Its indeed very good comparion thats been drawn between bowlers of different eras.The parameters considered are very good. But I would also like to highlight the point that the Sub - Continent pitches are tailor made batting tracks and thats why a bowler of the claibre of Dennis Lillie did not want to tour India. So if the pitches were also taken as some sort of a parameter it would have been much more better.
Wow ! This is what said to myself as I read through the article. A lot of comlications can be built into any statistical analysis by introduction of various paramenters. But this article, though with concise analysis, did throw up a good result. Even if you include a few more parameters like pitch quality, suppport bowlers, overall team's ranking etc., the results won't be too different. Infact, the parameters considered more than analyse the core. What's heartening is the fact that in a Batters' world, someone has cared to analyse Bowlers' performance. I must compliment the author for this wonderful piece.
Wonderful analysis.. One of the first such analysis i have come across my life.. Particularly for bowling! And it clearly undermines the fact that India never had a 'great' bowler.
Dear Sir, It is definitely a very good approach to judge the bowlers & one should congratulate the author as well as rediff. Of corse there would be certain objection like assistance of wicket, result of the test,match winning effort, form of the batmen etc. So it won't be possible to take into account all the factors, but still this is good effort to say the least.
RE:What does the author want to talk about in this article?
by kiran on Dec 09, 2003 10:19 AM
Tune ur sences, mate! Too bad that u didn't understand, once in a while reading worthwhile pieces,other than the India-this, India-that stereotype by Faisal, is refreshing. That was a good 1, rediff !
I have often wondered why a bowler gets the same credit for taking the wicket of a Tendulkar and a McGrath when the formet is a priced wicket, where as the latter, though not inconsequential, is a realtively easy wicket to get. The detailed statistical analysis outlined in this article, though not perfet, seems to be a step (or rather several steps, i would say) in the right direction in an endeavour to give bowlers the right amount of credit that is due to them. Hope the ICC is listening .
great work done with wonderful insight and good cricketing knowledge...and lot of spare time. yes this gives much better picture of the bowlers and clarify the picture, normal statistics paint. Not disparaging ur efforts, i 'd like to mention one thing which i guess u assumed and could lead to other results. u have taken the career averages of batsman in the calculation assuming that they played same cricket all their career. that means a particular batsman was as dangerous in his final years as he was in his early years or vice versa. for eg Steve waugh is a much different batsman now than what he was early in his career. in fact he hit his first test century much later. and obviously his avg was no where to 50's which is now.same can be said about jayasurya or Matt hayden in his first 15 matches. that means that if matt hayden has a price tag on his wicket, that is much more now than what it was when he played his initial matches and he was not as threatening as now. same with Steve waugh who became the most-imp-wicket of the team much later in his career. so the bowlers who have taken his wicket early in his career when he wasn't that difficult to get out, get unfair advantage.
this good but lets look at this case study: Akram has more wickets just with bold/c&b/lbw => all by himself but Mc Grath's is more of caught by keeper or fielders. that's just a thought for a mind but no doubt this is more is bit more realistic than the existing ones
