Bublu Bhuyan Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 A batting average of 50 is considered to be least minimum required for a batsman to be considered as a 'great'. I have always fascinated this, what would it be equivalent to when we speak of bowling averages? I mean just like a batsman is required to average a minimum of 50 to be considered a 'great', how much does a bowler need to average to be held in the same esteem. I saw a thread over somewhere when someone mentioned along the lines like, "a batting average of 50 is equivalent to a bowling average of 23". I think that's wrong. I'd say a batting average of 50 is equivalent to a bowling average of 25. What about you?
Zap_Brannigan Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 With no statistics backing, I would say that50 was a benchmark in the 90's with only 3 or 4 players over that. So a 23 for bowlers would have been appropriate. This would put Warne in the "not great" category. But now there are probably around 20 batsmen averaging 50+. So maybe a 26~27 would be the cut-off for great bowlers. Ofcourse true great players are not measured by just statistics, well...other than bradman.
TumTum Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Ofcourse true great players are not measured by just statistics, well...other than bradman. Oh how wrong you are.
Hindustani Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 I'd say a batting average of 50 is equivalent to a bowling average of 25. probably at 23 though there is flaw in comparison, you and me both are building the scale based on variable, for e.g. you and me feels that X number of player averages 50+ so how many X bowlers have average Y, since you roughly know X, you are deducing Y which is flawed way of thinking :-)
Raghav_12 Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 I would say around 28! Exactly same number came to my mind as well, though I won't mind 29 as well. How bowlers are there with bowling average of less than 28. Batting average of 50 has become just a qualifying criteria for being considered as great batsman.
vaibhav_delhi Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Its an invalid question IMO. For bowlers, the No. 1 criterion is no. of wickets, not the average.
don_corleone840 Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Average is not important for bowlers.Bowler should be measured in no of wickets he took/total matches he played.
Raghav_12 Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Its an invalid question IMO. For bowlers, the No. 1 criterion is no. of wickets, not the average. It definitely is. Harbhajan has highest number of wickets from the players in action as of now but how many of us believe he is number one bowler in world? Though bowling average might not be as importaant as batting average but will not agree with that no. 1 criterion is number of wickets. May be in addition to average of a bowler two other parameters should be looked into wickets/,match and strike rate. But still bowling average remains foremost criterion.
vaibhav_delhi Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 raghav Kindly also reply on another thread started by me regarding criteria on front page. Thnx
Cricketics Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Bowling average is overrated thing. I would love to see RPO/Econ to suggest how good a bowler is. Bowling average not places a rite pictures of a bowler about how good/bad he is.
Clarke Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 ur not talking of Imran Khan the greatest cricketer of all time are u ? PS: it cannot be equivalent.
Jersey #10 Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Stupid question! It like asking this, If rice is worth x amount, how much is a light bulb worth? There is no way to answer this question nor yours...
ludhianvi Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Why dont you have a look at the averages of the top bowlers for a start? Here's the list since 1970 sorted by bowling average with atleast 300 overs bowled. From 1970 to present http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=1800;qualval1=balls;spanmin1=01+Jan+1970;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling 1990's http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=1800;qualval1=balls;spanmax2=31+Dec+1999;spanmin2=01+Jan+1990;spanval2=span;template=results;type=bowling 2000's http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=1800;qualval1=balls;spanmax2=31+Dec+2011;spanmin2=01+Jan+2000;spanval2=span;template=results;type=bowling Is the average by itself a good enough metric? What about the strike rate as well, especially for pacers. Sometimes, we see that the bowler from one end puts all the pressure and yet the other bowler reaps the reward for the wicket. So this sort of thing (i.e assists ;-)) would not show in the stats obviously.
King Tendulkar Posted October 30, 2010 Posted October 30, 2010 It definitely is. Harbhajan has highest number of wickets from the players in action as of now but how many of us believe he is number one bowler in world? Though bowling average might not be as importaant as batting average but will not agree with that no. 1 criterion is number of wickets. May be in addition to average of a bowler two other parameters should be looked into wickets/' date='match and strike rate. But still bowling average remains foremost criterion.[/quote'] True to a certain extent. A lot of idiots slammed bhaji and said took wickets cos he bowled a lot. Just nonsense it takes skill and stamina to do what he does. Recent performances of Hauritz and Mishra show that what Bhaji does is to be commended and that just bowling overs does not mean you pick up wickets
Nirvanam Posted October 30, 2010 Posted October 30, 2010 Nice topic! Let me try to answer it with some quantitative logic as follows... Typically a team has one amazing batsman evidenced by the fact that he averages above 50. Only champion sides in the History of the game had more than 1 such batsman in their batting order for decent stretches of time. These were WI of 70's and 80's, Aussies of the 2000's, and Indians of the 2000's and 10's. Keep in mind that the averages in the last decade were inflated like the batting friendly era of 1930's thru 50's. So consider the new 50 as 55. This will reiterate the fact that usually it is only 1 batsman in the team with an amazing average except if it is an all conquering side or an exceptional best ever Middle Order like India's (55+) and WI's 3W's and Sobers in 50's-60's. The rest of the batting order would average between 30 and 50, say 40. The tail to average a combined 15. The above means that a score of 50 + 5*40 + 5*15 i.e. 325 runs is made by the team typically (incidentally I see that the average first innings' score is about 315). Given the above we can say that the bowling average required for the bowling unit in full is 32.5. Therefore your best bowler should have a better average than this by at least 20% (like the diff between 40 and 50 bat.avg) which comes to about an Average of 26. Usually a team has one exceptional bowler who averages 26-. Also the same concept of the all dominating sides of WI and Aus plus one or two outliers like Waz-Waq, Lil-Thom, Spin-Quart.Trip is relevant even for bowling units....they would have had more than one 26- bowler. So batting 50 (or 55 in 00's) : bowling 26 (or 29 in 00's)
The Outsider Posted October 30, 2010 Posted October 30, 2010 Stupid question! It like asking this, If rice is worth x amount, how much is a light bulb worth? There is no way to answer this question nor yours... Summed it up. Stupid thread which one would regularly encounter pados mein. I am guessing the OP has spent a considerable time there? Except for the fact that batting and bowling averages are inextricably related unlike rice and light bulbs.
The Outsider Posted October 30, 2010 Posted October 30, 2010 2000 onwards, 20 batsmen have averaged more than 50 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=2000;qualval1=runs;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting To get to 20 bowlers averaging below a certain number we get to Anderson at 31.75 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=100;qualval1=wickets;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling So, 2000 onwards average of 50 is equivalent to a bowling average of 31-32. In the 90s, 4 batsmen averaged over 50 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=2000;qualval1=runs;spanmax2=31+Dec+1999;spanmin2=01+Jan+1990;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting The bowling equivalent in the 90s of 50 would be around 21-22 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=100;qualval1=wickets;spanmax2=31+Dec+1999;spanmin2=01+Jan+1990;spanval2=span;template=results;type=bowling
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now