Fit Akhtar wants crack at Aussies

[gator]

ok... lets make it quick and easy, CC.... you just finished your second innings and the opposition comes into bat the 4th innings on the last day... they have to play out the last 60 overs to earn the draw.... you have to capture 10 wickets to win the test.... classic test match scenario, and unerringly we have faced it and blown it many times... now, what do u want.... a bowler with high SR or bowler with better ER.... in other words, 15-0-60-3 bowler or 25-4-60-3 kinda bowler....

[The Outsider]

now, what do u want.... a bowler with high SR or bowler with better ER.... in other words, 15-0-60-3 bowler or 25-4-60-3 kinda bowler....

But obvious the latter because he is creating pressure by not conceding runs when the opposition does not care about scoring runs.

[MundaPakistani]

Shwetabh and others have covered the issue quite well and there isn't any need to say more...CC seems to be playing for a draw from day 1.

[Shehezaada]

CC's like Lanka around 2002 in Tests.....go in determined not to LOSE, rather then attack and win. That's what's wrong with the Indian team these days....your related to Dravid by any chance?

[The Outsider]

Walsh bowled without Ambrose too and did a MUCH BETTER job of carrying the attack than Akhtar has because Walsh, if he failed to take wickets, could choke up the runs and create pressure on the batsmen.

Okay, here is a stat which should interest you. Walsh in the absence of Ambrose after Marshall's retirement averaged 33.9 for 45 wickets conceding 1525 runs. I did not believe these numbers myself at first and double checked them. He still had more than decent bowlers to bowl with like Benjamin and Bishop. One can only imagine what his record would have be if he was bowling with Sami and Rana Naved.

[Ram]

This must be the longest running one-on-one thread ever since i signed up with ICF ! From now on we should have an "independent adjudicator" to decide the outcome of such threads ! :haha:

[The Outsider]

You are hereby appointed the "Independent Adjudicator", Marris.

[Ram]

You are hereby appointed the "Independent Adjudicator"' date=' Marris.[/quote'] I have no idea what is going on Shwetabh ! All I see is -- " this bowler got more wickets in lesser overs , that bowler got the same wickets with double overs or half the overs. So he is better, no he is worse." . In between i saw Walsh's name being thrown up. I thought i could say something before , but decided it would be wise not to poke my nose in a "discussion" as intense as this. Just for the sheer endurance in backing your own argument , i declare both of you guys as Winners ! :thumbs_up:

[CC1981]

Good day : 25-10-60-5 vs. 15-5-60-5 Bad day : 25-10-75-1 vs. 15-0-75-1 My attack rocks as proven in post #61

Err no. My guy's bad day is FAR more worthy contribution than your's- your guy on his bad day can neither buy a wicket nor keep the runs down. My guy however, atleast keeps the runs down and exerts pressure that way.

Which means your entire argument is pedantic because in reality there are only X number of overs a bowler will be able to bowl in a test and the lower his SR the lower his wicket/match ratio.

Err no. You are reducing it to pedantics. A person can bowl anywhere between 1 to X overs in an innings.

Kapil in his last 16 tests is the perfect example of the bowler you are trying to describe ie. same average as before, poorer SR, higher ER. No one in his right mind would say Kapil was even a shadow of the bowler he once was during this phase.

This is what i call a deliberate attempt at being disingeneous. I have already specified that as long as the AVERAGE and WICKET/MATCH is the same, i'd prefer a bowler who is more economical than one who has a better strike rate. Clearly, Kapil does not fall into the same category and you trying to argue he does is fundamentally twisting my main point.

Apologies for the slip but something divided by zero is not undefined rather infinity unless that something happens to be zero.

Touche.

[CC1981]

Walsh in the absence of Ambrose after Marshall's retirement averaged 33.9 for 45 wickets conceding 1525 runs. I did not believe these numbers myself at first and double checked them. He still had more than decent bowlers to bowl with like Benjamin and Bishop. One can only imagine what his record would have be if he was bowling with Sami and Rana Naved.

Walsh bowled as the main bowler in his last season and predominantly in 94 when Ambrose was injured. Him bowling without Ambrose is a stupid guage, again, worthy of a mindless number cruncher. Walsh started a LOT earlier than Ambrose and as the 4th bowler in the team, behind Marshall, Garner and Patterson ( he came in as Holding's replacement). He debuted in 85 i think and Ambrose in 88/89. A lot of Walsh's bowling in pre-Ambrose days (upon who's arrival Walsh graduated to 1st change behind Marshall-Bishop) was of the 7-2-10-0 or 6-4-10-0 types. Clearly, you looking at 'walsh minus Ambrose' statistic is illogical- it for most part reflects on the days when Walsh was the 4th bowler without much opportunities. If you looked at Walsh's record throughout the 90s, when he came into his own as a bowler and a main part of the attack, he was quite proficient even when Ambrose wasnt playing or was having a bad day. This is because Walsh, unlike Waqar or Akhtar, could keep it tight. It often earned him and lesser bowlers like Benjamins & Dillons wickets. Next time, before getting into another one of your mindless number crunching sessions, do take GROUND REALITIES into consideration.

[CC1981]

CC's like Lanka around 2002 in Tests.....go in determined not to LOSE' date=' rather then attack and win. That's what's wrong with the Indian team these days....your related to Dravid by any chance?[/quote'] No one said anything about not losing as opposed to winning. Its all a question of consistent winning. And in that respect, given that averages & wicket/match is similar, the more economical the bowler, the better he is- for as i said, he is far less a liability on his bad days if he can keep it economical while on good days, a few extra overs doesnt matter much.

[CC1981]

ok... lets make it quick and easy, CC.... you just finished your second innings and the opposition comes into bat the 4th innings on the last day... they have to play out the last 60 overs to earn the draw.... you have to capture 10 wickets to win the test.... classic test match scenario, and unerringly we have faced it and blown it many times... now, what do u want.... a bowler with high SR or bowler with better ER.... in other words, 15-0-60-3 bowler or 25-4-60-3 kinda bowler....

Irrelevant. This is a specific scenario. I can construct specific scenarios to show that a particular type of batsman/bowler is better suited for that scenario. It proves nothing on a long term winning or losing scale.

[The Outsider]

Err no. You are reducing it to pedantics. A person can bowl anywhere between 1 to X overs in an innings.

So your assumption of a fast bowler bowling 50+ overs in an innings is realistic?

This is what i call a deliberate attempt at being disingeneous. I have already specified that as long as the AVERAGE and WICKET/MATCH is the same, i'd prefer a bowler who is more economical than one who has a better strike rate.

Which is an impossibility because if the SR goes down and there are only X numbers of overs you can bowl in a match, the number of wickets per match will go down as happened in Kapil's case.

Walsh bowled as the main bowler in his last season and predominantly in 94 when Ambrose was injured. Him bowling without Ambrose is a stupid guage, again, worthy of a mindless number cruncher. Walsh started a LOT earlier than Ambrose and as the 4th bowler in the team, behind Marshall, Garner and Patterson ( he came in as Holding's replacement). He debuted in 85 i think and Ambrose in 88/89. A lot of Walsh's bowling in pre-Ambrose days (upon who's arrival Walsh graduated to 1st change behind Marshall-Bishop) was of the 7-2-10-0 or 6-4-10-0 types. Clearly, you looking at 'walsh minus Ambrose' statistic is illogical- it for most part reflects on the days when Walsh was the 4th bowler without much opportunities.

What part of "after Marshall's retirement" was not clear in my statement :

Walsh in the absence of Ambrose after Marshall's retirement averaged 33.9 for 45 wickets conceding 1525 runs.

Proving quite conclusively that Walsh in the absence of strike bowling support was very ordinary.

[Predator_05]

CC's like Lanka around 2002 in Tests.....go in determined not to LOSE' date=' rather then attack and win. ?[/quote'] LOL ! :haha::haha::haha::haha: I don't how people missed this one...:hysterical:

[Shehezaada]

LOL ! :haha::haha::haha::haha: I don't how people missed this one...:hysterical:

yaar not mine originally....credit to Prem Panicker

[CC1981]

So your assumption of a fast bowler bowling 50+ overs in an innings is realistic?

It was an example- i am sure you can find instances of fast bowlers bowling more than 50 overs- what do you think happens when a side goes in with 4 bowlers and 200 overs later, the score is 650/6 like in the past days ? How many overs does that come down to per bowler on average ?

Which is an impossibility because if the SR goes down and there are only X numbers of overs you can bowl in a match, the number of wickets per match will go down as happened in Kapil's case.

No not an impossibility- if you bowl more, you get more wickets. A bowler with 60 strike rate will take more wickets bowling 30 overs per innings than a bowler with 45 strike rate bowling 15 overs. Simple math, really. There may be a fixed X number of overs in the match but in tests, there is no fixed X number of overs a bowler is restricted to. There is no 'impossibility' in the fact that there are bowlers who sport a higher strike rate despite having approx. the same wicket/match ratio and averages. McGrath & Donald are quite clear examples of this - their averages are less than 1 run apart, their wicket/match ratio is nearly identical, yet Donald's strike rate is significantly lower than McGrath's. Many many more such examples exist, thus your claim of impossibility is baseless.

What part of "after Marshall's retirement" was not clear in my statement Proving quite conclusively that Walsh in the absence of strike bowling support was very ordinary.:

It is an absurd conclusion simply because yet again, you look at numbers instead of real cricket. What about the FACT that for the last two seasons Ambrose & Walsh played together, Walsh was the strike bowler & not Ambrose ? There goes your number-crunching to nuts ! You cant just go 'oh lets see what Walsh was like carrying the attack' and then simply do it by excising Ambrose from the record -for it is a FACT that 99,2000 & 2001, Walsh was quite clearly the superior bowler to Ambrose and the strike bowler. As i said, you rely too much on numbers without context. The bottomline is, a bowler who can keep it tight and has a decent strike rate ( ie, below 60) is a better option than a low strike rate but poor economy bowler. This is because, on their good days, the strike bowler is equally worthwhile to the tight bowler while on their off days, the tight bowler offers atleast some value by keeping it tight while the strike bowler just gets creamed around. This is exactly the difference between a Walsh & a Waqar- sure, on his good days Waqar had 15-3-50-5 kinda figures while Walsh had 20-5-50-5 stuff but on their bad days, while Walsh would do something like 25-5-70-0, Waqar would be 14-0-70-0, ie, totally useless. If the strike bowler fails, he is far bigger a liability than the tight bowler. Thats the bottomline that you cannot wiggle out of.

[The Outsider]

CC, there is no point dragging this discussion longer since you can't seem to acknowledge a basic fact about fast bowling and cricket ie. a fast bowler can bowl only X number of overs in a normal 5 day test match(was forced to include the word "normal" because you chose to bring in occurances which happen once in a blue moon). Regarding Walsh, haven't you grown tired of shifting goalposts yet. They are pretty heavy to lug around like that.

[CC1981]

Regarding Walsh, haven't you grown tired of shifting goalposts yet. They are pretty heavy to lug around like that.

Err no, i havnt shifted any goalposts- i merely threw light on your faulty analysis on the issue of Walsh as a strike bowler without Ambrose being the strike bowler. While you in 'number-crunching fashion' took it to mean 'Walsh without Ambrose', reality is that Walsh carried the attack even when Ambrose WAS present in the last couple of years they played together.

since you can't seem to acknowledge a basic fact about fast bowling and cricket ie. a fast bowler can bowl only X number of overs in a normal 5 day test match

So what is X equal to ? what is the bound of X ? You are failing to acknowledge the basic fact that an economical bowler will be far more useful on his off-day than a purely strike bowler, especially when their overall average & wicket/match are nearly the same.

[Donny]

Shoaib who ?

[Predator_05]

Shoaib who ?

Don't remember this guy ?