• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Glenn McGrath-Our Lord and Saviour V Glenn McGrath-The Fifth Best Australian Bowler

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
adharcric said:
LOL. He was the one who started the thread.
Yea I know. He doesn't like him. Fair enough. Thats his right. I can't stand some bowlers too. But I think I've proved that he statistically belongs somewhere near the very top, ahead of Lillee. After that, its a judgment call and you're welcome to your own.
 

PhoenixFire

International Coach
silentstriker said:
Except I didn't make up stats to prove my point. They are all there on paper. Your side said he takes hours, or he gets his wickets by bowling three feet wide...both of which are easily disproven by the records.

And by the way, I didn't start the thread either.
Why can't you just accept that some people view the fundamentals of cricket in completley the opposite way to you, it's part of life mate.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
PhoenixFire said:
Why can't you just accept that some people view the fundamentals of cricket in completley the opposite way to you, it's part of life mate.
Sure. If you don't think taking wickets has any bearing on how good a player is, you're welcome to your opinion. Good luck.
 

PhoenixFire

International Coach
silentstriker said:
Sure. If you don't think taking wickets has any bearing on how good a player is, you're welcome to your opinion. Good luck.
What a ridiculous statement. You know perfectly well that I rate wickets, in my eyes, your just making yourself look foolish.
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
silentstriker said:
Average: 25
Strike Rate: 15
Wkts/Match: 5
Econ: 5
Wkts 1-3: 10
Wkts 4-7: 10
Batting Average: 15
Peer/media rating: 15
Based on you figures above, I find it hard to accept that taking a high % of wkts 1-3 is worth twice as much as taking 5 wkts/match. Also, the final 30% is going to be difficult.

So I propose the following less subjective approach:

Core Stats: 50% (Average: 30; Strike Rate: 20)

Effectiveness Stats: 25% (Wkts/Match: 10; Econ: 5; Wkts 1-3: 5; Wkts 4-7: 5)

ICC all-time Ratings: 25% (this already takes pitches, opposition, era's into consideration and is readliy available)

If you agree the basic principle, it's just a matter of fine-tuning the ratios.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
aussie tragic said:
Based on you figures above, I find it hard to accept that taking a high % of wkts 1-3 is worth twice as much as taking 5 wkts/match. Also, the final 30% is going to be difficult.

So I propose the following less subjective approach:

Core Stats: 50% (Average: 30; Strike Rate: 20)

Effectiveness Stats: 25% (Wkts/Match: 10; Econ: 5; Wkts 1-3: 5; Wkts 4-7: 5)

ICC all-time Ratings: 25% (this already takes pitches, opposition, era's into consideration and is readliy available)

If you agree the basic principle, it's just a matter of fine-tuning the ratios.

Fair enough:

Core Stats: 55% (Average: 35, Strike Rate: 20)
Effectiveness Stats: 20% (Wkts/Match: 5, Econ 5, Wkts 1-3: 5; Wkts 4-7: 5)
ICC Highest Rating: 25%

I'll agree to down top order wicket %,but I'll also decrease wkts/match, as I strongly think thats more of a reflection of talent around someone (with very very few exceptions).
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
originally posted by SilentStriker's signature
McGrath (Lillee)
33% wickets by caught & bowled (32.7%)
74% top order wickets (72%)
2.5 econ/21.66 average/51.78 S/R (2.76/23.92/52.02)

I'm not convinced that 33 and 32.7% of dismissals were "caught & bowled". That would mean that uncle Glenn has taken over 170 return catches.:-O
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Lillian Thomson said:
I'm not convinced that 33 and 32.7% of dismissals were "caught & bowled". That would mean that uncle Glenn has taken over 170 return catches.:-O
What are you talking about?
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Lillian Thomson said:
We both know you've changed it, and no one else cares, so it's a case of "crue de ta al la platt" as the French say.:cool:
SS is making stuff up now. This proves that Lillee is a better bowler than McGrath.
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
silentstriker said:
I know you're kidding, but I'll take it at face value:

Dennis Lillee (just LBW): 17%
Glenn McGrath (just LBW): 20%
Actually, DK had 17.5% LBW, but anyway, how come you don't mention the 15.2% bowled by DK, while McGrath only bowls 13.3% :)
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
aussie tragic said:
Actually, DK had 17.5% LBW, but anyway, how come you don't mention the 15.2% bowled by DK, while McGrath only bowls 13.3% :)
Yea, 2% less bowled, and about 3% more LBW. Either way, he gets the same amount of wickets bowling at the stumps - which was what Lillian Thompson was suggesting didn't happen (as he said, "he bowls three feet outside off").

And then someone suggested that he gets wickets because the ball hits the bat outside off stump and then crashes into the stumps to bowl them (which is ridiculously idiotic), but I said 'fine, lets ignore that' and just focused on LBW's which would have to be going at the stumps and McGrath still does better.

Either way, he loses the argument.
 
Last edited:

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
PS. I am compiling the list of all time great bowlers using the criteria right now, so you don't have to do it.

In short: some of the results are VERY surprising for me (I might have to bump up a couple bowlers I thought were crap. :@).
 

PhoenixFire

International Coach
silentstriker said:
PS. I am compiling the list of all time great bowlers using the criteria right now, so you don't have to do it.

In short: some of the results are VERY surprising for me (I might have to bump up a couple bowlers I thought were crap. :@).
Lohmann?
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
silentstriker said:
Fair enough:

Core Stats: 55% (Average: 35, Strike Rate: 20)
Effectiveness Stats: 20% (Wkts/Match: 5, Econ 5, Wkts 1-3: 5; Wkts 4-7: 5)
ICC Highest Rating: 25%

I'll agree to down top order wicket %,but I'll also decrease wkts/match, as I strongly think thats more of a reflection of talent around someone (with very very few exceptions).
One minor aberration that may occur here is with regard to the WSC bowlers. The ICC ratings deduct 1% point for each Test that a player doesn't play for his country. In the case of DK Lillee, for example - he hit a rating of 884 after the Centenary Test in 1977, but then didn't play Test cricket for two years, and by the time he returned in 1979 his rating had fallen to something like 673, and he had to build it all the way up again. I've always thought it would be interesting to see what his rating could have hit had he not lost those points during WSC, and could build on his 884 rating when he resumed his Test career two years later.

Obviously there's no real way to get around this (though I am toying with the idea of writing to the ICC to see if they could give me a "hypothetical" rating for the WSC players had they not lost two years worth of points!), and the criteria otherwise look very good - I've just always considered looking at the Test records for WSC players from a statistical point of view to be something of a minefield given that so many of them played two of the best years of their cricketing life in a hard-as-nails competition that doesn't ever get counted in the record books.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
The Sean said:
One minor aberration that may occur here is with regard to the WSC bowlers. The ICC ratings deduct 1% point for each Test that a player doesn't play for his country. In the case of DK Lillee, for example - he hit a rating of 884 after the Centenary Test in 1977, but then didn't play Test cricket for two years, and by the time he returned in 1979 his rating had fallen to something like 673, and he had to build it all the way up again. I've always thought it would be interesting to see what his rating could have hit had he not lost those points during WSC, and could build on his 884 rating when he resumed his Test career two years later.

Obviously there's no real way to get around this (though I am toying with the idea of writing to the ICC to see if they could give me a "hypothetical" rating for the WSC players had they not lost two years worth of points!), and the criteria otherwise look very good - I've just always considered looking at the Test records for WSC players from a statistical point of view to be something of a minefield given that so many of them played two of the best years of their cricketing life in a hard-as-nails competition that doesn't ever get counted in the record books.
Point taken, and he might have been higher than 884. For right now, I'll use 884, but I'll put a hypothetical rating of 910 to see how he would have ranked instead. 910 is extremely hard to achieve, and I think thats fair?
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
silentstriker said:
Point taken, and he might have been higher than 884. For right now, I'll use 884, but I'll put a hypothetical rating of 910 to see how he would have ranked instead. 910 is extremely hard to achieve, and I think thats fair?
Sounds more than fair mate - tbh, I wouldn't be offended if you didn't even put in a hypothetical rating as there is no real way to ever know. But as I say 910 sounds more than fair given how few bowlers in history have hit that mark, and it would be interesting to see how the ranking may or may not have changed because of that.

Looking forward to seeing the results, I think it will surprise a lot of people - myself included. :)
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
Sorry SS, beat you to it as I already had the stats from all the Era XI's :)

As previously agreed, here are the calculations for the Top 20 Pace Bowlers

35 points for Ave (20.00 is ideal) ---------------------- (700/Ave = 35)
25 points for ICC Rating (950.0 is ideal) ------------- (Best ever/38 = 25)
20 points for SR (45.0 is ideal) ------------------------- (900/SR = 20)
5 points for Econ (2.20 is ideal) ------------------------ (11/econ = 5)
5 points for Wkts/Match (5.0 is ideal) ----------------- (W/M = 5)
5 points for Top Order Wkts (37.5% is ideal) -------- (% Wkts 1-3 / 7.5 = 5)
5 points for Middle Order Wkts (37.5% is ideal) ---- (% Wkts 4-7 / 7.5 = 5)

* The “ideal” is obviously set as an unachievable mark*

And the Top 20 Pace-Bowlers (Min 150 wkts) are:

1. Barnes: 110.1
2. Marshall: 95.2
3. McGrath: 92.6
4. Donald: 92.5
5. Ambrose: 92.4
6. Garner: 92.3
7. Trueman: 92.2
8. Davidson: 91.7
9. Hadlee: 91.6
10. Younis: 91.5
11. Imran: 89.7
12. Lillee: 88.6
13. Holding: 87.6
14. S. Pollock: 87.1
15. Lindwall: 87.0
16. Miller: 86.1
17. Bishop: 85.4
18. Hall: 84.9
19. Akram: 84.9
20. Walsh: 84.5
 
Last edited:

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
aussie tragic said:
Sorry SS, beat you to it as I already had the stats from all the Era XI's :)

As previously agreed, here are the calculations for the Top 20 Pace Bowlers

35 points for Ave (20.00 is ideal) ---------------------- (700/Ave = 35)
25 points for ICC Rating (950.0 is ideal) ------------- (Best ever/38 = 25, so
20 points for SR (45.0 is ideal) ------------------------- (900/SR = 20)
5 points for Econ (2.20 is ideal) ------------------------ (11/econ = 5)
5 points for Wkts/Match (5.0 is ideal) ----------------- (W/M = 5)
5 points for Top Order Wkts (37.5% is ideal) -------- (% Wkts 1-3 / 7.5 = 5)
5 points for Middle Order Wkts (37.5% is ideal) ---- (% Wkts 4-7 / 7.5 = 5)

* The “ideal” is obviously set as an unachievable mark*

And the Top 20 Pace-Bowlers (Min 150 wkts) are:

1. Barnes: 110.1
2. Marshall: 95.2
3. McGrath: 92.6
4. Donald: 92.5
5. Ambrose: 92.4
6. Garner: 92.3
7. Trueman: 92.2
8. Davidson: 91.7
9. Hadlee: 91.6
10. Younis: 91.5
11. Imran: 89.7
12. Lillee: 88.6
13. Holding: 87.6
14. S. Pollock:87.1
15. Lindwall:87.0
16. Miller: 86.1
17. Bishop: 85.4
18. Hall: 84.9
19. Akram: 84.9
20. Walsh: 84.5
Already started another thread mate. Since this includes other bowlers, lets move it there.
 
Last edited:

Top