Guldozer Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I did mention T-Zaheer which means tied Zaheer. Same as Warne in 1999 (tied with Elliott). It is not Zaheer's fault if the Pakis dropped catches or played less number of matches. :om: To people pointing out that Afridi's teammates dropping catches is not a good enough excuse, I agree. But at the same time it's funny how people manged to ignore the other 4 points I made. Afridi had a better average, so, if one name was to be put up, it had to be Afridi's. That's all I'm saying. I see no reason as to why Zaheer's name would come before Afridi's.
Guldozer Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Can Afridi do the same outside SC? Zaheer can do better. Pretty sure that is irrelevant to the fact that who was the leading wicket-taker of the last world cup. Anyway, outside SC? Isn't there a particular team in Asia that has practically won nothing outside SC? :giggle:
kubrickian Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Pretty sure that is irrelevant to the fact that who was the leading wicket-taker of the last world cup. Anyway, outside SC? Isn't there a particular team in Asia that has practically won nothing outside SC? :giggle: Yeah, Pakistan which even lost to Zimbabwe and got bowled out for 49 against SA.
Zelig Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 To people pointing out that Afridi's teammates dropping catches is not a good enough excuse, I agree. But at the same time it's funny how people manged to ignore the other 4 points I made. Afridi had a better average, so, if one name was to be put up, it had to be Afridi's. That's all I'm saying. I see no reason as to why Zaheer's name would come before Afridi's. I'm just making a case for "trend". Most Wickets = World Cup winner :dontknow:
Bleed-Blue Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 [table="head;]Year|Player| Winner 1975| Gary Gilmour (AUS) | WI 1979| Mike Hendrick (ENG) | WI 1983| Roger Binny (IND) | IND 1987| Craig McDermott (AUS) | AUS 1992| Wasim Akram (PAK) | PAK 1996| Anil Kumble (IND) | SL 1999| T-Shane Warne (AUS) | AUS 2003| Chaminda Vaas (SL) | AUS 2007| Glenn McGrath (AUS) | AUS 2011| T-Zaheer Khan(IND)/ Afridi (Pak) | IND 2015| ??? | ??? [/table] Now Stop Crying Guldozer
HippoSucks Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Interesting trend, but it is sort of obvious considering the team with the best bowler has a higher chance of winning. The top four wicket takers this world cup are from the semifinalist teams, so there is a good chance that the winner will have the highest wicket taking bowler in their team. Boult has one match to play, so he may get 2-3 wickets bringing his total to 23-24. Starc has 2 matches to play (given Australia wins against India) and can get 3-4 wickets each match. Shami also has 2 matches to play (given India wins against India) and will likely take 2-3 wickets each match. Based on that, and also my prediction that Australia will unfortunately win today, I think Starc will be the leading wicket taker.
Zelig Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 Interesting trend' date=' but [b']it is sort of obvious considering the team with the best bowler has a higher chance of winning. The top four wicket takers this world cup are from the semifinalist teams, so there is a good chance that the winner will have the highest wicket taking bowler in their team. Boult has one match to play, so he may get 2-3 wickets bringing his total to 23-24. Starc has 2 matches to play (given Australia wins against India) and can get 3-4 wickets each match. Shami also has 2 matches to play (given India wins against India) and will likely take 2-3 wickets each match. Based on that, and also my prediction that Australia will unfortunately win today, I think Starc will be the leading wicket taker. For some reason, the same doesn't apply for batsman :dontknow:
Guldozer Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I'm just making a case for "trend". Most Wickets = World Cup winner :dontknow: Lol it's happened 4/5/6 times in 9 World cups. That's hardly a trend. :haha: And finalists are more likely to have the leading wicket-taker anyway as they play the most matches.
HippoSucks Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 For some reason' date=' the same doesn't apply for batsman :dontknow:[/quote'] Especially now when team scores are always over 300, one individual batsman's contribution with the bat can't win a match all the time. When you have to make 350 to be competitive and you only have 1 good batsman who will make a century, you may not win the match. But if your bowler is capable of picking 3-4 early wickets, even if the rest of the attack is terrible, you are going to have a better chance of winning.
Guldozer Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 [table="head;]Year|Player| Winner 1975| Gary Gilmour (AUS) | WI 1979| Mike Hendrick (ENG) | WI 1983| Roger Binny (IND) | IND 1987| Craig McDermott (AUS) | AUS 1992| Wasim Akram (PAK) | PAK 1996| Anil Kumble (IND) | SL 1999| T-Shane Warne (AUS) | AUS 2003| Chaminda Vaas (SL) | AUS 2007| Glenn McGrath (AUS) | AUS 2011| T-Zaheer Khan(IND)/ Afridi (Pak) | IND 2015| ??? | ??? [/table] Now Stop Crying Guldozer I feel privileged. By the way, it should be Allott for 1999. :giggle:
HippoSucks Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Lol it's happened 4/5/6 times in 9 World cups. That's hardly a trend. :haha: And finalists are more likely to have the leading wicket-taker anyway as they play the most matches. 6 times out of 10 (and more recently 6 times out of 8) looks like a steady trend to me.
Bleed-Blue Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I feel privileged. By the way, it should be Allott for 1999. :giggle: Whatever Helps You Sleep At night :two_thumbs_up:
Yamaha Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Especially now when team scores are always over 300' date=' one individual batsman's contribution with the bat can't win a match all the time. When you have to make 350 to be competitive and you only have 1 good batsman who will make a century, you may not win the match. But if your bowler is capable of picking 3-4 early wickets, even if the rest of the attack is terrible, you are going to have a better chance of winning.[/quote'] Agree with this. Wicket-taking bowlers are bigger matchwinners than century-hitting batsmen. Makes me sad when a 5-wicket haul is overlooked over a 100 while handing out Man of the match awards.
ThePhenomenal1 Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 WTHELL Shami has played only 6 games?! Man if he played that one minnow game he'd be np 1 maybe, but hope he gets a 5-fer tomorrow and then the final :D
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