Alan Donald or Glen McGrath ?

[Roshanrocks]

I watched Ambrose do over Border in his 100th test yesterday. It was beautiful to watch, a well-directed, sharp bouncer, followed up with a yorker Border looked like a tailender :adore:

Go on the ESPN stats engine, pick the period/spell/teams in which certain bowlers didn't do that well and conclude that they're mediocre. "Lillee never used to perform against the West Indies. In 1984. In the second Test he had an average of 35....how crap is he?!" That's how it usually works on here, non?

SO should we create a data base for the worst ever spells by each of the bowlers and then calculate which bowlers had the best stats at the worst phase of his career to compute who the greatest bowler is? :woot: Bleddy hard work brother

[Roshanrocks]

No 400 wickkets is the benchmark :--D

But this not fair to Marshall :whine: 376 wickets at 20.94 :ohmy:

[The Outsider]

Go on the ESPN stats engine, pick the period/spell/teams in which certain bowlers didn't do that well and conclude that they're mediocre. "Lillee never used to perform against the West Indies. In 1984. In the second Test he had an average of 35....how crap is he?!" That's how it usually works on here, non?

Too late - Lillee has already been classified as overrated and mediocre on ICF. Here is how ratings work on ICF : 1. Anyone before the mid 70s is crap by default. 2. All Australian and English cricketers are overrated and mediocre. 3. West Indians are always mediocre if the comparison pool has an Indian - they are better if the comparison pool Australians and English. 4. Pakistanis are cheats and hence disqualified. 5. South Africans are chokers and hence discounted. 6. Sri Lankans are home track bullies and hence disqualified unless the comparison pool has whites. 7. New Zealanders are okay as long as they are not being compared to Indians. To earn respect on ICF, the first thing a cricketer needs is an Indian passport.

[yoda]

Whoever has the better technique as shown by video footage. Apparently that is the ICF criteria these days when comparing players. :winky:

[Sachin=GOD]

No 400 wickkets is the benchmark :--D

There is only ONE benchmark of cricketing greatness and that is 99.94 :icflove: All other records, stats, benchmarks are useless.

[Roshanrocks]

You would go to stats guru and pull up reverse cumulative averages of the bowlers and then classify one of them as mediocre depending on the numbers crunched by cricinfo servers. :nice:

So who would be the best then? :hmmm: and where will ur reverse cumulative average be computed upto?

[Cricket Tragic]

The 'Lillee is crap because he didn't perform on the sub' debate isn't restricted to this forum to be fair. When you've got kids like the 'was Shivalkar better than Aggy' chap, you can't expect too much. I started a thread on another forum about VV Kumar and all I got was 'oh he was crap because he only played 2 tests' and it soon became a comparison with the worst spinners to play. Similarly, you can't have a discussion about Azhar's batting.

[The Outsider]

So who would be the best then? :hmmm: and where will ur reverse cumulative average be computed upto?

:dontknow: But I am sure there are stats experts on ICF who can calculate 'reverse cumulative averages', 'indexes' etc. and also help you come up with terminologies to address the 'winners' as 'virtuosos' or some other novel term they'll invent for you.

[Roshanrocks]

Too late - Lillee has already been classified as overrated and mediocre on ICF. Here is how ratings work on ICF : 1. Anyone before the mid 70s is crap by default. 2. All Australian and English cricketers are overrated and mediocre. 3. West Indians are always mediocre if the comparison pool has an Indian - they are better if the comparison pool Australians and English. 4. Pakistanis are cheats and hence disqualified. 5. South Africans are chokers and hence discounted. 6. Sri Lankans are home track bullies and hence disqualified unless the comparison pool has whites. 7. New Zealanders are okay as long as they are not being compared to Indians. To earn respect on ICF, the first thing a cricketer needs is an Indian passport.

SO If Lillee is overrated, and he has dismissed Richards 9 times in 11 matches then what does that say of Richards? :hmmm: And If we go by your theory then Kapil Dev is the greatest pace bowler ever??

[The Outsider]

SO If Lillee is overrated, and he has dismissed Richards 9 times in 11 matches then what does that say of Richards? :hmmm: And If we go by your theory then Kapil Dev is the greatest pace bowler ever??

Obviously, it says Richards was mediocre as also proved by reverse cumulative averages. Well, resident 'stats experts' used to consider Kumble better than Warne till a few years back, so I guess Kapil being the greatest ever bowler is not a huge leap from there.

[Roshanrocks]

Whoever has the better technique as shown by video footage. Apparently that is the ICF criteria these days when comparing players. :winky:

But what constitutes better technique for a bowler? What is the perfect technique for a pace bowler to deliver a ball?

[Roshanrocks]

There is only ONE benchmark of cricketing greatness and that is 99.94 :icflove: All other records, stats, benchmarks are useless.

what has 99.94 got to do with who the best pace bowler is? :hmmm:

[Sachin=GOD]

what has 99.94 got to do with who the best pace bowler is? :hmmm:

this :--D when you talk of greatness in cricket then you have to compare the player with 99.94 otherwise that player is not good enough :icflove:

[Roshanrocks]

The 'Lillee is crap because he didn't perform on the sub' debate isn't restricted to this forum to be fair. When you've got kids like the 'was Shivalkar better than Aggy' chap, you can't expect too much. I started a thread on another forum about VV Kumar and all I got was 'oh he was crap because he only played 2 tests' and it soon became a comparison with the worst spinners to play. Similarly, you can't have a discussion about Azhar's batting.

SO how according to you could we come to a conclusion of who the best ever pace bowler is? Would you consider DOnald or McGrath as the best ever or do you have other candidates you feel who deserve the honour... and how would you defend your candidate? :hmmm:

[Roshanrocks]

:dontknow: But I am sure there are stats experts on ICF who can calculate 'reverse cumulative averages', 'indexes' etc. and also help you come up with terminologies to address the 'winners' as 'virtuosos' or some other novel term they'll invent for you.

That could be calculated for batsmen, how would you calculate the same for bowlers? :hmmm: For example a batsman is supposed to be great if he has performed fantastically chasing a target? So could we grade bowlers on how many wickets they took while defending low scores?? How would that effect his overall greatness? Will the number of wickets taken when defending carry more weight than wickets taken during the first innings of a test match? :hmmm

[Roshanrocks]

Obviously, it says Richards was mediocre as also proved by reverse cumulative averages. Well, resident 'stats experts' used to consider Kumble better than Warne till a few years back, so I guess Kapil being the greatest ever bowler is not a huge leap from there.

I never thought Kapil would be considered as one of the greatest bowlers ever. forget THE greatest

[King Tendulkar]

Lohmann Then a big gap, then MARSHALL!

[The Outsider]

That could be calculated for batsmen, how would you calculate the same for bowlers? :hmmm: For example a batsman is supposed to be great if he has performed fantastically chasing a target? So could we grade bowlers on how many wickets they took while defending low scores?? How would that effect his overall greatness? Will the number of wickets taken when defending carry more weight than wickets taken during the first innings of a test match? :hmmm

It all depends on whom you want to turn out to be the greatest - once decided, that's half the battle won. From there it's only a question of indulging in sophistry and number crunching, and there are people much more qualified than me on ICF who can give you a step by step guide.

[Roshanrocks]

this :--D when you talk of greatness in cricket then you have to compare the player with 99.94 otherwise that player is not good enough :icflove:

But how can a bowler be compared to 99.94 ? Wouldnt it be easier to compare verses 10.75 ?

[Roshanrocks]

Lohmann Then a big gap, then MARSHALL!

But average wise there are many more bowlers who fall in between Lohmann and Marshall? What about them?