How does the present-day Jasprit Bumrah compare with the likes of Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis?

[Rajdeep]

Finally some sense. Comparing him to Greats of the game, does no one any good. Plus he has question marks over his action.

Except jealous Pakistanis no one questioned him.

Then again if I have bowlers like Mir Hamza and Jamal, I would be jealous too...LOL

 

[RizwanT20Champ]

It's not scraping the barrel, Just because someone isn't Indian doesn't mean they have to automatically accept bunrah as their father.

Name one quality bowler in the history of the game from wasim, Marshall, mcgrath etc etc who avg 45 against a certain team? Or even 35+?

With disclaimer that Bhumrah is comfortably below Wasim, Waqar, Imran and about equal at best to Akhtar, I wanted to expose your lack of stats knowledge once again:

Murali vs Aus:



Murali in Aus:



Murali in India:



Warne vs India:



really, we need to have a check on posters who keep throwing stats without any need to back it up. This poster bigs up Travis Head as all format greatest when HTB Head averages 29 in the opposition's den in tests with ZERO centuries.

@Caved12 @Major @Mamoon @Ab Fan @gazza619 @shaz619 @Rana @Ahmed216

 

[saimayubera]

Finally some sense. Comparing him to Greats of the game, does no one any good. Plus he has question marks over his action.

Absolutely zero question marks except for salty Pakistani fans.

Unlike Ajmal etc has never been called out by officials

 

[Buffet]

really, we need to have a check on posters who keep throwing stats without any need to back it up. Kicker is this poster bigs up Travis Head as all format greatest when HTB Head averages 29 in the opposition's den in tests with ZERO centuries.

Let's keep this thread on track and not have Travis head debate here. We have other dedicated threads for that.

 

[Bhaijaan]

I don't think you should be doing that, because that's subjective.

Due to not having home umpires in away matches, it was hard to tamper for all bowlers. Not just any specific bowler. You can look into record of all bowlers in away matches to see how well they did in absolute terms and also relative to others top bowlers. I think that's pretty accurate picture of skill and output of all bowlers without getting into adjusting avg by so and so runs for biased home umpiring or tampering. That's too subjective.



Away avg of pacers: 1970-1990 [ Sub 27 avg with 100 plus wickets against non-minnows]
View attachment 149248




Away Avg of pacers 1991 - 2009 [ Yes SL was minnow till mid 90s, but breaking becomes harder ]
View attachment 149249




Away Avg of pacers after 2009 [ Avg sub 27 and 100 plus wickets ]
View attachment 149250


Due to break in periods, we may miss some pacers who happens to play in overlapping periods, so



Away Avg of pacers against non-minnows since 1970: { only 7 teams have been non-minnows in this enire period }

View attachment 149252


Looking at away performance takes care of biased home umpiring for all bowlers including ball tampering. Trying to adjust averages of bowlers are too subjective.

These lists does not mean that we start ranking bowlers based on direct order of avg, but it gives you a decent idea of how they performed without benefit of home umpires and everyone was bowling outside home in this list and had no benefit of home umpires.

Thank you for always showing me the light in darkness brother.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Bumrah has Avg 20.3 and SR 44 ( only in top tier venues - Aus, Eng, SA, NZ)
Wasim has Avg 24.6 and SR 57 ( incuding all away venue - bottom teams + minnows )

If you are interested in seeing how Wasim did in 4 top venues of his era,

Wasim has avg of 26.9 and SR 61 ( only WI, SA, Aus, Ind )


----------------------------


Gap is that massive,

Would be interested in a purely subjective analysis by someone like @MMHS @Harsh Thakor @Junaids on whether Wasim 26 average stacks up against Bumrah 20 average if you factor in quality of cricket in that era ( assuming quality was greater).

 

[RexRex]

Now as for > Stats, if you actually followed my conversation with rexrex you'd realise the criteria for spin bowling vs pacers are different for obvious reasons.

why is it different ?

 

[aboveandbeyond]

Except jealous Pakistanis no one questioned him.

Then again if I have bowlers like Mir Hamza and Jamal, I would be jealous too...LOL

well this is what you get with horses for courses selections. Pak selectors took their chance on these two Trundlers in Abbas and Mir.

 

[mominsaigol]

why is it different ?

Spinners getting tonked in conditons that simply don't help them is common because spin bowling literally relies on spin. Pitches that remove that factor will obviously inflate your statistics.

Pace bowling is different because even in conditons that don't suit swing, A quality pacer who can bowl accurate line and length will still succeed.

Infact flat tracks expose who's a quality pace bowler and who isn’t. Whereas for spinners it's not the case.

 

[aboveandbeyond]

Absolutely zero question marks except for salty Pakistani fans.

Unlike Ajmal etc has never been called out by officials

I'm consistent in calling out all dodgy actions. That includes Ajmal

And I've never Praised Murli for what he is. And this is a guy who took 800 test wickets.

 

[RexRex]

.

 

[RexRex]

Spinners getting tonked in conditons that simply don't help them is common because spin bowling literally relies on spin. Pitches that remove that factor will obviously inflate your statistics.

Pace bowling is different because even in conditons that don't suit swing, A quality pacer who can bowl accurate line and length will still succeed.

Infact flat tracks expose who's a quality pace bowler and who isn’t. Whereas for spinners it's not the case.

Warne averages 44 in India, which is a spinner's paradise. He averages about 20 vs every other country. Disparity for one country stands out.

 

[mominsaigol]

Warne averages 44 in India, which is a spinner's paradise.

But why do you keep bringing in warne when I don't .

Warne, Anderson, Bumrah, and a few others are very overrated as test bowlers.

Don't get me wrong their good, and they easily walk into their own atg sides. However their not as unbeatable or as unplayable as people remember them and in Bumrah's case he's current.

 

[RizwanT20Champ]

why is it different ?

Because he didn't know about it.

We can easily play along here, Ambrose over a much larger sample size:



Lillee when he went to Pakistan




Mods please let this stay, you keep editing my posts but let slander against Babar where he claims all sorts of things stay.

 

[Rajdeep]

But why do you keep bringing in warne when I don't .

Warne, Anderson, Bumrah, and a few others are very overrated as test bowlers.

Don't get me wrong their good, and they easily walk into their own atg sides. However their not as unbeatable or as unplayable as people remember them and in Bumrah's case he's current.

When you listed down 6 special qualities you have last night and being most knowledgeable in cricket is one of them, I didn't trust you completely. Now I am convinced brother.

 

[mominsaigol]

When you listed down 6 special qualities you have last night and being most knowledgeable in cricket is one of them, I didn't trust you completely. Now I am convinced brother.

Overrated may be the wrong word tbf.

Again their not Overrated in that they are bad. But they are more hyped then their actually worth.

Their high quality bowlers, but not as unplayable or as godly as people remember em.

Murli was 100% superior to Warne, As for Anderson and Bumrah? Better test pacers exist.

Only Indian posters can place a 45 avg vs NZ only 200 wickets, + 0 10 wicket hauls as > Wasim, Let alone > Mcgrath as some people are claiming like your bro devadwal or rexrex.

 

[aboveandbeyond]

But why do you keep bringing in warne when I don't .

Warne, Anderson, Bumrah, and a few others are very overrated as test bowlers.

Don't get me wrong their good, and they easily walk into their own atg sides. However their not as unbeatable or as unplayable as people remember them and in Bumrah's case he's current.

Dmmmmmm

Warne overrated! Lol fer. The bloke was a Genius. Ok his record in India wasn't special, but that was a fantastic indian batting line up who played spin well.

 

[Buffet]

Would be interested in a purely subjective analysis by someone like @MMHS @Harsh Thakor @Junaids on whether Wasim 26 average stacks up against Bumrah 20 average if you factor in quality of cricket in that era ( assuming quality was greater).

I know you wanted to have subjective view. I did see entire 90s but not 80s. I mostly present data to argue to ensure way off opinions are not presented by me. At times I am off for sure.

There are few issues with thinking that quality of era gap accounts for Wasim avg of 26 vs Bumrah avg of 20 now in tough tours.

• We have already seen that avg batting per wicket difference in 90s to current era is less than one run per wicket.
• We had many bowlers playing in 90s who did far better than Wasim against good teams. They played in the same era.
• We have all bolwers doing far worse than Bumrah in current era. They are playing in the same era.

Taking account of al three factors, only way Wasim's avg of 26 can stack up against Bumrah avg of 20 now if we say that McGrath/Ambrose would have averaged 15 in current era or Cummins/Rabada would have averaged 30 plus in 90s. It does not pass the smell test. Neither McGrath/Ambrose were that good nor Cummins/Rabada are that bad. Test has not changed much despite many things looking different and it's refelcted in batting avg difference of 0.6 between eras. Top order is weaker but tail is stronger and combined reusult is very little difference in runs per wicket.

I will let @MMHS speak what he thinks about it. Don't know about Harsh, but Junaid has too much rose tinted glass to take his subjective views about past era seriously. Bowlers used to bowl 170 KPH and all random players were high quality and what not. Even top pitchers in baseball struggle to throw that fast.

 

[mominsaigol]

Dmmmmmm

Warne overrated! Lol fer. The bloke was a Genius. Ok his record in India wasn't special, but that was a fantastic indian batting line up who played spin well.

Overrated in comparison to his hype. He's still a quality legspinner and walks into any atg team, but not over murli.

 

[Ab Fan]

Warne averages 44 in India, which is a spinner's paradise. He averages about 20 vs every other country. Disparity for one country stands out.

Nonsense answer. Just admit u have no idea what u're talking about.

I already gave him these examples when explaining that failure against one opposition isn’t something very new. Many ATGs have such stats but he continued his usual rants which is why such posters should not be taken seriously and it is better to put them on ignore list.

 

[mominsaigol]

I already gave him these examples when explaining that failure against one opposition isn’t something very new. Many ATGs have such stats but he continued his usual rants which is why such posters should not be taken seriously and it is better to put them on ignore list.

Ashwin = Pollock

 

[sweep_shot]

"Mr. Hyperextension" Bumrah shouldn't be compared to Wasim, Waqar, or any other legend until he gets tested and cleared.

 

[RizwanT20Champ]

I don't agree with you guys that Bhumrah is better than Wasim or Waqar. However, just to show how clueless this poster is, Waqar himself averages 48.75 vs India. I don't understand why no action is taken against deliberate lies.

 

[Ab Fan]

It still amazes me how can an ATG test bowler have a peak rating of 830?

875+ is understandable given the different variables but 830 rating is not even country great level.

 

[Rajdeep]

I don't agree with you guys that Bhumrah is better than Wasim or Waqar. However, just to show how clueless this poster is, Waqar himself averages 48.75 vs India. I don't understand why no action is taken against deliberate lies.

No one rates Waqar...he would have same stats as Haris Rauf if he was playing in modern era.

 

[mominsaigol]

No one rates Waqar...he would have same stats as Haris Rauf if he was playing in modern era.

No one rates Waqar..

You mean indians who have zero clue about cricket?

 

[RexRex]

I don't agree with you guys that Bhumrah is better than Wasim or Waqar. However, just to show how clueless this poster is, Waqar himself averages 48.75 vs India. I don't understand why no action is taken against deliberate lies.

True .. he has dug himself into a hole, this @mominsaigol fella. I doubt he has watched much test cricket, maybe hit n giggle t20 is his thing.

 

[mominsaigol]

No one rates Waqar..

You mean indians who have zero clue about cricket?

With that being said @Rajdeep Bumrah is > Waqar atleast. That much ill agree on.

 

[mominsaigol]

True .. he has dug himself into a hole, this @mominsaigol fella. I doubt he has watched much cricket, maybe t20 is his thing.

Hole? You haven't presented a single argument since we talked. All you've been doing is asking others to hand hold you while I have proceeded to own you non stop.

Let's restart this rn

Explain why a 45 avg vs NZ bowler, with 200 wickets and 0 10 wicket hauls deserves to be placed > Wasim atm.

 

[Buffet]

It still amazes me how can an ATG test bowler have a peak rating of 830?

875+ is understandable given the different variables but 830 rating is not even country great level.

You can have 20 great tests out of 40, but not one after another.
You can have 20 great tests out of 40 , 20 comes one after another.

You will get different peak ratings for those same 20 great tests.

Also, you get more points for doing well against higher ranked teams. Wasim did not have a great record against higher ranked teams to compensate for lack of consecutive 20 great tests. Either of those two conditions would have pushed him higher in Peak. That's how mosty players get higher peak ratings.

Yes, 830 peak rating is an outlier for great players, it stands out. But there is an explanation.

 

[Ab Fan]

You can have 20 great tests out of 40, but not one after another.
You can have 20 great tests out of 40 , 20 comes one after another.

You will get different peak ratings for those same 20 great tests.

Also, you get more points for doing well against higher ranked teams. Wasim did not have a great record against higher ranked teams to compensate for lack of consecutive 20 great tests. Either of those two conditions would have pushed him higher in Peak. That's how mosty players get higher peak ratings.

Yes, 830 peak rating is an outlier for great players, it stands out. But there is an explanation.

Waqar has a great peak but not really great record vs higher ranked teams, yet he has almost 890/900 ICC peak ratings.

830 peak rating questions the basic claim that does Wasim even have that many great games or it were just some cheap wickets at good average due to economical bowling?

 

[Buffet]

Waqar has a great peak but not really great record vs higher ranked teams, yet he has almost 890/900 ICC peak ratings.

830 peak rating questions the basic claim that does Wasim even have that many great games or it were just some cheap wickets at good average due to economical bowling?

But Waqar had 20 great tests one after another. That's what pushed him for higher peak rating. You either have great run of 20 tests even if comes against minnows or you have very good record against good teams. Both can lead to higher peak ratings.

Wasim did not have many great games taken together against better teams otherwise his home/away avg won't be in 26-28 range in matches involving 6 teams. In absence of that, only path for higher peak rating would be a great run like Waqar.

 

[Ab Fan]

But Waqar had 20 great tests one after another. That's what pushed him for higher peak rating. You either have great run of 20 tests even if comes against minnows or you have very good record against good teams. Both can lead to higher peak ratings.

Wasim did not have many great games taken together against better teams otherwise his home/away avg won't be in 26-28 range in matches involving 6 teams. In absence of that, only path for higher peak rating would be a great run like Waqar.

Yeah, that makes sense actually. That’s exactly where peak ratings can be misleading as you can have great run vs mediocre opponents and reach a very high peak rating.

Thanks for sharing this insight. Don’t think Pakistani fans are capable of providing such explanations which is why they usually resort to counter question in form of argument or make personal attacks.

 

[aboveandbeyond]

My top 5 pacers of all time in order.

1. Mcgrath
2. Marshall
3. Imran
4. Hadlee
5. Steyn

 

[Rajdeep]

My top 5 pacers of all time in order.

1. Mcgrath
2. Marshall
3. Imran
4. Hadlee
5. Steyn

No Wasim? He is the best bowler ever from Pakistan.

 

[aboveandbeyond]

No Wasim? He is the best bowler ever from Pakistan.

Not for me in tests. He underperformed for his ability

 

[Ab Fan]

No Wasim? He is the best bowler ever from Pakistan.

830 peak rating. Every other ATG is between 880-935.

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

The way Bumrah played I will restate no other bowler in modern era compares.

All have flaws but Bumrah has no flaws with his bowling.

He is the best bowler of all time. Full credit to BCCI for managing his workload and injuries.

 

[Bhaijaan]

No one rates Waqar..

You mean indians who have zero clue about cricket?

Waqar Younis is a legitimate legend of the game. One of the greatest fast bowlers ever.

Just because people rank at different levels in ATG status shouldn’t mean we start disrespecting them. Waqar Younis is why hundreds of not thousands of kids in the 1990s started looking at the game from a fast bowlers POV and took up bowling rather than batting. He’s a hero for all of us kids growing up in the 90s.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

For those asking about Bumrah vs Malcolm comparison

 

[saimayubera]

Hole? You haven't presented a single argument since we talked. All you've been doing is asking others to hand hold you while I have proceeded to own you non stop.

Let's restart this rn

Explain why a 45 avg vs NZ bowler, with 200 wickets and 0 10 wicket hauls deserves to be placed > Wasim atm.

Because Wasim himself averages 39 in SA and has 0 match winning 5fers away against the top teams of his era.

Wasim is no Hadlee, Marshall, McGrath.

 

[saimayubera]

No one rates Waqar..

You mean indians who have zero clue about cricket?

India has won 2x the ICC trophies of your country and won test series in more countries.

And the one thing Pak had over Ind - better fast bowlers is also gone.

 

[mominsaigol]

India has won 2x the ICC trophies of your country and won test series in more countries.

And the one thing Pak had over Ind - better fast bowlers is also gone.

You mean current or overall?

If its overall, then hell no, the only one in contention is bumrah, every other pacer from India is garbage.

If it's current then yes. Currently Indian pacers are >.

Also what relevance does trophy count have towards Indian fans who are dumber then bricks?

 

[saimayubera]

You mean current or overall?

If its overall, then hell no, the only one in contention is bumrah, every other pacer from India is garbage.

If it's current then yes. Currently Indian pacers are >.

Also what relevance does trophy count have towards Indian fans who are dumber then bricks?

1. Bumrah is no 1. Having 2,3,4 count for little.

2. Shami is better than every non Wasim, Waqar, Imran Pak pacer

 

[mominsaigol]

1. Bumrah is no 1. Having 2,3,4 count for little.

2. Shami is better than every non Wasim, Waqar, Imran Pak pacer

No he isn't. I already went into great detail explaining this.

Only Indians can shove a 45 averaging vs NZ, only 200 wicket taking + 0 10 wicket haul taking bowler > Wasim who dominated for 2 decades and has nearly twice the number of test wickets.

Let's not forget that Bumrah has a comical icc tournament record during crucial stages compared to Wasim's 1992 run.

As for no 2: You have reached the epitome of stupidity. Then again not surprised. Most Indians on this forumn have zero IQ.

 

[saimayubera]

No he isn't. I already went into great detail explaining this.

Only Indians can shove a 45 averaging vs NZ, only 200 wicket taking + 0 10 wicket haul taking bowler > Wasim who dominated for 2 decades and has nearly twice the number of test wickets.

Let's not forget that Bumrah has a comical icc tournament record during crucial stages compared to Wasim's 1992 run.

As for no 2: You have reached the epitome of stupidity. Then again not surprised. Most Indians on this forumn have zero IQ.

Naah

Wasim's ICC tournament record sucks apart from 1992 - massive chokejobs in 87, 96, 99, 03 apart from 98, 00, 02 CT. Bumrah has 2024 which is the same number of ICC tournaments/World Cups Wasim won.

Wasim himself averages 39 in SA, has ZERO match winning away 5fers against top 4 teams of his era (Bumrah has 4-5).

The gap between Bumrah and Wasim's average is greater than the gap between Wasim and Anderson's.

And if your logic is that Wasim has nearly twice Bumrah's wickets, guess what, Anderson has nearly twice Wasim's wickets.

 

[mominsaigol]

Naah

Wasim's ICC tournament record sucks apart from 1992 - massive chokejobs in 87, 96, 99, 03 apart from 98, 00, 02 CT. Bumrah has 2024 which is the same number of ICC tournaments/World Cups Wasim won.

Wasim himself averages 39 in SA, has ZERO match winning away 5fers against top 4 teams of his era (Bumrah has 4-5).

The gap between Bumrah and Wasim's average is greater than the gap between Wasim and Anderson's.

And if your logic is that Wasim has nearly twice Bumrah's wickets, guess what, Anderson has nearly twice Wasim's wickets.

Wasim averages 39 in SA? Are you sure? Last time I visited howstat, that's now what was listed.

 

[Buffet]

1. Bumrah is no 1. Having 2,3,4 count for little.

Bumrah being number 1 does not make 2,3,4 meaningless.



Hadlee is superior to any Pakistani pacers, but collective legacy of pacers from Pakistan is greater.

Similarly,,

Bumrah being superior to any Pakistani pacers, still leaves collective legacy of Pakistani pacers as greater.


One bowler is not enough even if he is number 1. No one says NZ has great legacy of fast bowlers. For that you got to have a bunch of them.

 

[saimayubera]

Bumrah being number 1 does not make 2,3,4 meaningless.



Hadlee is superior to any Pakistani pacers, but collective legacy of pacers from Pakistan is greater.

Similarly,,

Bumrah being superior to any Pakistani pacers, still leaves collective legacy of Pakistani pacers as greater.


One bowler is not enough even if he is number 1. No one says NZ has great legacy of fast bowlers. For that you got to have a bunch of them.

NZ does have great legacy though post Boult, Southee, Wagner. All three better than any non Pak trio pacer.

 

[kron]

Bumrah being number 1 does not make 2,3,4 meaningless.



Hadlee is superior to any Pakistani pacers, but collective legacy of pacers from Pakistan is greater.

Similarly,,

Bumrah being superior to any Pakistani pacers, still leaves collective legacy of Pakistani pacers as greater.


One bowler is not enough even if he is number 1. No one says NZ has great legacy of fast bowlers. For that you got to have a bunch of them.

Shami is better than waaar and shoaib

 

[Buffet]

NZ does have great legacy though post Boult, Southee, Wagner. All three better than any non Pak trio pacer.

I was talking about sub 25 avg bowlers. Once you go out of that then NZ does have bowlers.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Shami is better than waaar and shoaib

I feel Shami is more impact than Waqar for sure. Waqar is just a Mary poppins against quality teams.

 

[Buffet]

Shami is better than waaar and shoaib

I don't think Shami with 6 career 5-fers makes a strong case.

But to not derail this thread, Why not open a thread on that and see arguments for and against that.

 

[Ab Fan]

I was talking about sub 25 avg bowlers. Once you go out of that then NZ does have bowlers.

England also don’t have much. You have to look at Trueman to think of an ATG bowler.

 

[Buffet]

England also don’t have much. You have to look at Trueman to think of an ATG bowler.

Very few people say, Eng has legacy of fast bowlers. For me legacy means, last 50-60 years.

Wi, SA, Aus and Pak have it due to many sub 25 avg pacers. Not all are at the same level but just a generic point.

 

[Caved12]

With disclaimer that Bhumrah is comfortably below Wasim, Waqar, Imran and about equal at best to Akhtar, I wanted to expose your lack of stats knowledge once again:

Murali vs Aus:

View attachment 149257

Murali in Aus:

View attachment 149258

Murali in India:

View attachment 149259

Warne vs India:

View attachment 149260

really, we need to have a check on posters who keep throwing stats without any need to back it up. This poster bigs up Travis Head as all format greatest when HTB Head averages 29 in the opposition's den in tests with ZERO centuries.

@Caved12 @Major @Mamoon @Ab Fan @gazza619 @shaz619 @Rana @Ahmed216

Bumrah is undoubtedly a talented bowler, but he doesn’t quite surpass the likes of Wasim, Imran, and Waqar in terms of overall impact. These bowlers had perfect run ups and bowling actions that were not only effective but also a joy to watch. In this series, Australia has frequently showcased Bumrah's bowling action from the side angle, and some of the footage has highlighted a concerning bend in his elbow. Moreover, his run up, which doesn’t seem optimal for generating pace, combined with a physique that appears out of shape these days, carrying extra weight around his belly and love handles, raises further questions. It’s difficult to understand how he can maintain such high speeds and bowl long spells in Test matches, especially given the physical strain involved.

Despite the numerous explanations and discussions on this forum, something still doesn’t feel right. While Bumrah’s skill is undeniable, he should be tested, just like any other bowler, to ensure everything is above board.

 

[Buffet]

Bumrah is undoubtedly a talented bowler, but he doesn’t quite surpass the likes of Wasim, Imran, and Waqar in terms of overall impact.

Really? Impact is the one factor he has more than most greats in history.

Top 5 impact bowlers - away 5-fers in wins against non-minnows





This was all 8 test nations list. If you limit it to top 4-5 of era then not sure how many have more impact than Bumrah in tough tours.

 

[Caved12]

Cricket is far more complex than it's often portrayed, especially when comparing bowlers from different eras. Stats alone don't fully capture the nuances of the game, particularly when contrasting players from the last decade with those who began their careers in the 1980s. That said, if statistics are the basis for comparison, let's allow Bumrah to finish his career before making any definitive judgments about his place alongside the greats of previous generations.

 

[Buffet]

Cricket is far more complex than it's often portrayed, especially when comparing bowlers from different eras. Stats alone don't fully capture the nuances of the game, particularly when contrasting players from the last decade with those who began their careers in the 1980s. That said, if statistics are the basis for comparison, let's allow Bumrah to finish his career before making any definitive judgments about his place alongside the greats of previous generations.

Agree about his exact place among all greats right now, but his impact has already surpassed most greats. That's the one aspect, we don't need to wait for his career to finish.

 

[kron]

I don't think Shami with 6 career 5-fers makes a strong case.

But to not derail this thread, Why not open a thread on that and see arguments for and against that.

Don't need to. That is the truth. Truth is better. Hurts alot

 

[kron]

Bumrah is undoubtedly a talented bowler, but he doesn’t quite surpass the likes of Wasim, Imran, and Waqar in terms of overall impact. These bowlers had perfect run ups and bowling actions that were not only effective but also a joy to watch. In this series, Australia has frequently showcased Bumrah's bowling action from the side angle, and some of the footage has highlighted a concerning bend in his elbow. Moreover, his run up, which doesn’t seem optimal for generating pace, combined with a physique that appears out of shape these days, carrying extra weight around his belly and love handles, raises further questions. It’s difficult to understand how he can maintain such high speeds and bowl long spells in Test matches, especially given the physical strain involved.

Despite the numerous explanations and discussions on this forum, something still doesn’t feel right. While Bumrah’s skill is undeniable, he should be tested, just like any other bowler, to ensure everything is above board.

He doesn't chuck and yes he is above all pacers from Asia. Only imran is ahead on longevity that's about it. Not impact. He is already ahead of all in terms of impact.

 

[Caved12]

Agree about his exact place among all greats right now, but his impact has already surpassed most greats. That's the one aspect, we don't need to wait for his career to finish.

Cricket is about much more than just stats and away tours. I should have simply said that Wasim, Imran, and Waqar are overall better bowlers than Bumrah.

 

[Buffet]

Cricket is about much more than just stats and away tours. I should have simply said that Wasim, Imran, and Waqar are overall better bowlers than Bumrah.

Well elite players perform in tough tours and leave their marks in history. They do well home and away well agasint good teams. Stats is just result of that if you see it with context and nothing else. Stats does not come out of vaccume. It's simple output of player's career relative to others in history and their peers.

As a bowler, you take wickets quickly, take it cheaply and do it against good teams and if you can do it in tough tours you are belong with elite. HTBs are also important, but they are dime and dozen in cricket. Teams still need those players.

 

[kron]

Cricket is about much more than just stats and away tours. I should have simply said that Wasim, Imran, and Waqar are overall better bowlers than Bumrah.

No not really. Away performances indicate otherwise. Not even close. Sorry.

They are better at one thing compared to bumrah. Getting tonked. In that aspect I agree they are better.

 

[Caved12]

Well elite players perform in tough tours and leave their marks in history. They do well home and away well agasint good teams. Stats is just result of that if you see it with context and nothing else. Stats does not come out of vaccume. It's simple output of player's career relative to others in history and their peers.

As a bowler, you take wickets quickly, take it cheaply and do it against good teams and if you can do it in tough tours you are belong with elite. HTBs are also important, but they are dime and dozen in cricket. Teams still need those players.

Cricket has evolved significantly over the decades, making it almost impossible to draw meaningful comparisons between players of the last 10 years and those from the 1980s. The game today is shaped by advancements in technology, analytics, and player preparation. Teams now have access to detailed data and conduct extensive homework on opposition players. Modern cricketers enjoy better accommodations, improved recovery processes, and specialized trainers to optimize their performance.

Back in the 80s, factors like home and away conditions may not have been scrutinized or even prioritized as much as they are now. The resources and infrastructure available today simply didn’t exist back then.

Relying solely on stats without context not only oversimplifies the game but also exposes a lack of understanding about how much cricket has transformed. Stats have their place, but blindly using them to compare eras is reductive and misses the bigger picture of how the sport has progressed.

 

[kron]

Cricket has evolved significantly over the decades, making it almost impossible to draw meaningful comparisons between players of the last 10 years and those from the 1980s. The game today is shaped by advancements in technology, analytics, and player preparation. Teams now have access to detailed data and conduct extensive homework on opposition players. Modern cricketers enjoy better accommodations, improved recovery processes, and specialized trainers to optimize their performance.

Back in the 80s, factors like home and away conditions may not have been scrutinized or even prioritized as much as they are now. The resources and infrastructure available today simply didn’t exist back then.

Relying solely on stats without context not only oversimplifies the game but also exposes a lack of understanding about how much cricket has transformed. Stats have their place, but blindly using them to compare eras is reductive and misses the bigger picture of how the sport has progressed.

Stats is just one component.
Performance vs top teams in away conditions as away is always harder than playing at home. Generally speaking.
Impact in the game, fear factor. Rule changes. Drs is available now.
No ball umpires are present.
Even then it's not perfect but it does an overall better job compared to past eras.
Smaller boundaries are not helping bowlers these days.
Better protective gearing.
As you mentioned analytics are more advanced. Works for both batsmen and bowlers though.
Prioritisation depending on what is important in terms of formats.
IpL has changed things. Advent of t20 has increased workloads dor bowlers/batsmen.
Many tail enders now are able to bat unlike past eras.
More all rounders in the game to offer balance.
Wicket keeper dynamics has changed drastically. Almost all keepers have to be proper batsmen.
Games are heavily result oriented. No longer can play for draws much. Dead batting is impossible these days.

Balls are swinging for longer periods due to lacquer depending on the country ofcourse.

Lots of variables.

Modern era bowlers are just something else. Comparison across eras are not impossible but it's difficult. Given the ability of waqar and wasim, I just don't see how they can be ahead of bumrah. Stats impact performance and ability wise.

 

[mominsaigol]

Latch onto 45 avg all you want.

Bumrah will be remembered as the guy who threw India out of WTC due to his rubbish performance at home.

He's in the absolute prime of his career yet got neutralised by NZ batters at his own home den and effectively kicked India out of wtc.

Before their was zero doubt India would qualify with either sa or Aus as its opponent. Yet now India is effectively done and dusted for this cycle.

 

[Buffet]

Cricket has evolved significantly over the decades, making it almost impossible to draw meaningful comparisons between players of the last 10 years and those from the 1980s. The game today is shaped by advancements in technology, analytics, and player preparation. Teams now have access to detailed data and conduct extensive homework on opposition players. Modern cricketers enjoy better accommodations, improved recovery processes, and specialized trainers to optimize their performance.

Back in the 80s, factors like home and away conditions may not have been scrutinized or even prioritized as much as they are now. The resources and infrastructure available today simply didn’t exist back then.

Relying solely on stats without context not only oversimplifies the game but also exposes a lack of understanding about how much cricket has transformed. Stats have their place, but blindly using them to compare eras is reductive and misses the bigger picture of how the sport has progressed.

Greatness was always about doing well away in tough tours in the test format. It's not new. It was seen that way in all eras. HTBs and eliter players doing well in tough tourss were never seen at same level. Test has not changed that much. There is a reason that most fans remember 1-1 series result in WI by Pakistan foundly.

Bold part is true. That's why you will use relative performance against peers as well to see how well they did under same conditions. Bumrah away is averageing 19 while 2nd/3rd best of generation is averaging 25-26. It's flipped other way for Pakistani greats compared to their peers.

Relative standing of players under the same set of conditions is pretty good context. Since you are questioning the context, I am all ears for better context.

 

[Caved12]

Greatness was always about doing well away in tough tours in the test format. It's not new. It was seen that way in all eras. HTBs and eliter players doing well in tough tourss were never seen at same level. Test has not changed that much. There is a reason that most fans remember 1-1 series result in WI by Pakistan foundly.

Bold part is true. That's why you will use relative performance against peers as well to see how well they did under same conditions. Bumrah away is averageing 19 while 2nd/3rd best of generation is averaging 25-26. It's flipped other way for Pakistani greats compared to their peers.

Relative standing of players under the same set of conditions is pretty good context. Since you are questioning the context, I am all ears for better context.

The game of cricket has undergone a complete transformation over the past 35 to 40 years, evolving in ways that make direct comparisons between players from different eras almost meaningless. Advancements in technology, analytics, and player preparation have fundamentally changed how the game is played and approached.

Today’s bowlers benefit from extensive data on opposition players, grounds, and pitches, which helps them strategize to an unprecedented degree. They have access to better accommodations, training facilities, and recovery methods. Modern recovery techniques, from massage therapists to advanced equipment that addresses muscle knots and niggles, allow players to stay at peak fitness. Load management is now a routine part of player management, ensuring that they are not overworked.

The science of nutrition has also reached new heights, with supplements and diet plans tailored to maximize performance and recovery. Tours are scheduled well in advance, allowing players to plan and prepare meticulously for the challenges ahead. All of this ensures that today’s players, including bowlers, are in the best possible mental and physical condition to perform.

However, when comparing bowlers like Jasprit Bumrah to legends such as Wasim Akram, Imran Khan, and Waqar Younis, you cannot rely solely on modern stats. These stats are influenced by a host of factors that were not available to players from earlier eras. Players like Wasim, Imran, and Waqar achieved their greatness in an era without the resources, infrastructure, and support systems that modern players take for granted. They had to rely on skill, instinct, and relentless hard work, often playing under conditions that were far more grueling than what today’s players experience.

If you take the time to watch these legends bowl, you will notice their superior run-ups, speeds, follow-throughs, and overall skill sets. Wasim Akram revolutionized swing bowling, showing the world how to move the ball both ways with unmatched control and precision. Imran Khan redefined the art of reverse swing and inspired a generation to understand the importance of fitness and mental toughness for bowlers. Waqar Younis introduced devastating toe crushing yorkers and elevated reverse swing to a level that few could imagine. These legends didn’t just succeed, they introduced new techniques and ideas that changed the game forever, paving the way for future generations to improve.

Using stats alone to claim that Bumrah is better is an oversimplification and ignores the nuances of cricket’s evolution. While Bumrah is undoubtedly a world-class bowler in today’s era, the argument that he is better than Wasim Akram, Imran Khan, or Waqar Younis doesn’t hold water when you consider the conditions, challenges, and limited resources those legends faced.

Cricket is not just about numbers. It is about the context in which those numbers were achieved, the challenges that were overcome, and the sheer brilliance displayed on the field. Comparing players across eras requires a deeper understanding of these factors, not just a glance at stats.

I have said what I needed to say and have nothing more to add. You can continue using whatever filter you prefer for your comparisons, but I will not engage further.

 

[Buffet]

Using stats alone to claim that Bumrah is better is an oversimplification and ignores the nuances of cricket’s evolution. While Bumrah is undoubtedly a world-class bowler in today’s era, the argument that he is better than Wasim Akram, Imran Khan, or Waqar Younis doesn’t hold water when you consider the conditions, challenges, and limited resources those legends faced.

You totally ignored the biggest point i raised. All players off course going to have a different set of conditions in different era.

But all bowlers in same era had the same set of conditions, facilities, etc.

McGrath and Ambrose outbowled Wasim/Waqar by some margin.
Same was true for Marshall/Hadlee outbowling IK.

Bumrah is outbowling everyone else by a big margin in his own era + raw stats is right up there with the best in history.

-----------------------------

Wasim/IK were never stand out bowler in ther own era.
Bumrah is stand out bowler in his own era.

+

Raw stats is vastly superior for Bumrah. Tests have not changed by much because we don't have many bowlers averaging sub 25 away in any era.

------------------------------

Add them together and it's not not a stretch to arrive at conclusion.



It's not exactly the same, but your logioc is sounding like a 100 meter runner with 11 seconds timing in 1955 coming at 4th spot in race being better than current era runner coming first with 9 second timing due to condition being different. That way there is no end ot this. Even some one coming at 10th spot in past can be claimed at better than someone coming first now due to conditions being different.

It would be a different thing to claim that coming first in the race in 1955 had same greatness despite having higher timings than current era. At least you are picking stand out of one era against stand out of another era despite raw stats being different.

Anyway, you are entitled to you opinion. Many people have many differnet opinions.

 

[Caved12]

You totally ignored the biggest point i raised. All players off course going to have a different set of conditions in different era.

But all bowlers in same era had the same set of conditions, facilities, etc.

McGrath and Ambrose outbowled Wasim/Waqar by some margin.
Same was true for Marshall/Hadlee outbowling IK.

Bumrah is outbowling everyone else by a big margin in his own era + raw stats is right up there with the best in history.

-----------------------------

Wasim/IK were never stand out bowler in ther own era.
Bumrah is stand out bowler in his own era.

+

Raw stats is vastly superior for Bumrah. Tests have not changed by much because we don't have many bowlers averaging sub 25 away in any era.

------------------------------

Add them together and it's not not a stretch to arrive at conclusion.



It's not exactly the same, but your logioc is sounding like a 100 meter runner with 11 seconds timing in 1955 coming at 4th spot in race being better than current era runner coming first with 9 second timing due to condition being different. That way there is no end ot this. Even some one coming at 10th spot in past can be claimed at better than someone coming first now due to conditions being different.

It would be a different thing to claim that coming first in the race in 1955 had same greatness despite having higher timings than current era. At least you are picking stand out of one era against stand out of another era despite raw stats being different.

Anyway, you are entitled to you opinion. Many people have many differnet opinions.

This is absurd and completely illogical. You’re blatantly disregarding the points I’ve been raising since my very first response. I’ve laid out my arguments comprehensively, addressing the topic from nearly every angle. It’s clear that you’re failing to grasp or acknowledge everything I’ve mentioned in my earlier posts. You are still stuck in stats!

 

[IMMY69]

You totally ignored the biggest point i raised. All players off course going to have a different set of conditions in different era.

But all bowlers in same era had the same set of conditions, facilities, etc.

McGrath and Ambrose outbowled Wasim/Waqar by some margin.
Same was true for Marshall/Hadlee outbowling IK.

Bumrah is outbowling everyone else by a big margin in his own era + raw stats is right up there with the best in history.

-----------------------------

Wasim/IK were never stand out bowler in ther own era.
Bumrah is stand out bowler in his own era.

+

Raw stats is vastly superior for Bumrah. Tests have not changed by much because we don't have many bowlers averaging sub 25 away in any era.

------------------------------

Add them together and it's not not a stretch to arrive at conclusion.



It's not exactly the same, but your logioc is sounding like a 100 meter runner with 11 seconds timing in 1955 coming at 4th spot in race being better than current era runner coming first with 9 second timing due to condition being different. That way there is no end ot this. Even some one coming at 10th spot in past can be claimed at better than someone coming first now due to conditions being different.

It would be a different thing to claim that coming first in the race in 1955 had same greatness despite having higher timings than current era. At least you are picking stand out of one era against stand out of another era despite raw stats being different.

Anyway, you are entitled to you opinion. Many people have many differnet opinions.

I'm sick to death of posts quoting stats.
Please stop.

So much nonsense
Did you actually watch Wasim play in the 80's?

Honestly these pathetic arguments using stats are nonsensical

 

[Buffet]

This is absurd and completely illogical. You’re blatantly disregarding the points I’ve been raising since my very first response. I’ve laid out my arguments comprehensively, addressing the topic from nearly every angle. It’s clear that you’re failing to grasp or acknowledge everything I’ve mentioned in my earlier posts. You are still stuck in stats!

I see you didn't grasp the point I was raising,

Youir enire point is about style, conditions, run up, skills, all kind so stuff. I am not talkign about stats of different era, If you get outbowled in your own era by few bowlers then you it shows what you did relative to those bowlers. No need to go across eras for that.

 

[Buffet]

I'm sick to death of posts quoting stats.
Please stop.

So much nonsense
Did you actually watch Wasim play in the 80's?

Honestly these pathetic arguments using stats are nonsensical

I didn't in 80s but saw in early 90s. Are you saying that, Wasim in 80s was elite bowler,

here is Wasim in 80s:



Stats is simple representation of output of all bowlers. You can argue stats with all different context, but simply dimissing relative and raw stats means there is not much to debate except talking about all kinds of intangibles.

But anyway, people are entitletd to hold whatever opinion they have.

 

[Caved12]

I see you didn't grasp the point I was raising,

Youir enire point is about style, conditions, run up, skills, all kind so stuff. I am not talkign about stats of different era, If you get outbowled in your own era by few bowlers then you it shows what you did relative to those bowlers. No need to go across eras for that.

To me, your posts are a complete joke. My perspective goes far beyond what you’ve stated, but you deliberately ignore that. The way you compare players is absurd and nonsensical.

 

[IMMY69]

I didn't in 80s but saw in early 90s. Are you saying that, Wasim in 80s was elite bowler,

here is Wasim in 80s:

View attachment 149321

Stats is simple representation of output of all bowlers. You can argue stats with all different context, but simply dimissing relative and raw stats means there is not much to debate except talking about all kinds of intangibles.

But anyway, people are entitletd to hold whatever opinion they have.

You've gone and done it again...
Wasim was a phenomenon, especially in the 80's and here you are going by stats without even having watched him bowl...

 

[sweep_shot]

You've gone and done it again...
Wasim was a phenomenon, especially in the 80's and here you are going by stats without even having watched him bowl...

There are 3 issues I see with @Buffet's stats:

1) He tends to filter things as per his whims and desires. There is no standard filtering method.

2) He tends to post more stats if it makes Indian players look good. If not, he doesn't post stats or posts less stats.

3) He tends to ignore the era differences. Bumrah getting wicket of Konstas or Finch is not same as Wasim taking wicket of Mark Waugh or Mark Taylor, for example.

 

[Buffet]

@Buffet only seems to post stats to make Indian players look good and/or make Pakistani players look bad. If not, he refrains.

Naughty, naughty.

How can I make anyone look good or bad. It's simply players performances captured in home, away, over all, SENA, Asia, out side Asia, against top teams, against top teams in their den and so on....

It's available to everyone and all of us can see the same. People blindly say stats don't have context, but stats have context. Context is only missed if you don't see any details and stop at aggregate career avg.

I have posted enough in past to show how Kallis lost games in ODI due to putting too high a price. I have shown in past how indian spinners have not done well away. I have posted many times about why Steve Smith is the best 3 batsmen in the last 35 years. One of the posters even said Smith is not elite level test batsman. Once i hear something like that, it saves time for everyone. No need to debate anything.

Not all topics get tractions, but discussion on pacers gets lot more traction here so simply more discussion about them in PP. Nothing more. Also, I enjoy pacers a more. Saw most matches of Wasim, Steyn and many for Ambrose. Now doing it for Bumrah. Still rate McGrath as the best despite not really eojoying watching him more than many others.

Anyway, it's just sports.

 

[aboveandbeyond]

You've gone and done it again...
Wasim was a phenomenon, especially in the 80's and here you are going by stats without even having watched him bowl...

Another very important and crucial point. We have ex players who are constantly trying to implement ideas to make TEST CRICKET competitive again bar the so called big THREE.

Its clear, the standard currently is the weakest I've seen of any era. Both bowlers, and batsmen, bar the few has declined to a all time low.

 

[Buffet]

There are 3 issues I see with @Buffet's stats:

1) He tends to filter things as per his whims and desires. There is no standard filtering method.

2) He tends to post more stats if it makes Indian players look good. If not, he doesn't post stats or posts less stats.

3) He tends to ignore the era differences. Bumrah getting wicket of Konstas or Finch is not same as Wasim taking wicket of Mark Waugh or Mark Taylor, for example.

Why not counter it? It should be easy to use your own filter. Era differences can be tackled by seeing what bowlers did in their own era relative to others.

A perfect example of above poster telling me that I did not watch Wasim in 80s. I should not have any opinion on him or share stats. I should just accept opinions that Wasim was elite level in 80s despite having 28 avg. Now small possibility exist that, 28 avg may mean different in different era but it's not hard to simply check what other players did in 80s when Wasim averages 28. It takes 30 seconds.