Criteria for evaluating a Bowler

[vaibhav_delhi]

what should be criteria for evaluating the record of a test match bowler? In my humble opinion, all the below should be taken into account, but in this priority: total wickets > average > strike rate thoughts please.

[Ram]

Its hard to pick A particular order, but I am guessing it should definitely have the following criterion. 1) Average 2) Strike Rate 3) Number of 5/10 wicket hauls 4) Matches played 5) % of top-order wickets And more...

[vaibhav_delhi]

^^ "Number of 5/10 wicket hauls" yeah thts definitely one criteria tht i missed. so You cant come up with a priority order mate?

[Raghav_12]

Bowling Average > Strike Rate > Number of wickets Innings/Match > Overall number of wickets

[Karan114]

In my view number of wickets is the first one, followed by average, then strike rate.

[Roshanrocks]

watch him bowl... watch how he troubles the batsmen, watch how the batsmen use to play him ((with respect or non-chalantly)) , take into account the opposition he faced...check the conditions in which he is bowling.... does he bite the ball .. does he tamper the ball using bottle caps / vaseline to improve his potency... statistics cannot always give u the correct picture....coz u donot need a good ball to get a wicket...

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sir john]

i think average matters.

[Sid]

Strike rate tops it for me

[King Tendulkar]

Lohmann wins in all these categories named:yay:

[vaibhav_delhi]

1. When u evaluate a bowler, u need to look at the longevity factor ie the amnt of wkts they have taken which is a testimony of their skill, fitness n persevearance. Evry test wkt is gold. So that is the topmost criteria as per me. 2. Strike rates are a bit over-rated imo. A SR of 60 is enough to fetch 9 wickets in a day. Even with Average SR of 70, test matches could be finished well within 5 days. SR for express fast bowlers is usually much better than that of a spinner. I would like to know who people thnk is a better test bowler 1. Zaheer- 254wkts (looking good for 350+) , Avg 32, SR 59 2. Shoaib Akhter - 177(finished in test cricket), Avg 25, SR 46

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vaibhav_delhi]

That is a bad example because Shoaib has major fitness issues ( and some :D ) and moreover Zack was never in the same speed range as Akthar ... but if you purely look at bowling skills Shoaib Akthar was miles better than Zack ... there is simply no comparison. But yes if you bring in the fitness component it now appears that Zack is better because Shoaib can no longer bowl in a test match. But thats not how you should look at this.

I disagree. If Zaheer has not had a major injury, its is testimony to his bowling technique and fitness and knwing his boundaries Being an express fast bowler that akhtar is , you got to deal with fitness issues and somehow deal. As did former west indian great or waqar or akram. WHo do you think is better mcgrath 563wks at avg 21 and SR 51.9 or waqar 373 wkts at avg 23.56 SR 43.4 Its clearly Mcgrath

[saneindian]

Difficult to pick any one criteria, but a good indicator could be strike rate (Multiplied by) the bowling average. And if you do this and put ina criteria of minimum 100 test wickets, the modern era bowlers coming in top 25 are Rank Bowler Bowling Avg*Strike rate 1 DW Steyn (SA) 907 2 MD Marshall (WI) 978 3 Waqar Younis (Pak) 1,023 4 AA Donald (SA) 1,046 5 J Garner (WI) 1,065 6 FS Trueman (Eng) 1,066 7 GD McGrath (Aus) 1,123 8 Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) 1,132 9 CEL Ambrose (WI) 1,144 10 CEH Croft (WI) 1,149 11 Shoaib Akhtar (Pak) 1,174 12 Mohammad Asif (Pak) 1,186 13 MA Holding (WI) 1,205 14 Imran Khan (Pak) 1,225 15 DK Lillee (Aus) 1,244 16 M Muralitharan (ICC/SL) 1,250 17 IR Bishop (WI) 1,267 18 AK Davidson (Aus) 1,277 19 Wasim Akram (Pak) 1,290 20 NAT Adcock (SA) 1,296 21 JH Wardle (Eng) 1,317 22 JC Laker (Eng) 1,323 23 SM Pollock (SA) 1,336 24 RGD Willis (Eng) 1,346 25 PM Pollock (SA) 1,359

[vaibhav_delhi]

good work. But no. of wickets is not taken into account. So we are having akhtar>akram,murli etc And shane warne is nowhere in the list

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vaibhav_delhi]

If we could have a wickets divided by average record list, we would know the worth of the bowlers more accurately IMO. as ong as the SR is below 60-65, it does not matter much. As we have seen, spinners SRs are usually higher.

[vaibhav_delhi]

Waqar without a shadow of doubt ... if you watched him in his prime you would know why. Ditto with Dale Steyn vs McGrath.

this guy could be you best bowler ever :) http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/8996.html

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[jf1gp_1]

for me its simple , its the bowler who makes the max number of batsman shiver in their boots . BB mentioned waqar ; in his prime i doubt anyone wanted to face him