4	49.0	15	153	2	2/26	2/74	76.50	3.12	147.0	0	0
in New Zealand	1993-2001	8	15	307.5	63	924	34	6/78	9/81	27.17	3.00	54.3	2	0
in Pakistan	1989-2002	33	60	1046.4	201	3288	162	7/76	13/135	20.29	3.14	38.7	11	3
in South Africa	1998-2003	5	8	158.3	26	566	20	6/78	10/133	28.30	3.57	47.5	1	1
in Sri Lanka	1994-2002	6	11	154.1	21	584	27	6/34	11/119	21.62	3.78	34.2	2	1
in U.A.E.	2002-2002	4	6	79.0	16	276	12	4/44	4/55	23.00	3.49	39.5	0	0
in West Indies	1993-2000	6	10	166.5	26	596	24	5/104	9/127	24.83	3.57	41.7	1	0
in Zimbabwe	1998-2002	4	8	148.4	34	460	21	5/106	7/124	21.90	3.09	42.4	1	0

 

Waqar is better in most countries than Wasim and has absurd strike rates in most places, most notably the West Indies. 

 

Wasim

Career summary

Grouping	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
in Australia	1990-1999	9	15	348.3	82	866	36	6/62	11/160	24.05	2.48	58.0	3	1
in Bangladesh	1999-2002	2	3	23.4	3	83	5	3/33	5/78	16.60	3.50	28.4	0	0
in England	1987-2001	14	23	564.3	123	1523	53	6/67	9/103	28.73	2.69	63.9	2	0
in India	1987-1999	8	14	283.2	54	748	27	5/96	5/129	27.70	2.64	62.9	1	0
in New Zealand	1985-1995	7	13	342.1	82	859	50	7/119	11/179	17.18	2.51	41.0	6	2
in Pakistan	1985-2001	41	70	1312.0	300	3423	154	6/48	10/106	22.22	2.60	51.1	8	1
in South Africa	1995-1998	2	4	101.0	26	273	7	3/70	4/166	39.00	2.70	86.5	0	0
in Sri Lanka	1986-2000	8	15	268.2	82	613	30	5/43	8/73	20.43	2.28	53.6	2	0
in West Indies	1988-2000	9	17	341.3	74	941	35	6/61	11/110	26.88	2.75	58.5	2	1
in Zimbabwe	1995-1998	4	7	186.1	45	450	17	5/43	8/83	26.47	2.41	65.7	1	0

 

Wasim is only better in Aus, India, and NZ. NZ is the only place besides Bangladesh where Wasim even looks unplayable. 

 

I guess Waqar being trash vs us in India is why we don't view him as great as Wasim, even though Wasim is hardly a world beater in India. Playing 2 test matches in India robbed him of some serious fame. 

 

Career performance by year

 

Waqar

 

Career summary

Grouping	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
year 1989		2	4	58.0	4	237	6	4/80	4/91	39.50	4.08	58.0	0	0
year 1990		9	17	316.4	77	835	49	7/76	12/130	17.04	2.63	38.7	5	2
year 1991		2	2	45.3	6	127	7	5/84	7/127	18.14	2.79	39.0	1	0
year 1992		6	10	204.0	33	709	31	5/52	9/152	22.87	3.47	39.4	4	0
year 1993		7	12	271.0	59	838	55	7/91	13/135	15.23	3.09	29.5	6	1
year 1994		7	14	247.4	40	894	42	6/34	11/119	21.28	3.60	35.3	3	1
year 1995		5	9	146.0	31	482	10	3/15	3/41	48.20	3.30	87.6	0	0
year 1996		6	11	223.0	49	722	27	4/48	8/154	26.74	3.23	49.5	0	0
year 1997		4	7	98.0	17	319	11	3/99	5/143	29.00	3.25	53.4	0	0
year 1998		7	13	239.2	45	768	37	6/78	10/133	20.75	3.20	38.8	2	1
year 1999		3	6	72.0	18	233	4	2/26	2/74	58.25	3.23	108.0	0	0
year 2000		10	18	282.0	48	881	34	4/40	7/79	25.91	3.12	49.7	0	0
year 2001		6	10	190.2	31	598	19	4/19	6/44	31.47	3.14	60.1	0	0
year 2002		12	20	282.3	54	1024	40	6/55	7/82	25.60	3.62	42.3	1	0
year 2003		1	1	28.0	4	121	1	1/121	1/121	121.00	4.32	168.0	0	0

 

So depending on how you count it, between 20-33% of Waqar's 15 seasons can be considered bad by either a too high SR or too high average, 20 percent if you remove his first and last seasons. 

 

Wasim

 

Career summary

Grouping	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
year 1985		5	8	197.3	52	484	20	5/56	10/128	24.20	2.45	59.2	2	1
year 1986		5	9	134.3	40	316	14	6/91	6/96	22.57	2.34	57.6	1	0
year 1987		12	19	380.1	76	979	31	5/96	5/91	31.58	2.57	73.5	1	0
year 1988		3	6	117.0	22	319	11	4/73	7/161	29.00	2.72	63.8	0	0
year 1989		4	7	204.4	50	551	18	5/101	7/142	30.61	2.69	68.2	1	0
year 1990		8	15	320.3	73	778	48	6/62	11/160	16.20	2.42	40.0	4	1
year 1991		2	2	45.0	11	78	1	1/31	1/78	78.00	1.73	270.0	0	0
year 1992		5	9	208.5	46	595	26	6/67	9/103	22.88	2.84	48.1	2	0
year 1993		6	11	237.3	44	672	28	5/45	8/111	24.00	2.82	50.8	2	0
year 1994		7	13	305.5	75	806	47	7/119	11/179	17.14	2.63	39.0	4	1
year 1995		10	17	392.5	97	946	45	5/43	8/83	21.02	2.40	52.3	3	0
year 1996		5	9	199.4	50	530	22	6/48	10/106	24.09	2.65	54.4	1	1
year 1997		5	9	147.1	39	408	23	4/42	7/118	17.73	2.77	38.3	0	0
year 1998		6	11	240.5	52	630	20	5/52	8/99	31.50	2.61	72.2	1	0
year 1999		8	15	257.3	42	757	29	4/30	5/69	26.10	2.93	53.2	0	0
year 2000		9	15	273.0	78	629	26	6/61	11/110	24.19	2.30	63.0	3	1
year 2001		3	5	106.0	23	296	5	2/59	3/148	59.20	2.79	127.2	0	0
year 2002		1	1	2.4	1	5	0	-	-	-	1.87	-	0	0

 

Around 38-40% of Wasim's seasons were bad by the same metric of either a higher average or SR, depending on if you remove his last season. 

 

@Moochad As you said, Waqar's performances were absurd. He so thoroughly outclasses Wasim, it's not even funny. What really takes the cake is if you check his performances between 1990-1994 !

 

He goes 5 seasons straight of having a SR of less than 40, including a below 30 SR in 1993 where over 7 tests he took a wicket per every 4.5 overs.  The only other bowler with a run comparable to that is Steyn between 2013-2016. 

 

It's sad he gets overshadowed by such an inferior player just because one of them played longer and accumulated extra wickets. 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The same thing happens with McGrath, he plays for a long time and plays for Australia, so he gets many 4-5 test series, so he tops the total wickets column, while Marshall and Steyn, who have superior statistics only play shorter series and can't pile on stats. However, McGrath is also much better than Wasim, so his isn't as egregious. 

 

Wickets per Innings

Marshall: 2.49

Steyn  : 2.61

McGrath: 2.32 

 

Overall Stats

Marshall

Career averages

	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
overall	1978-1991	81	151	2930.4	614	7876	376	7/22	11/89	20.94	2.68	46.7	22	4

Steyn

Career averages

	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
overall	2004-2018	88	161	2951.1	634	9533	421	7/51	11/60	22.64	3.23	42.0	26	5

McGrath

Career averages

	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
overall	1993-2007	124	243	4874.4	1470	12186	563	8/24	10/27	21.64	2.49	51.9	29	3

 

Strike Rates and Wickets per innings show Marshall and Steyn were superior wicket takers than McGrath. 

 

Records by Country

Marshall

Career summary

Grouping	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
in Australia	1984-1989	10	19	407.2	87	1042	45	5/29	10/107	23.15	2.55	54.3	5	1
in England	1980-1991	18	35	715.3	177	1758	94	7/22	10/92	18.70	2.45	45.6	6	1
in India	1978-1983	9	15	299.0	70	886	36	6/37	9/102	24.61	2.96	49.8	2	0
in New Zealand	1987-1987	3	5	119.0	21	289	9	4/43	6/114	32.11	2.42	79.3	0	0
in Pakistan	1980-1990	10	19	277.5	53	751	35	5/33	6/47	21.45	2.70	47.6	1	0
in West Indies	1981-1991	31	58	1112.0	206	3150	157	7/80	11/89	20.06	2.83	42.4	8	2

 

Steyn

Career summary

Grouping	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
in Australia	2008-2016	7	12	253.3	47	892	31	5/67	10/154	28.77	3.51	49.0	2	1
in Bangladesh	2008-2015	4	6	101.0	22	284	20	4/48	7/75	14.20	2.81	30.3	0	0
in England	2008-2012	5	9	212.3	47	728	23	5/56	7/155	31.65	3.42	55.4	1	0
in India	2008-2015	6	9	160.5	22	556	26	7/51	10/108	21.38	3.45	37.1	2	1
in New Zealand	2012-2012	3	6	100.2	33	239	9	3/49	5/80	26.55	2.38	66.8	0	0
in Pakistan	2007-2007	2	4	55.3	10	222	9	5/56	7/106	24.66	4.00	37.0	1	0
in South Africa	2004-2018	47	89	1599.1	350	5099	243	6/8	11/60	20.98	3.18	39.4	16	3
in Sri Lanka	2006-2018	6	11	189.3	28	698	23	5/54	9/99	30.34	3.68	49.4	2	0
in U.A.E.	2010-2013	4	8	152.2	38	459	14	4/98	4/86	32.78	3.01	65.2	0	0
in West Indies	2010-2010	3	5	82.3	17	272	15	5/29	8/94	18.13	3.29	33.0	1	0
in Zimbabwe	2014-2014	1	2	44.0	20	84	8	5/46	8/84	10.50	1.90	33.0	1	0

 

McGrath

Career summary

Grouping	Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
in Australia	1993-2007	66	131	2638.1	788	6483	289	8/24	10/27	22.43	2.45	54.7	11	2
in England	1997-2005	14	28	578.1	145	1683	87	8/38	9/82	19.34	2.91	39.8	8	0
in India	1996-2004	8	16	313.2	123	703	33	4/18	7/121	21.30	2.24	56.9	0	0
in New Zealand	2000-2005	6	12	241.4	87	552	30	6/115	7/89	18.40	2.28	48.3	1	0
in Pakistan	1994-1998	5	9	201.0	49	589	19	5/66	5/106	31.00	2.93	63.4	1	0
in South Africa	1994-2002	8	14	305.2	95	685	29	6/86	8/49	23.62	2.24	63.1	2	0
in Sri Lanka	1999-2002	4	7	108.1	34	292	10	3/38	4/78	29.20	2.69	64.9	0	0
in U.A.E.	2002-2002	2	4	36.0	12	74	10	4/41	7/59	7.40	2.05	21.6	0	0
in West Indies	1995-2003	10	20	398.5	118	1035	50	6/47	10/78	20.70	2.59	47.8	6	1
in Zimbabwe	1999-1999	1	2	54.0	19	90	6	3/44	6/90	15.00	1.66	54.0	0	0

 

I think here is where McGrath makes up some of the ground on Marshall, as McGrath is pretty consistent across countries, and absolutely wrecks England at their home. He always has a good average, but his SR is rarely setting the world on fire. His SR is still a bit too high vs SA, SL, and Pak. 

 

Marshall dominates everywhere except for some reason he couldn't buy a wicket in NZ. I guess playing only 3 matches there may have something to do with it but still...

 

Steyn continues to be unparalleled. Look at his SR in Ind and Pak: he's better than both Waqar and Wasim in Pak and better than any pacer we've ever had in India (he's even better than Ashwin in terms of SR in India).    Too bad he hasn't bowled in NZ since 2012 or in UAE since 2013, he no doubt would've corrected those eyesores on his resume. 

[Moochad]

12 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

@Moochad As you said, Waqar's performances were absurd. He so thoroughly outclasses Wasim, it's not even funny. What really takes the cake is if you check his performances between 1990-1994 !

 

He goes 5 seasons straight of having a SR of less than 40, including a below 30 SR in 1993 where over 7 tests he took a wicket per every 4.5 overs.  The only other bowler with a run comparable to that is Steyn between 2013-2016. 

 

It's sad he gets overshadowed by such an inferior player just because one of them played longer and accumulated extra wickets. 

What the *, that 90-94 is really insane. With how we are batting right now, Kohli would probably get a 100* vs him and the rest of the hacks would be all out for 6.

 

(Also I see that you pasted part of that post off your blog  ICF demands original content Tibs )

 

15 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

I think here is where McGrath makes up some of the ground on Marshall, as McGrath is pretty consistent across countries, and absolutely wrecks England at their home. He always has a good average, but his SR is rarely setting the world on fire. His SR is still a bit too high vs SA, SL, and Pak. 

 

Marshall dominates everywhere except for some reason he couldn't buy a wicket in NZ. I guess playing only 3 matches there may have something to do with it but still...

 

Steyn continues to be unparalleled. Look at his SR in Ind and Pak: he's better than both Waqar and Wasim in Pak and better than any pacer we've ever had in India (he's even better than Ashwin in terms of SR in India).    Too bad he hasn't bowled in NZ since 2012 or in UAE since 2013, he no doubt would've corrected those eyesores on his resume. 

McGrath I guess is teh champion of bowling average plus wicket total, so it makes sense many fans consider it in ranking him so high. Growing up always we looked at bowling avg to judge a bowler and batting avg to judge a batsman. 

 

You guys seem to rate SR as a better measure of bowlers ability. i have to agree with that myself personally, but it is tough to rate Marshall when I ahven't seen him really bowl much myself, while Ive seen McGrath plenty...

[Tibarn]

1 minute ago, Moochad said:

What the *, that 90-94 is really insane. With how we are batting right now, Kohli would probably get a 100* vs him and the rest of the hacks would be all out for 6.

Kohli would slay Waqar, just like he does everyone else.

 

What's funny is Umesh used to have a SR around 45-46 early in his career in India, when MS was still captain, but since Kohli became captain it has ballooned to 57, which is still good, but it's not earth shattering. I think since Kohli became captain, our great slip fielders like VVS and Dravid are not there, so we have butter fingers like Dhawan and Kohli himself.  Other than him Shami also has a below 50 SR in India, I think it is 48. 

 

8 minutes ago, Moochad said:

(Also I see that you pasted part of that post off your blog  ICF demands original content Tibs )

 and I see that you changed your pic from Dhawan since I last trawled onto this forum, whats the matter, mustached man dropped to many catches? 

 

Also you're not supposed to mention my blog...

 

10 minutes ago, Moochad said:

McGrath I guess is teh champion of bowling average plus wicket total, so it makes sense many fans consider it in ranking him so high. Growing up always we looked at bowling avg to judge a bowler and batting avg to judge a batsman. 

 

You guys seem to rate SR as a better measure of bowlers ability. i have to agree with that myself personally, but it is tough to rate Marshall when I ahven't seen him really bowl much myself, while Ive seen McGrath plenty...

With regards to using average, to each their own I guess, but just using average makes players like Sangakarra look better than Sachin and makes players who are green track bullies/specialists look better than they are, when they only bowl on green tops.

 

Also Anderson is going to pass McGrath soon on the wicket totals list. 

 

I was happy when Kumble mentioned how he looked at bowlers SR when judging their performance. 

 

 

[Moochad]

1 minute ago, Tibarn said:

Kohli would slay Waqar, just like he does everyone else.

 

What's funny is Umesh used to have a SR around 45-46 early in his career in India, when MS was still captain, but since Kohli became captain it has ballooned to 57, which is still good, but it's not earth shattering. I think since Kohli became captain, our great slip fielders like VVS and Dravid are not there, so we have butter fingers like Dhawan and Kohli himself.  Other than him Shami also has a below 50 SR in India, I think it is 48. 

probably all of teh dropped catches in the England touring India series screwed up his SR. I think he had 7 catches dropped off his bowling. 

 

Shami seems like a possible best frontline bowler for us, but he seems to be too injury prone and I noticed he takes a lot of lower order wickets, not sure if thats true or my eyes are deceiving.

 

Of course Umesh is a dangerous bowler, he has that Marathi speed  

 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 and I see that you changed your pic from Dhawan since I last trawled onto this forum, whats the matter, mustached man dropped to many catches? 

 

Also you're not supposed to mention my blog...

 sorry, I forgot 

 

Dhawan is an idiot, that was the worst catching I've ever seen, or it feels that way otherwise we would've won that test

 

I am also switching my allegiance back to the home state team 

 

10 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

With regards to using average, to each their own I guess, but just using average makes players like Sangakarra look better than Sachin and makes players who are green track bullies/specialists look better than they are, when they only bowl on green tops.

 

Also Anderson is going to pass McGrath soon on the wicket totals list. 

Yeah a combinaiton of average and SR should be used i guess

 

I personally think after the 300 wicket cutoff, added wickets arent as big of a deal

 

The pommies are going to hype Clouderson to the heavans onces that happens, he may retire as soon as he passes McGrath on the list even

 

 

12 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

I was happy when Kumble mentioned how he looked at bowlers SR when judging their performance. 

Sorry buddy, you don't get to miss Kumble when you are the number 1 Kohli stan 

 

the guy ran Kumble out of the job 

[Tibarn]

3 minutes ago, Moochad said:

probably all of teh dropped catches in the England touring India series screwed up his SR. I think he had 7 catches dropped off his bowling. 

 

Shami seems like a possible best frontline bowler for us, but he seems to be too injury prone and I noticed he takes a lot of lower order wickets, not sure if thats true or my eyes are deceiving.

 

Of course Umesh is a dangerous bowler, he has that Marathi speed  

Yeah, you have to find and bump my fielding stats thread, it shows who dropped who and the general mediocrity of our catching that series. 

 

7 minutes ago, Moochad said:

Yeah a combinaiton of average and SR should be used i guess

 

I personally think after the 300 wicket cutoff, added wickets arent as big of a deal

 

The pommies are going to hype Clouderson to the heavans onces that happens, he may retire as soon as he passes McGrath on the list even

The problem with average in these discussions is that all the great bowlers have generally the same averages, except modern bowlers who often have to play on less helpful conditions.

 

A difference in average of 1 run between Steyn and McGrath seems minuscule when you consider that Steyn takes around 9-10 fewer balls to get the wicket.   

 

I would rather get the wicket 9-10 balls faster, rather than worry about 1 run extra being scored by the opposition. 

12 minutes ago, Moochad said:

Sorry buddy, you don't get to miss Kumble when you are the number 1 Kohli stan 

 

the guy ran Kumble out of the job 

I am the PM of Kohlistan  

 

I am still 100% on Kohli's side. Kumble shouldn't have tried to injure players by over-training them and acting like a headmaster. 

 

It was also Ganguly, Sachin, etc's  fault for hiring the bevada, they had other options like Moody. Kohli hardly forced their hand into bringing this guy as coach. 

[Moochad]

2 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Yeah, you have to find and bump my fielding stats thread, it shows who dropped who and the general mediocrity of our catching that series. 

I already read that at the place I'm not supposed to mention 

 

3 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

The problem with average in these discussions is that all the great bowlers have generally the same averages, except modern bowlers who often have to play on less helpful conditions.

 

A difference in average of 1 run between Steyn and McGrath seems minuscule when you consider that Steyn takes around 9-10 fewer balls to get the wicket.   

 

I would rather get the wicket 9-10 balls faster, rather than worry about 1 run extra being scored by the opposition.

You can look at the other way as On the other hand, if McGrath takes a wicket at cost of 60 balls and 25 runs while Steyn does it on 50 balls but 24 runs, Steyn is more expensive per ball in that scenario. 

 

There must be a tradeoff point somewhere where runs per ball gets too high and needs to be lowered, although Steyn is too good to be in that discussion, 

 

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

I am the Enlightened Despot of Kohlistan  

fixed 

Quote

I am still 100% on Kohli's side. Kumble shouldn't have tried to injure players by over-training them and acting like a headmaster. 

 

It was also Ganguly, Sachin, etc's  fault for hiring the bevada, they had other options like Moody. Kohli hardly forced their hand into bringing this guy as coach. 

Fair enough, but I think only Shami was injured around that time.

 

I think I rather have an Indian coach, but Shastri was the worst possible outcome. 

 

[Tibarn]

1 minute ago, Moochad said:

I already read that at the place I'm not supposed to mention 

 

1 minute ago, Moochad said:

You can look at the other way as On the other hand, if McGrath takes a wicket at cost of 60 balls and 25 runs while Steyn does it on 50 balls but 24 runs, Steyn is more expensive per ball in that scenario. 

 

There must be a tradeoff point somewhere where runs per ball gets too high and needs to be lowered, although Steyn is too good to be in that discussion, 

I see what you are saying, but I don't think that the number of balls in a test match are as important as wickets themselves, as we hardly ever count the balls/overs remaining unless it is near a break in play/close of play/ or if a team is trying to draw a match from a losing position. 

 

If one considers that one goes into a Test match with the goal to win, then the best measurement is wicket taking efficiency, as the  most consistent way to win a test match is through 20 wickets taken. 

 

Balls are only important in the scenarios that I mentioned earlier. 

 

Runs vs wickets is the question, as some matches can be won without taking 20 wickets, if 10 wickets are taken once and a chaseable total is there to get...

 

7 minutes ago, Moochad said:

Fair enough, but I think only Shami was injured around that time.

 

I think I rather have an Indian coach, but Shastri was the worst possible outcome. 

Shami at the time was the most key bowler for the Indian team, particularly in CT which was around, so if Kumble mismanaged him, that is a big red mark on his resume. Honestly, during the whole CT time period Shami looked off.  

 

Anyway I will carry on with this back and forth with you tomorrow, only the owls are still up this time of night here (0v0)

 

 

[Moochad]

3 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

I see what you are saying, but I don't think that the number of balls in a test match are as important as wickets themselves, as we hardly ever count the balls/overs remaining unless it is near a break in play/close of play/ or if a team is trying to draw a match from a losing position. 

 

If one considers that one goes into a Test match with the goal to win, then the best measurement is wicket taking efficiency, as the  most consistent way to win a test match is through 20 wickets taken. 

 

Balls are only important in the scenarios that I mentioned earlier. 

 

Runs vs wickets is the question, as some matches can be won without taking 20 wickets, if 10 wickets are taken once and a chaseable total is there to get...

Interesting point about the balls in a match not mattering as much...

 

Runs vs wickets seems like the eternal question. I suppose that when there is similar number of runs cost per wicket, then you want to get wickets fast as possible.

 

The question is which of the two extremes is better:

 

a bowler with an 100 average but 20 SR or

 

a bowler with a 20 average but a 100 SR

 

my gut feeling tells me the 2nd bowler is better

 

8 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Shami at the time was the most key bowler for the Indian team, particularly in CT which was around, so if Kumble mismanaged him, that is a big red mark on his resume. Honestly, during the whole CT time period Shami looked off.  

True, but ultimately I think the spinners cost us the CT, Ash and Jadeja are not good enough in LOI anymore and haven't been for a while. Also Bumrah had a bad day that day so we were likely in trouble b/c of our own bowling selections that match and in the squad in general.

 

10 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Anyway I will carry on with this back and forth with you tomorrow, only the owls are still up this time of night here (0v0)

jsk 

[rkt.india]

6 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

To the OP. Are we talking about 3 ATG pacers I would pick because they would be flexible to play in any area or are we talking about pacers who are the top 3 of all time based on their stats etc. ?

 

I personally don't think Marshall or Dennis Lillee would be successful in this era. I will come back to this.

 

On the other hand guys like Steyn or even Jimmy Anderson from this era would have made it big in any era. Especially Jimmy Anderson would have been much more successful than he is if he played few generations before.

 

Similarly a Guy like Hadlee might not be successful in T20 or modern ODI but I am sure he would do real well these days in test cricket.

 

I am biased towards guys like Wasim,Ambrose,McGrath because I think they are the closest to the perfect bowler I have seen who did well in every condition or every type of situation.

 

Now coming to Marshall, I know it is a blasphemy to compare him with Fidel Edwards but I remember Edwards had probably the most lethal short ball I have seen in the modern era after Mitchell Johnson and maybe Morne Morkel. However,just like Marshall didn't have the height advantage. Had a brisk pace but if the batsmen could get through the 1-2 short balls they could play him off.Similarly Marshall who probably had the most killer short ball of that generation had the advantage of playing mind games and kept the batsman guessing, not like Marshall was known for his banana swing. I don't think he was 150 plus. At best 140K's.

 

My pick is going to be McGrath,Steyn and 3rd seamer between Wasim and Ambrose(Wasim edges slightly ahead as he is a left armer)

Edwards was quicker than Marshall though.

[MechEng]

I would say that the 2 hardest bowlers to face were Ambrose and McGrath.

 

Not going by stats from what I see is that it is harder to play steep bounce with lateral movement than fast and skiddy bowlers like Steyn/Marshall/Waqar. IMO Marshall was also lucky that he had such a strong support system with other 3 great bowlers by his side, never had to carry the complete load of taking wickets on himself.

 

Coming to Waqar and Steyn, I can think of batsmen who were able to attack them like KP in 2012, Waqar got hammered too but never saw either Ambrose or McGrath being dominated by batsmen.

 

Ambrose and McGrath bowled at same pace, just that Ambrose was a freakier version of McGrath.

[zen]

With only 2 votes, Lillee is out of the poll too. I guess because of his reluctance to play in subcon, he is not likely to get many votes 

 

[zen]

16 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

To the OP. Are we talking about 3 ATG pacers I would pick because they would be flexible to play in any area or are we talking about pacers who are the top 3 of all time based on their stats etc. ?

top 3 pacers iyo

[zen]

On Wasim vs Waqar, in their respective prime, Waqar was probably more lethal. Once they lost their pace, Wasim had more variety and longevity, which is why he is probably rated higher by many 

 

Waqar could do this in his prime:

 

 

 

While Wasim could do the below:

 

 

[zen]

 

^ many of our brainless bowlers could learn from Hadlee

[Tibarn]

23 hours ago, Moochad said:

Interesting point about the balls in a match not mattering as much...

 

Runs vs wickets seems like the eternal question. I suppose that when there is similar number of runs cost per wicket, then you want to get wickets fast as possible.

 

The question is which of the two extremes is better:

 

a bowler with an 100 average but 20 SR or

 

a bowler with a 20 average but a 100 SR

 

my gut feeling tells me the 2nd bowler is better

I agree the 2nd one is better, but those are cartoonish examples: they are so far in the extreme, that they have 0 tangible value in my eyes. The reality is that most of who are considered good bowlers are between 22-28 in average and usually 50-60 in SR. In that case, players like Steyn and Waqar, whose SRs are so far and away better than other great bowlers, while at the same time having comparable averages to other greats, must be elevated above the rest. Otherwise one would be devaluing the ability to take wickets imo. 

 

Regarding the idea that Waqar performed worse as he got later in his career: again Waqar has far better stats at every phase of his career than Wasim. Beginning, middle, or end, it doesn't matter. Wasim's best seasons are equal to middle of the pack seasons by Waqar's standards. Wasim just played longer and accumulated a greater volume of wickets, even though he was worse at actually picking them.   

[rkt.india]

13 hours ago, zen said:

 

^ many of our brainless bowlers could learn from Hadlee

more than brain, it is about ability.

Edited August 11, 2018 by rkt.india

[rkt.india]

13 hours ago, zen said:

On Wasim vs Waqar, in their respective prime, Waqar was probably more lethal. Once they lost their pace, Wasim had more variety and longevity, which is why he is probably rated higher by many 

 

Waqar could do this in his prime:

 

 

 

While Wasim could do the below:

 

 

it was not double swing.  Made sensational for nothing.  Ball come in with the angle and because it was full toss and most probably was tempered with, it moved away just before it hit the pad.  This is like a right hander bowling around the wicket like Ishant or Broad, ball coming in with the angle and moving away. Ishant picked two to three wickets like that in first test.