David Gowers's 50 best cricketers-evaluation

[Marut]

One of the worst bowlers of all time? :haha: Thomson wasn't an ATG but with his pace he was a perfect foil to Lillee and his variations. Before 1977 he was an amazing bowler with brilliant spells in the 1975 England or 1975-1976 West Indies series. After the collision in the 1976-1977 Pakistan series he wasn't the same (but still showed occasional signs of brilliance) because obviously he relied mostly on his pace.

Hmm, I didn't literally mean what you said. My conclusion was that if he really were a consistent 160kph bowler that some people attribute to him, then he would be have to be one of the most inaccurate bowlers for not being able to use that kind of pace to better effect - averaging 28 in tests and 35 in ODIs bowling on good pitches along with splendid bowlers like Lillee hardly befits a 160+kph bowler of substance.

[HippoSucks]

Hmm' date=' I didn't literally mean what you said. My conclusion was that if he really were a consistent 160kph bowler that some people attribute to him, then he would be have to be one of the most inaccurate bowlers for not being able to use that kind of pace to better effect - averaging 28 in tests and 35 in ODIs bowling on good pitches along with splendid bowlers like Lillee hardly befits a 160+kph bowler of substance.[/quote'] For the most part he wasn't a 160km/h bowler after 1977, so only his average before that injury should be considered (which was around 25).

[Marut]

That’s because it is almost circular logic. It is practically a fact that there are lower quality bowlers and batsman this generation compared to the past. So it is naturally that the good batsman are benefited by the weak bowlers. And the good bowlers are benefited by the mediocre batsman. Steyn is the best bowler by far right now and that is uncontested. But why should Steyn be given more credit just because he played in an era where his contemporaries are mediocre? Bradman played in a time where there were good batsman averaging in the 50s and despite that he was so ahead of his peers. For the most part that isn’t the case with Steyn. Other bowlers are not doing as well as Steyn because they are simply good enough

Bradman played against just one good team which is England. The bowling quality of his time (even for England) isn't comparable to the post 70 era by any stretch of imagination. Then why is Bradman credited for his achievements even now? The absolute quality of cricket between England and Australia in the 30s is probably comparable to matches between two minnows today.

[CG]

Some of the reasons are: 1. Size of bats. Better equipment - The game of cricket played in earlier days needed the batsman to time the ball properly in order to score runs. These days, with brute force, a batsman can clear the ropes even if he hasn't timed the ball well or the ball hasn't come off the middle of the bat. 2. Flatter pitches even in countries like Australia - did any losing visiting team manage to get 400+ in Australia so consistently as India did recently? Not even a team with Sachin, Dravid, Laxman managed to do this in the past. Even in England, batting is a lot easier than in the past. 3. Batsman friendly rules like restriction on the number of bouncers per over. 4. Probably weaker bowling units - I am not 100% sure whether this is true though. How would former bowling greats perform in 2015? I don't know... 5. Bowlers have come under the scanner for chucking and some big names have been thrown out, but batsmen are under no such scrutiny so they are flourishing. ----- Just an example: In the past, fourth innings used to be unusually difficult to bat. That has significantly eased out now - the proof lies here - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;innings_number=4;orderby=start;runsmin1=350;runsval1=runs;template=results;type=team;view=innings Out of forty nine 350 scores for the 4th innings in the entire history of Test cricket, 21 have been scored since 2006. Basically means that about 43% of the highest fourth innings scores have been made in the last nine years!! Something that used to happen once every four years is now happening twice an year!

Matter of Fact Steyn played most in Sa where pitches are bowling friendly sure helped him.

[HippoSucks]

Bradman played against just one good team which is England. The bowling quality of his time (even for England) isn't comparable to the post 70 era by any stretch of imagination. Then why is Bradman credited for his achievements even now? The absolute quality of cricket between England and Australia in the 30s is probably comparable to matches between two minnows today.

I agree, but the reason he is rated so highly is because he was so ahead of his peers who played in the same conditions and were high quality batsman. On the other hand Steyn is ahead of his contemporaries but his peers aren't particularly world class bowlers. I'm sure you agree that the world class batsman around Bradman's time provided more competition to him than the bowlers nowadays alongside Steyn. In short, Bradman's competition > Steyn's competition and despite that Bradman was so ahead.

[Marut]

I agree' date=' but the reason he is rated so highly is because he was so ahead of his peers who played in the same conditions and were high quality batsman. On the other hand Steyn is ahead of his contemporaries but his peers aren't particularly world class bowlers. I'm sure you agree that the world class batsman around Bradman's time provided more competition to him than the bowlers nowadays alongside Steyn. In short, Bradman's competition > Steyn's competition and despite that Bradman was so ahead.[/quote'] I think modern batsmen have fallen a bit from the batsmen of earlier decades (because they are playing on easy pitches most of the time and don't raise their game when conditions are difficult), but this is not true of bowlers. Bowlers are fighting against the odds and many of them are not able to last longer due to workload and injuries - Australia have had several quality bowlers who keep getting injured. India has produced some of our fastest bowlers ever in Umesh and Aaron who also keep getting injured due to workload. Pakistan had world class bowlers in Asif and Amir who disappeared due to non cricketing reasons. The Kiwis keep producing top bowlers like Boult. All of these bowlers have as much potential as former greats, but the odds are stacked against them so they may not statistically achieve what the former bowlers achieved. But Steyn fought the odds and matched the stats of former greats.

[Marut]

Matter of Fact Steyn played most in Sa where pitches are bowling friendly sure helped him.

Steyn's home record and away record are only marginally different.

[HippoSucks]

I think modern batsmen have fallen a bit from the batsmen of earlier decades (because they are playing on easy pitches most of the time and don't raise their game when conditions are difficult)' date=' but this is not true of bowlers. Bowlers are fighting against the odds and many of them are not able to last longer due to workload and injuries - Australia have had several quality bowlers who keep getting injured. India has produced some of our fastest bowlers ever in Umesh and Aaron who also keep getting injured due to workload. Pakistan had world class bowlers in Asif and Amir who disappeared due to non cricketing reasons. The Kiwis keep producing top bowlers like Boult. All of these bowlers have as much potential as former greats, but the odds are stacked against them so they may not statistically achieve what the former bowlers achieved. But Steyn fought the odds and matched the stats of former greats.[/quote'] But how many of these bowlers are good on a consistent basis and have more than just potential? Steyn, Boult, Anderson, Johnson. Others like Asif, Harris or Amir couldn't play many matches. If you think these 4 along with the other average bowlers could have been just as good as the bowlers of past eras (given that bats became as small as they were back then, bouncer limitations changed and flat pitches were less prominent) then we disagree on a fundamental level.

[HippoSucks]

Steyn's home record and away record are only marginally different.

However there is a difference playing, for example, 20% of your matches in the subcontinent and around 50% in bowling-friendly South African conditions compared to playing 50% of your matches on flat subcontinent pitches. Steyn does have some advantage because he plays half his matches on somewhat helpful pitches, even if his record in Asia is very good.

[adi B]

Matter of Fact Steyn played most in Sa where pitches are bowling friendly sure helped him.

An away average of 24 is ATGesque especially in this era.no one comes close to steyn as a bowler since 2000,that shows how great he has been

[Laaloo]

Dravid not there just as I suspected. The rest of the world know him for who he is. Only the cheerleaders on ICF cant see the truth

[Marut]

But how many of these bowlers are good on a consistent basis and have more than just potential? Steyn' date=' Boult, Anderson, Johnson. Others like Asif, Harris or Amir couldn't play many matches. If you think these 4 along with the other average bowlers could have been just as good as the bowlers of past eras (given that bats became as small as they were back then, bouncer limitations changed and flat pitches were less prominent) then we disagree on a fundamental level.[/quote'] Batsmen are looking to play more positively these days. In the 80s the scoring rate was about 2.73 runs/over. In the 90s, it was 2.86 runs/over. In the 00s it was 3.1 runs/over. Over the last five years, it is 3.27 runs/over. So if you compare, batsmen today are scoring about 20% faster compared to the 80s. This has been made possible due to improvisation - batsmen play more and more ODI strokes and T20 strokes in test cricket now. The bowlers are under more pressure than ever before. The rules and conditions are turning against them every passing year. Batsmen are looking to attack them in test matches, which wasn't the case two decades ago. When bowlers are attacked, they will inevitably lose their rhythm (just check out how many great bowlers were mauled by Sehwag regardless of their reputation). The top bowlers of today are as good as the top bowlers of the previous decades, but they are facing ever rising odds and so they will not match the former bowlers statistically. Greats of any era will be greats in any other era.

[maniac]

Jeff Thompson's pace is definitely overrated....also bowling on Aussie pitches of that era against not so great protective gear is no biggie...I haven't seen too many Jeff Thompson spells that left me awestruck.....he may not have been a tundler but he was no way a 160 bowler :hysterical: Also a lot of bowlers those days chickened out touring India...How many tests has Jeff Thompson played in SC? This is why I rate the likes of Steyn and Courtney Walsh ahead of Lillee and THompson or even likes of Lee,Akthar who tried to bowl quick and in all formats no matter what the conditions...even though Akthar might have chickened out a couple of times but that was due to things not going his way but definetely not the pitch or anything

[HippoSucks]

Batsmen are looking to play more positively these days. In the 80s the scoring rate was about 2.73 runs/over. In the 90s, it was 2.86 runs/over. In the 00s it was 3.1 runs/over. Over the last five years, it is 3.27 runs/over. So if you compare, batsmen today are scoring about 20% faster compared to the 80s. This has been made possible due to improvisation - batsmen play more and more ODI strokes and T20 strokes in test cricket now. The bowlers are under more pressure than ever before. The rules and conditions are turning against them every passing year. Batsmen are looking to attack them in test matches, which wasn't the case two decades ago. When bowlers are attacked, they will inevitably lose their rhythm (just check out how many great bowlers were mauled by Sehwag regardless of their reputation). The top bowlers of today are as good as the top bowlers of the previous decades, but they are facing ever rising odds and so they will not match the former bowlers statistically. Greats of any era will be greats in any other era.

Yes with the advent of ODI and T20 cricket batsman are attempting more shots in test matches, which can damage a bowler’s confidence. However wouldn’t you agree that more shots equals more risks and therefore more wickets for bowlers? Also, for what its worth, the economy rates in test matches from 2005-2010 have actually gone down in the 2010-2015 period from 3.21 to 3.1 runs per over. Economy rates from 20 Aug 2005 to 15 Mar 2010: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;orderby=wickets;spanmax1=15+Mar+2010;spanmin1=20+Aug+2005;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling Economy rates since 15 Mar 2010: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;orderby=wickets;spanmin1=15+Mar+2010;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling I agree that the greats of one era (post 1900) are the greats of other eras in general. However how many such greats do you see this era apart from Steyn? 0 (with the exception of Harris who could have been listed as a great if not for his fitness issues).

[HippoSucks]

Jeff Thompson's pace is definitely overrated....also bowling on Aussie pitches of that era against not so great protective gear is no biggie...I haven't seen too many Jeff Thompson spells that left me awestruck.....he may not have been a tundler but he was no way a 160 bowler :hysterical: Also a lot of bowlers those days chickened out touring India...How many tests has Jeff Thompson played in SC? This is why I rate the likes of Steyn and Courtney Walsh ahead of Lillee and THompson or even likes of Lee,Akthar who tried to bowl quick and in all formats no matter what the conditions...even though Akthar might have chickened out a couple of times but that was due to things not going his way but definetely not the pitch or anything

How many times did you actually watch Thomson? By all accounts his spells against England and West Indies were very devastating. Also most people I’ve talked to who have seen Thomson agree that prior to injury Thomson bowled 160km/h very often. That is anecdotal evidence but also in most cricket literature the same thing is stated. Many speed tests prior to the 1976-77 Pakistan series also show that Thomson bowled over 160km/h. You rate Akhter and Lee over Lillee and Thomson as bowlers or in terms of pace? Hopefully you are talking about pace and in that case both Akhter and Lee were likely faster than Lillee (especially after his stress fracture), however equal to or just below Thomson.

[Vijy]

Yes with the advent of ODI and T20 cricket batsman are attempting more shots in test matches, which can damage a bowler’s confidence. However wouldn’t you agree that more shots equals more risks and therefore more wickets for bowlers? Also, for what its worth, the economy rates in test matches from 2005-2010 have actually gone down in the 2010-2015 period from 3.21 to 3.1 runs per over. Economy rates from 20 Aug 2005 to 15 Mar 2010: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;orderby=wickets;spanmax1=15+Mar+2010;spanmin1=20+Aug+2005;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling Economy rates since 15 Mar 2010: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;orderby=wickets;spanmin1=15+Mar+2010;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling I agree that the greats of one era (post 1900) are the greats of other eras in general. However how many such greats do you see this era apart from Steyn? 0 (with the exception of Harris who could have been listed as a great if not for his fitness issues).

Two of Paki's convicts make strong cases for being greats - Asif and possibly Amir, if he plays and improves records in the future.

[Vijy]

One of the worst bowlers of all time? :haha: Thomson wasn't an ATG but with his pace he was a perfect foil to Lillee and his variations. Before 1977 he was an amazing bowler with brilliant spells in the 1975 England or 1975-1976 West Indies series. After the collision in the 1976-1977 Pakistan series he wasn't the same (but still showed occasional signs of brilliance) because obviously he relied mostly on his pace.

If you want someone who was genuinely great prior to injury, you must look beyond Thommo... to Waqar Younish. During the first 1/3 (or maybe 1/2) of his career, Waqar was racking up stats against some fine batsmen and teams that set him on course to becoming the Sydney Barnes of his era. Waqar in his pomp was probably the greatest bowler of the 90s (more so than Akram, Ambrose, Donald, McGrath, etc) - he may not have had as many "skills" as some of the others, but he made up for it all with a killer usage of the arsenal that he possessed. As for Steyn vs Thommo, I find the notion that the current crop of bowlers and batsmen are automatically inferior to the past players to be problematic. It's like saying that Helen Wills Moody was the best ever player in Tennis, or Margaret Court, just because they have great stats compared to someone like Serena Williams (whose win %, etc are lower). This precludes the level of competition, the rackets, etc. Marut and I seem to feel that the batting advantages accorded by this era offset any of this drop in "quality", but this is not a matter that be conclusively settled; it probably boils down to a difference in opinion at the end.

[Vijy]

How does Wilfred Rhodes make it? He has such an ordinary record test or FC.

Probably because he was one of Test cricket's first genuine allrounders - look at Grace and you'll find an even more "ordinary" record. Apart from Noble, Faulkner and Rhodes, I can't think of many others who played well in the 1900s.

[rkt.india]

If you want someone who was genuinely great prior to injury, you must look beyond Thommo... to Waqar Younish. During the first 1/3 (or maybe 1/2) of his career, Waqar was racking up stats against some fine batsmen and teams that set him on course to becoming the Sydney Barnes of his era. Waqar in his pomp was probably the greatest bowler of the 90s (more so than Akram, Ambrose, Donald, McGrath, etc) - he may not have had as many "skills" as some of the others, but he made up for it all with a killer usage of the arsenal that he possessed. As for Steyn vs Thommo, I find the notion that the current crop of bowlers and batsmen are automatically inferior to the past players to be problematic. It's like saying that Helen Wills Moody was the best ever player in Tennis, or Margaret Court, just because they have great stats compared to someone like Serena Williams (whose win %, etc are lower). This precludes the level of competition, the rackets, etc. Marut and I seem to feel that the batting advantages accorded by this era offset any of this drop in "quality", but this is not a matter that be conclusively settled; it probably boils down to a difference in opinion at the end.

it is just a perception that today's batsmen are bad, glorifying the past.

[Vijy]

it is just a perception that today's batsmen are bad' date=' glorifying the past.[/quote'] Sometimes, there is a worrying tendency to forget the past and the richness of cricket's culture, but at other times, it is equally worrying to see a simplistic belief that bowlers and batsmen of yore were automatically much better.