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

[Sachin fan]

Wasim and Waqar were proper bowlers. They had a run-up, a follow through, nice smooth action through the crease, fitness and the longevity to be counted among the legends.

This guy Bumrah literally walks to the crease and employs the most ugly chucking action. No wonder his back is giving way.

When you cannot refute facts and numbers start random accusations. You guys are literal toddlers just throwing tantrums now.

 

[Sachin fan]

This is true...
But Indians don't have much to on cling on too and they're a pretty naive lot so let the cricketing world milk them for all it can

LMAO the ones crying like toddlers despite bumrah not breaking a single ICC rules are accusing others of clinging. The projection and childishness is mind blowing. Irony died a thousand deaths.

 

[IMMY69]

LMAO the ones crying like toddlers despite bumrah not breaking a single ICC rules are accusing others of clinging. The projection and childishness is mind blowing. Irony died a thousand deaths.

Here we go...
So predictable

 

[oatmeal]

its impossible to compare greats across eras. And Bumrah has a bit of a way to go before he reaches ATG status.

But Akram is the best bowler I have ever watched bowl and it was during my formative years so I will be biased towards him. If not for the suspicious injury in the 96 QF, Pakistan was likely to win back to back WCs

 

[uppercut]

lol
What a great big massive "CRICKETING" world it is....
A world that doesn't rely on a country with a billion people cricket fanatic population.....

yeah its the same Cricketing world that did not ban Shoaib Akhtar, Malinga etc .... lol

 

[IMMY69]

yeah its the same Cricketing world that did not ban Shoaib Akhtar, Malinga etc .... lol

**

Although I would add that at least the two you mentioned looked athletic and actually bothered to sprint to the crease

 

[mominsaigol]

Was it even close to best 40-50 tests by tier 1 pacers who played with Wasim or 45-50 tests by Bumrah? Answer is big NO. So it does not matter how long you play. Anderson also performed at top level for 100 tests( way more than 40-50 tests), but his 100 tests were never in the same level as 40-50 best tests by tier 1 pacers. Longevity is not a substitute for quality. A slight gap, yes, but not for a big gap.

If it doesnt matter how long you play, then Scott boland is the greatest of all time.

Don't matter that he only played 13 tests. He is 100x > Bumrah was during his first 13 tests .

Boland 17 avg > Bumrah 19 avg bro.

@uppercut Boland > Mcgrath too. Greatest of all time.

Also lmao Boland in 13 tests still has a 10 wicket haul which Bumrah does not

 

[uppercut]

If it doesnt matter how long you play, then Scott boland is the greatest of all time.

Don't matter that he only played 13 tests. He is 100x > Bumrah was during his first 13 tests .

Boland 17 avg > Bumrah 19 avg bro.

@uppercut Boland > Mcgrath too. Greatest of all time.

100x ehh ?

first of all did anyone rate Bumrah as the greatest after 17 tests ?

Also lmao Boland in 13 tests still has a 10 wicket haul which Bumrah does not

Karun Nair has a triple hundred in even less number of Tests than Tendulkar, Root, Smith etc etc ....but I will refrain from using a similar childish smiley.

If you want a serious discussion on how to judge and evaluate players start by writing down your criteria and the cricketing reason behind them.

 

[Buffet]

If it doesnt matter how long you play, then Scott boland is the greatest of all time.

You have to play 40-50 tests to be judged with good number of tough tours.

Playing 100 tests does nothing if you don't have top tier 40-50 tests with great performacne in tough tours.
Playing 20 tests and being one of the biggest HTB also does nothing.

Otherwise Ashwin will be better than Warne and Boalnd will be better than Bumrah.

 

[PAKFAN12]

You have to play 40-50 tests to be judged with good number of tough tours.

Playing 100 tests does nothing if you don't have top tier 40-50 tests with great performacne in tough tours.
Playing 20 tests and being one of the biggest HTB also does nothing.

Otherwise Ashwin will be better than Warne and Boalnd will be better than Bumrah.

People are comparing Boland to Bumrah and McGrath , Seriously?

 

[mominsaigol]

100x ehh ?

first of all did anyone rate Bumrah as the greatest after 17 tests ?



Karun Nair has a triple hundred in even less number of Tests than Tendulkar, Root, Smith etc etc ....but I will refrain from using a similar childish smiley.

If you want a serious discussion on how to judge and evaluate players start by writing down your criteria and the cricketing reason behind them.

Read what your buddy buffet said before jumping to conclusions.

He claimed no of games don't matter. I am simply giving him a brutal reality check as to how moronic his argument is.

Now changing the goal post. Argue with him on this but you wont cause agenda .

Now about Karun Nair. I have stated this multiple times as to why I view Bradman > anyone.

Wisden and even PP has desperately tried to draw parallel between sachin and Bradman when the reality is, its not comparable.

Bradman for his era

1) First to score 300 and had the highest score of his era.
2) Highest average of his era
3) Avg 90+ against every bowler of his era excluding Larwood. He still averages 70+ against Larwood and 90+ against all bodyline bowlers. But yes Larwood did reduce him to a 40 avg batter which is why his overall avg was 56 that series.
4) Highest run getter of his era year by year
5) Most centuries of his era
6) Most runs of his era
7) Best conversion rate of his era.
8) Most no of runs in a seried for his era.

Now as for Sachin

1) Zero 300's despite his peers scoring it.
2) Highest run getter of his era but only due to no of matches. Otherwise in 24 Years he only topped 2x
3) Doesn't have the highest average for his era
4) Best country by country performance
5) Best Conversion rate of his era
6) Was a circus clown against the best bowlers of his era. All his peers even lesser batters did better against them, especially Mcgrath who despite propaganda of them being equivalents, mcgrath was his papi, Not a rivalry.
7) Never managed to score 500 runs in a series despite gill achieving it in 2 games, Sachin did get multiple flat pitches in his ers, including Pakistan where he was totally crap as comapred to other countries.

This is why Indians cant ever be taken seriously. They make good points but then spend million dollars on movies fabricating entire lies.

Bumrah being an ATG is now suddenly top 1 of all time despite not even being worth Marshall or mcgrath.

Sachin is called the god of cricket despite him being significantly worse then the top batters of his era like lara and Ponting and only managed to surpass them via longetivity as these boys collapsed like house trucks while sachin never stumbled and remained consistent but he was never > them in prime.

Inn2006 it was clear ponting was >

Dhoni, Jadeja, Ashwin, Jaiswal and Laxman, dont even get me started on these 5 clowns

 

[mominsaigol]

You have to play 40-50 tests to be judged with good number of tough tours.

Playing 100 tests does nothing if you don't have top tier 40-50 tests with great performacne in tough tours.
Playing 20 tests and being one of the biggest HTB also does nothing.

Otherwise Ashwin will be better than Warne and Boalnd will be better than Bumrah.

Yeah I figured you'd change your goalpost to 40-50. Very typical. Had Bumrah been on 30 tests you'd change the goalpost to 30 lol.

 

[uppercut]

Read what your buddy buffet said before jumping to conclusions.

He claimed no of games don't matter. I am simply giving him a brutal reality check as to how moronic his argument is.

Now changing the goal post. Argue with him on this but you wont cause agenda .

Now about Karun Nair. I have stated this multiple times as to why I view Bradman > anyone.

Wisden and even PP has desperately tried to draw parallel between sachin and Bradman when the reality is, its not comparable.

Bradman for his era

1) First to score 300 and had the highest score of his era.
2) Highest average of his era
3) Avg 90+ against every bowler of his era excluding Larwood. He still averages 70+ against Larwood and 90+ against all bodyline bowlers. But yes Larwood did reduce him to a 40 avg batter which is why his overall avg was 56 that series.
4) Highest run getter of his era year by year
5) Most centuries of his era
6) Most runs of his era
7) Best conversion rate of his era.
8) Most no of runs in a seried for his era.

Now as for Sachin

1) Zero 300's despite his peers scoring it.
2) Highest run getter of his era but only due to no of matches. Otherwise in 24 Years he only topped 2x
3) Doesn't have the highest average for his era
4) Best country by country performance
5) Best Conversion rate of his era
6) Was a circus clown against the best bowlers of his era. All his peers even lesser batters did better against them, especially Mcgrath who despite propaganda of them being equivalents, mcgrath was his papi, Not a rivalry.
7) Never managed to score 500 runs in a series despite gill achieving it in 2 games, Sachin did get multiple flat pitches in his ers, including Pakistan where he was totally crap as comapred to other countries.

This is why Indians cant ever be taken seriously. They make good points but then spend million dollars on movies fabricating entire lies.

Bumrah being an ATG is now suddenly top 1 of all time despite not even being worth Marshall or mcgrath.

Sachin is called the god of cricket despite him being significantly worse then the top batters of his era like lara and Ponting and only managed to surpass them via longetivity as these boys collapsed like house trucks while sachin never stumbled and remained consistent but he was never > them in prime.

Inn2006 it was clear ponting was >

Dhoni, Jadeja, Ashwin, Jaiswal and Laxman, dont even get me started on these 5 clowns

Well I am talking to YOU ... so what is YOUR criteria to judge players ... Can you list that criteria ?

 

[pillionrider]

When you cannot refute facts and numbers start random accusations. You guys are literal toddlers just throwing tantrums now.

Next - Wasim was better looking. I mean, I have no problem with anyone rating Wasim over Bumrah at this stage. I personally rate Wasim and Mcgrath over him among the eras I have watched. But some of the arguments instead provided, especially for someone like Waqar who was just raw pace plus doctorate in handling the ball, are hilarious.

 

[mominsaigol]

Well I am talking to YOU ... so what is YOUR criteria to judge players ... Can you list that criteria ?

We have gone back and forth in Bumrah multiple times.

He is a fantastic pacer and unlike Pakistani poster who you lump me in with i never mentioned wasim, ive always stuck to mcgrath which people insultingly put Bumrah >.

You always ignore the criteria so what's the point?

Putting a bowler as no 1 all time despite him

A) Facing players that aren't even in bootlicking distance of past players in test cricket

You're telling me in BGT Bumrah facing the likes of Khawaja, Konstas, Labu, Smith, Travis, Webster and Carey is > The likes of Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Waugh, Lehmann, and Gilchrist?

Despite this the likes of root and Smith who is expiring have done far better against Bumrah then anyone did vs Mcgrath except for very few cricketers who would have gotten owned if they played more. Razzaq and inaz were one offs in the same way konstas vs Bumrah was a one off, although I find it funny Bumrah got trolled by a guy who talent wise isnt worth Ijaz and razzaq regardless of era. Ijaz and razzaq on debut > Konstas.

B) Getting owned by NZ on end to the point that India got memed and mauled in wtc and home series.

C) Has zero 10 fers

D) Cant even play 5 tests without expiring.

E) Hasn't had an actual impact beyond statistics. Throughout this england and Concluded BGT series he hasnt actually made a dent. Despite picking up 5 fers all the important wickets were taken by others ironically.

I dont mean to demean Bumrah but this overglorification is hilarious. Hes a fabulous pacer, an all time great but to claim he clears Ambrose, Mchrath, Marshall, hadlee etc etc,

You've all lost your marbles.

Same with Sachin, Dhoni Jadeja and many others.

His 19 average doesnt account for the quality of test batters, doesnt account for his toothpick stamina, Doesn't account for 0 10 fers which is a criteria that people ignore.

Getting 10 wickets is far easier then scoring a 300 lol,

Doesnt account for him being a clown vs NZ, Doesn't account for alot of factors that you would require to be put > Mcgrath.

 

[Buffet]

Yeah I figured you'd change your goalpost to 40-50. Very typical. Had Bumrah been on 30 tests you'd change the goalpost to 30 lol.

If 30 tests are mostly tough tours then it will be enough to judge the quality but not enough to say that bowler is better than any ATG. Bumrah was fantastic in first 30 tests with many tough tours but I did not put him above Wasim at that stage.

 

[uppercut]

**

Although I would add that at least the two you mentioned looked athletic and actually bothered to sprint to the crease

so being athletic and how long the fast bowler sprints is a factor for deciding if a bowler chucks ?

 

[uppercut]

We have gone back and forth in Bumrah multiple times.

He is a fantastic pacer and unlike Pakistani poster who you lump me in with i never mentioned wasim, ive always stuck to mcgrath which people insultingly put Bumrah >.

You always ignore the criteria so what's the point?

Putting a bowler as no 1 all time despite him

A) Facing players that aren't even in bootlicking distance of past players in test cricket

You're telling me in BGT Bumrah facing the likes of Khawaja, Konstas, Labu, Smith, Travis, Webster and Carey is > The likes of Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Waugh, Lehmann, and Gilchrist?

Despite this the likes of root and Smith who is expiring have done far better against Bumrah then anyone did vs Mcgrath except for very few cricketers who would have gotten owned if they played more. Razzaq and inaz were one offs in the same way konstas vs Bumrah was a one off, although I find it funny Bumrah got trolled by a guy who talent wise isnt worth Ijaz and razzaq regardless of era. Ijaz and razzaq on debut > Konstas.

B) Getting owned by NZ on end to the point that India got memed and mauled in wtc and home series.

C) Has zero 10 fers

D) Cant even play 5 tests without expiring.

E) Hasn't had an actual impact beyond statistics. Throughout this england and Concluded BGT series he hasnt actually made a dent. Despite picking up 5 fers all the important wickets were taken by others ironically.

I dont mean to demean Bumrah but this overglorification is hilarious. Hes a fabulous pacer, an all time great but to claim he clears Ambrose, Mchrath, Marshall, hadlee etc etc,

You've all lost your marbles.

Same with Sachin, Dhoni Jadeja and many others.

His 19 average doesnt account for the quality of test batters, doesnt account for his toothpick stamina, Doesn't account for 0 10 fers which is a criteria that people ignore.

Getting 10 wickets is far easier then scoring a 300 lol,

Doesnt account for him being a clown vs NZ, Doesn't account for alot of factors that you would require to be put > Mcgrath.

Dude!!! JUST friggin list YOUR criteria on how you decide who is a great batsman or bowler. What part of that sentence do you not understand ?

 

[mominsaigol]

If 30 tests are mostly tough tours then it will be enough to judge the quality but not enough to say that bowler is better than any ATG. Bumrah was fantastic in first 30 tests with many tough tours but I did not put him above Wasim at that stage.

Well i put Boland > Bumrah cause 13 tests are enough bro.

 

[IMMY69]

so being athletic and how long the fast bowler sprints is a factor for deciding if a bowler chucks ?

and better looking

 

[mominsaigol]

Dude!!! JUST friggin list YOUR criteria on how you decide who is a great batsman or bowler. What part of that sentence do you not understand ?

I'll start with Batsmen first and we can take it from their.

WW2 Era

Averages, Centuries, Runs: Pretty basic as their were only 2 real teams. The likes of Bradman avg 200+ vs india and SA doesnt matter when these 2 teams were China level at this time.

Pre t20 Era (Odi + Test)

For test cricket Average matters but it depends on context. Their avg across countries + their averages against the best bowelrs of that era matters more then their overall avg.

its why the likes of Sachin are considered > Kallis despite avg 2 points less.

it also depends as to what position you are batting in and what your role is. Keepers obviously cant avg 50, and openers cant either which is why sunny and hayden for ke are the greatest ever test openers post ww2 since they played many number of games avg 50.

for Odi due to the one ball rule, the gold standard was to avg 40 or above with a 80SR. Do that and you're an atg more or less.

However for lower order batters like Bevan the criteria is different. His 50 avg is due to not outs and many scores where he only scored in single digits but went not out. His avg is taken qith a grain of salt.

In which case for lower order batters id look at the games they won and finished for their team which is why Bevan makes the list as he has finished many games and been a crises man as well.

All format Era

The criteria is different depending on whether you are a specialist or all format player.

All format players like KP or Head are great. Head avg 40+ in odi and test, has a monster strike rate in t20, has tournament centuries which resulted in 2 wins for his country and is a solid HTB.

He obviously cant be better then root or Steve smith but he isnt suppose to be as he is > them in all formats.

For all format player a 40 avg in odi and test followed by a good sr in t20 and solid performance in tournaments is enough to solidify them as goats.

Now for specialists. For a t20 speiclaist they have to be measured on impact and performance in tournaments.

For test specialists same.criteria as pre t20 Era. Test cricket hasnt changed in that regard.

Odi is a dying format but in this era if you avg 50 in odi with 25 or more centuries with most of those centurires being against full strength attacks and ideally some in tournaments then you should be an atg.

 

[Buffet]

Well i put Boland > Bumrah cause 13 tests are enough bro.

You have rights to hold any opinion.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

Six ducks in his last seven Test innings for Jasprit Bumrah!

Certainly not a record Bumrah would want to have to his name!

 

[uppercut]

Lets analyze your criteria closely (and this is only for modern day players say after 1971 which is when the ODI era roughly began)

For test cricket Average matters but it depends on context. Their avg across countries + their averages against the best bowelrs of that era matters more then their overall avg.

1. How do you calculate these averages vs best bowlers ? Because Player vs Player stats were not tracked until say about early to mid 2000.

2. Is there a minimum cutoff of matches that you need a player to have played in ? If so what is it.

3. Does the batsman have to have a minimum cutoff avg against each opposition ? Most importantly does he have to do well against ALL teams. Do away performances matter more than home ?

 

[mominsaigol]

Lets analyze your criteria closely ( and this is only for modern day players say after 1971 which is when the ODI era roughly began )



1. How do you calculate these averages vs best bowlers ? Because Player vs Player stats were not tracked until say about early to mid 2000.

2. Is there a minimum cutoff of matches that you need a player to have played in ? If so what is it.

3. Does the batsman have to have a minimum cutoff avg against each opposition ? Most importantly does he have to do well against ALL teams. Do away performances matter more than home ?

1) True it wasnt recorded until 2000's but their overall avg throughout their career is recorded.

For example everyone knows that sachin only averaged around 30-32 when Ambrose was playing. We dont know his exact number vs Ambrose but he clearly did 100x better when Ambrose wasnt around.

Similarly we know Mcgrath vs sachin led to a 22.22 overall avg but a 5 avg from 2000 onwards.

2) In my personal opinion the minimum cutoff would depend on eras. For example in odi 70-80 should be bare minimum since so many god damn odi's use to be played. But in today's era the number should be 50, as odi is so few in between.

Ideally though I'd say 50 for tests minimum, 50 for odi minimum (across all eras). If a player cant even make 50 tests and ODIs then they are irrelevant.

They'll be forgotten to time. Which is why Boland who i believe had he gotten the opportunity would have had a better career them Hazlewood but sadly he wont make that list due to AU botching it.

3) Theirs no minimum cutoff, you just look at the records and decide.

For example i put sachin > Root for 3 reasons.

A) He avg 40 or more in every country where he has played 5 or more games in while Root avg 35 vs Aus, his red mark.

But they have to play a few games against said opposition.

For example Ponting 31 avg vs Zimbabwe doesnt matter. He literally played 1 game vs Zimbabwe and had 1 innings? It has to be a minimum of 5 tests atleast against said opposition.

B) Root's conversion rate is pretty poor. Root conversion rate of 0.5 is worse then sachin's 0.66.

C) Avg, Overall root's avg is lower then sachin.

But nonsense criteria's such as Root needs to get 6 centuries vs Aus, He's a softie, he doesnt have chrisma( Pillion rider stated this, hilarious when sachin has the personality of a toothpick, By this logic kohli > sacjin cause personality wise kohli is as unmatched as viv)

All these criteria's remain nonsense

 

[pillionrider]

he doesnt have chrisma( Pillion rider stated this, hilarious when sachin has the personality of a toothpick, By this logic kohli > sacjin cause personality wise kohli is as unmatched as viv)

My words were batting charisma, not charisma. There is a difference sir.

 

[mominsaigol]

My words were batting charisma, not charisma. There is a difference sir.

Batting charisma is a non sense metric.

That would put the likes of Ponting, Chris Gayle and De villers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any batsmen in history including Bradman.

Only Viv Richards would be > them as his batting charisma was unmatched?

De villers literally reinvented what it means to be a 360 batter, Ponting had one of the most classiest yet aggressive batting of all time especially his place vs pace and overall aggressive attitude, Gayle is literally the most terrifying batter and moat charismatic post Viv.

Based of what is Sachin showcasing charisma? He has a complete technique and a very pretty backfoot shot, Cover drive and lofted strokes.

But none of his shots are as funky as de villers, As classy as Ponting and As aggressive as Gayle?

 

[mominsaigol]

Batting charisma is a non sense metric.

That would put the likes of Ponting, Chris Gayle and De villers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any batsmen in history including Bradman.

Only Viv Richards would be > them as his batting charisma was unmatched?

De villers literally reinvented what it means to be a 360 batter, Ponting had one of the most classiest yet aggressive batting of all time especially his place vs pace and overall aggressive attitude, Gayle is literally the most terrifying batter and moat charismatic post Viv.

Based of what is Sachin showcasing charisma? He has a complete technique and a very pretty backfoot shot, Cover drive and lofted strokes.

But none of his shots are as funky as de villers, As classy as Ponting and As aggressive as Gayle?

This would also put the likes of Steve smith > everyone in history since his weird stance has attracted alot of attention.

His dancing, Weird antics and strange leaves are more entertaining to watch them Sachin.

Infact Steve Smith is known for making test cricket entertaining of just watching pure leaves or him putting his boot against spinners and not playing it.

 

[pillionrider]

Batting charisma is a non sense metric.

That would put the likes of Ponting, Chris Gayle and De villers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any batsmen in history including Bradman.

Only Viv Richards would be > them as his batting charisma was unmatched?

De villers literally reinvented what it means to be a 360 batter, Ponting had one of the most classiest yet aggressive batting of all time especially his place vs pace and overall aggressive attitude, Gayle is literally the most terrifying batter and moat charismatic post Viv.

Based of what is Sachin showcasing charisma? He has a complete technique and a very pretty backfoot shot, Cover drive and lofted strokes.

But none of his shots are as funky as de villers, As classy as Ponting and As aggressive as Gayle?

You recently clarified that you rate Sachin > Root. The context of my post was wrt Root and was one of the metrics why I said almost no one, including the English would rate Root > Sachin, which is what all your posts prior to your clarification suggested. Not sure why you're getting into AB and Gayle here. Even Sehwag was more attacking by that logic compared to the version of Sachin he ended up playing alongside.

 

[mominsaigol]

You recently clarified that you rate Sachin > Root. The context of my post was wrt Root and was one of the metrics why I said almost no one, including the English would rate Root > Sachin, which is what all your posts prior to your clarification suggested. Not sure why you're getting into AB and Gayle here. Even Sehwag was more attacking by that logic compared to the version of Sachin he ended up playing alongside.

My point is that the argument you portrayed was rubbish. End of story. Infact it comes across as desperate.

In the same way saimayubera claimed Bumrah > Wasim because wasim didnt win any t20 trophies? What Kind of argument is that? T20 wasnt even invented

 

[TheSultan]

Indians have been dying to try to prove something with bumrah. I’ll just sit back and ponder which other test great never got 10 wickets in a match

 

[mominsaigol]

Indians have been dying to try to prove something with bumrah. I’ll just sit back and ponder which other test great never got 10 wickets in a match

Scott boland got a 10 wicket haul in literally his 11th test while Bumrah is still searching

 

[uppercut]

1) True it wasnt recorded until 2000's but their overall avg throughout their career is recorded.

For example everyone knows that sachin only averaged around 30-32 when Ambrose was playing. We dont know his exact number vs Ambrose but he clearly did 100x better when Ambrose wasnt around.

Similarly we know Mcgrath vs sachin led to a 22.22 overall avg but a 5 avg from 2000 onwards.

2) In my personal opinion the minimum cutoff would depend on eras. For example in odi 70-80 should be bare minimum since so many god damn odi's use to be played. But in today's era the number should be 50, as odi is so few in between.

Ideally though I'd say 50 for tests minimum, 50 for odi minimum (across all eras). If a player cant even make 50 tests and ODIs then they are irrelevant.

They'll be forgotten to time. Which is why Boland who i believe had he gotten the opportunity would have had a better career them Hazlewood but sadly he wont make that list due to AU botching it.

3) Theirs no minimum cutoff, you just look at the records and decide.

For example i put sachin > Root for 3 reasons.

A) He avg 40 or more in every country where he has played 5 or more games in while Root avg 35 vs Aus, his red mark.

But they have to play a few games against said opposition.

For example Ponting 31 avg vs Zimbabwe doesnt matter. He literally played 1 game vs Zimbabwe and had 1 innings? It has to be a minimum of 5 tests atleast against said opposition.

B) Root's conversion rate is pretty poor. Root conversion rate of 0.5 is worse then sachin's 0.66.

C) Avg, Overall root's avg is lower then sachin.

But nonsense criteria's such as Root needs to get 6 centuries vs Aus, He's a softie, he doesnt have chrisma( Pillion rider stated this, hilarious when sachin has the personality of a toothpick, By this logic kohli > sacjin cause personality wise kohli is as unmatched as viv)

All these criteria's remain nonsense

1. Ambrose NEVER got Tendulkar out in Test Cricket and most importantly he NEVER played a single Test match in India which was a very difficult place to tour for fast bowlers back in the 80s and 90s. Does this mean that Ambrose is not a good bowler according to you? ( Yes I know we are discussing batting but its the same logic that will apply for bowlers too ).

2. Problem is how do you adjust the ratings for players who did not even play a fraction of the innings that SRT or Lara or Root did ? If you give same weight to those who had half their careers then it will be un-fair for those who had very lengthy careers.

3A. Lara has a very ordinary avg in India( 33 ) and NZ( 36 ) does that mean you will disqualify him ?

3B. I have NEVER heard of anyone looking at conversion rate of 50s to 100s in their calculations.

3C. Overall Avg has the same problem as item#2 .... much harder to avg 50+ the more you play but then unfair to disqualify those who played in much lesser number of tests. For example Tendulkar had a stunning avg of 56.95 after 171 Tests with roughly 14K runs ( just from memory ). Is that the same as XYZ batsmen who have played in much lesser than 100 tests ?

As you can see it can get really complicated real fast if start doing this stats based filtering to determine the best players.

This is why I say that one needs to ACTUALLY watch the players play in live matches over a number of years to understand how good they are.

 

[Ab Fan]

Not sure how you define top tier. Was it at level of best 50 tests by Ambrose, McGrath, Bumrah etc? Answer is clearly NO.

Best period you picked for Wasim may not be the best for others and yet see how far ahead Ambrose was.

View attachment 156082

Mcgrath who was not in his peak was averaging 23 away against same opposition during the same period and if I pick the best 50 tests for McGrath he will also have avg closer to 20 like Ambrose.

Before you ask why not take NZ and SL for 1990-1997, both had W/L of 0.2. That's very poor. Greatness during peak can't be performing in NZ/SL etc who had W/L of 0.2

View attachment 156084







.

As mentioned above, fast bowlers back in 90s didn’t think that they have to perform only in SWENA. They played all the games and everywhere so we can’t discount their performance at home. If Bumrah played in 90s, he would also be forced to play a lot of home games.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Between 1990-1997, Wasim is only 2nd to Ambrose in the list even after excluding the likes of NZ, SL and Zim. But to be honest filtering is not really fair on them as they have played higher number of games vs NZ, SL and Zim.

 

[Buffet]

As mentioned above, fast bowlers back in 90s didn’t think that they have to perform only in SWENA.

No one in past or current thinks that. Not sure where you got that idea.

Point was about tough away tours and not about performance in SWENA.

Historically tough away tours separated good from great players. It was true in past and it's true now.

Greatness was never about being HTB or bashing poor/minnow teams.

 

[Ab Fan]

No one in past or current thinks that. Not sure where you got that idea.

Point was about tough away tours and not about performance in SWENA.

Historically tough away tours separated good from great players. It was true in past and it's true now.

Greatness was never about being HTB or bashing poor/minnow teams.

So, are you saying that losing home test series is fine and it is not a pacer fault if a team loses a home series 0-3 to NZ, like Bumrah did? He did a Philander there and didn’t bowl much ensuring that his home stats don’t get hurt. What are his home averages excluding BD, WI and SL in his prime?

Anyways, I am not interested in these filterings. A peak phase of a player should not be demeaned due to bashing comparatively weaker opponents, especially when he played a lot against them.

Is Wasim Akram a top 7-8 test bowler of all time? Answer is yes and hence it is too early to accept that Bumrah has already gone past him with about 55% of his overall wickets tally.

Anderson’s case is different. He has picked a high % of his wickets in England and after removing minnow WI, his average sits around 30.

 

[mominsaigol]

1. Ambrose NEVER got Tendulkar out in Test Cricket and most importantly he NEVER played a single Test match in India which was a very difficult place to tour for fast bowlers back in the 80s and 90s. Does this mean that Ambrose is not a good bowler according to you? ( Yes I know we are discussing batting but its the same logic that will apply for bowlers too ).

2. Problem is how do you adjust the ratings for players who did not even play a fraction of the innings that SRT or Lara or Root did ? If you give same weight to those who had half their careers then it will be un-fair for those who had very lengthy careers.

3A. Lara has a very ordinary avg in India( 33 ) and NZ( 36 ) does that mean you will disqualify him ?

3B. I have NEVER heard of anyone looking at conversion rate of 50s to 100s in their calculations.

3C. Overall Avg has the same problem as item#2 .... much harder to avg 50+ the more you play but then unfair to disqualify those who played in much lesser number of tests. For example Tendulkar had a stunning avg of 56.95 after 171 Tests with roughly 14K runs ( just from memory ). Is that the same as XYZ batsmen who have played in much lesser than 100 tests ?

As you can see it can get really complicated real fast if start doing this stats based filtering to determine the best players.

This is why I say that one needs to ACTUALLY watch the players play in live matches over a number of years to understand how good they are.

I'm only going to address the relevant metrics, we havent gotten to certain parts yet.

1) This is irrelevant. Bowlers aren't being discussed. They will be in the 2nd half

2) wdym by fraction? 1/2, 1/4, 1/8? Fraction is juat a part of a whole but people imply that it is less then half so let's assume 1/4.

Lara played 134 tests: can you tell which test player has a better record then Lara in the modern era after playing 33-34 tests excluding ww2 era batters?

33 tests aren't even enough to tour the planet and play away tests at this stage. You'd be in a Harry Brooks situation where he's only played in PK, NZ and Eng, everyone knows he will be a bunny in india and other pitches with spin assistance.

3B) Completely irrelevant who you have and havent looked at. What other people do is of no concern of mine.

3C) That would be their fault. Ponting in 2006 playing the exact same number of tests that tenda had in 2003 surpassed Tenda in every metric up until that point.

Steve Smith at one point avg 65 with a 86 year avg something that no batter minus Bradman achieved at that point playing the same number of tests.

It is simply their fault for not retiring or having their form drop, at the end of the day people will only look at overall records to determine.

If sachin wanted to remain a goat then retire at avg 56 with 14K runs, who asked him to continue when it was absolutely clear he was more or less washed up(albeit still a good batter) after that time period?

This is why I say that one needs to ACTUALLY watch the players play in live matches over a number of years to understand how good they are.

One of the worst suggestions you can possibly give as humans are designed to have different opinions and be somewhat biased. That's why I laugh at those who claim they are Unbiased.

I myself (ignoring trolls which i troll when I feel someone is being disingenuous) have admitted that I can only be as UNBIASED AS POSSIBLE. key word possible.

By simply observing and ignoring everything else its a never ending debate and battle. Its why I said Scott boland > Bumrah earlier to counter buffet.

I can easily claim Scott Boland > Bumrah because he averages 17 and I have personally watched him and evaluated him.

^^ See how faulty this logic is?

 

[uppercut]

I'm only going to address the relevant metrics, we havent gotten to certain parts yet.

1) This is irrelevant. Bowlers aren't being discussed. They will be in the 2nd half

Ok lets go thru this painfully methodically. So what does Tendulkar NEVER getting out to Ambrose imply according to you ?

 

[Sachin fan]

I'm only going to address the relevant metrics, we havent gotten to certain parts yet.

1) This is irrelevant. Bowlers aren't being discussed. They will be in the 2nd half

2) wdym by fraction? 1/2, 1/4, 1/8? Fraction is juat a part of a whole but people imply that it is less then half so let's assume 1/4.

Lara played 134 tests: can you tell which test player has a better record then Lara in the modern era after playing 33-34 tests excluding ww2 era batters?

33 tests aren't even enough to tour the planet and play away tests at this stage. You'd be in a Harry Brooks situation where he's only played in PK, NZ and Eng, everyone knows he will be a bunny in india and other pitches with spin assistance.

3B) Completely irrelevant who you have and havent looked at. What other people do is of no concern of mine.

3C) That would be their fault. Ponting in 2006 playing the exact same number of tests that tenda had in 2003 surpassed Tenda in every metric up until that point.

Steve Smith at one point avg 65 with a 86 year avg something that no batter minus Bradman achieved at that point playing the same number of tests.

It is simply their fault for not retiring or having their form drop, at the end of the day people will only look at overall records to determine.

If sachin wanted to remain a goat then retire at avg 56 with 14K runs, who asked him to continue when it was absolutely clear he was more or less washed up(albeit still a good batter) after that time period?

This is why I say that one needs to ACTUALLY watch the players play in live matches over a number of years to understand how good they are.

One of the worst suggestions you can possibly give as humans are designed to have different opinions and be somewhat biased. That's why I laugh at those who claim they are Unbiased.

I myself (ignoring trolls which i troll when I feel someone is being disingenuous) have admitted that I can only be as UNBIASED AS POSSIBLE. key word possible.

By simply observing and ignoring everything else its a never ending debate and battle. Its why I said Scott boland > Bumrah earlier to counter buffet.

I can easily claim Scott Boland > Bumrah because he averages 17 and I have personally watched him and evaluated him.

^^ See how faulty this logic is?

You have used the exact same logic you reject here to prove that Smith is better than Sachin. By your logic in this post, Smith can never be better than Sachin at this stage of his career.

never ever seen anyone use completely contradictory logic to support and reject players like yo do.

 

[Sachin fan]

Ok lets go thru this painfully methodically. So what does Tendulkar NEVER getting out to Ambrose imply according to you ?

Don't feed the troll

 

[Sachin fan]

Ok lets go thru this painfully methodically. So what does Tendulkar NEVER getting out to Ambrose imply according to you ?

Dude in the exact same thread he is using lack of longevity and total wickets to put down Bumrah and using longevity and total runs as a negative for Sachin and claiming Lara who had much smaller career at peak is better.

Do you think he is arguing in good faith?

 

[mominsaigol]

You have used the exact same logic you reject here to prove that Smith is better than Sachin. By your logic in this post, Smith can never be better than Sachin at this stage of his career.

never ever seen anyone use completely contradictory logic to support and reject players like yo do.

Did you even see my ranking list where I put Sachin at 5 and Smith at 8?

God you are irritating and naive and stupid.

Go bother someone else atm. I am talking to an adult @uppercut

I will feed you later

 

[mominsaigol]

What other proof do you need that this guy is just a cheap attention seeking troll? Why good posters waste time in long stats and proper answer to him is beyond me.

He will keep changing goal posts and Just flit from random points for attention as and when he wants. I have seen him use one point to hate on Indian players and then opposite to support his favorites in the same thread

Just mock him with one liners going forward and ignore all his opinions on cricket

Awe I said something bad about Sachin. Look at the fanboy crying .

Bechara, If only he had chosen a better non trollish username

 

[mominsaigol]

This is the issue with Indian posters, They can't hold arguments without getting sentimental and start crying and ganging up on people.

I've now lost interest in arguing. I was actually enjoying having a good discussion for once but the troll with Sachin's brand intervened cause he has an ego .

Ironic as hes obviously an alt account as @Bhaag Viru Bhaag stated.

 

[mominsaigol]

Ok lets go thru this painfully methodically. So what does Tendulkar NEVER getting out to Ambrose imply according to you ?

Yall cant hold a single argument without being a hive mind ego and being full of yourself .

 

[Ted123]

Top 10 fast bowlers of all time:-

1. Marshall
2. McGrath
3. Hadlee
4. Ambrose
5. Steyn
6. Imran
7. Bumrah
8. Wasim
9. Lillee
10. Holding/Garner

In Test cricket, Bumrah has surpassed Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis both. Bumrah and Wasim are still close but Bumrah has simply been far more dominant vs top teams as compared to Wasim. Wasim actually never was ranked no.1 test bowler in the world.

Both Wasim and Waqar are top class all formats bowler but purely in Test cricket, they were not top tier bowlers of their generation. That was Ambrose and then McGrath.

Bumrah is top tier test bowler as well as top tier all format bowler.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Don't feed the troll

You should be the last person saying this here, Mr. Old User.

 

[Devadwal]

Jasprit Bumrah current stats - 47 test ,90 innings ,217 test wickets with average of 19.49, Strike rate -42

GOAT numbers

 

[kron]

Top 10 fast bowlers of all time:-

1. Marshall
2. McGrath
3. Hadlee
4. Ambrose
5. Steyn
6. Imran
7. Bumrah
8. Wasim
9. Lillee
10. Holding/Garner

In Test cricket, Bumrah has surpassed Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis both. Bumrah and Wasim are still close but Bumrah has simply been far more dominant vs top teams as compared to Wasim. Wasim actually never was ranked no.1 test bowler in the world.

Both Wasim and Waqar are top class all formats bowler but purely in Test cricket, they were not top tier bowlers of their generation. That was Ambrose and then McGrath.

Bumrah is top tier test bowler as well as top tier all format bowler.

I agree with this list but I would put booms ahead of Imran tbh

 

[TheSultan]

Top 10 fast bowlers of all time:-

1. Marshall
2. McGrath
3. Hadlee
4. Ambrose
5. Steyn
6. Imran
7. Bumrah
8. Wasim
9. Lillee
10. Holding/Garner

In Test cricket, Bumrah has surpassed Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis both. Bumrah and Wasim are still close but Bumrah has simply been far more dominant vs top teams as compared to Wasim. Wasim actually never was ranked no.1 test bowler in the world.

Both Wasim and Waqar are top class all formats bowler but purely in Test cricket, they were not top tier bowlers of their generation. That was Ambrose and then McGrath.

Bumrah is top tier test bowler as well as top tier all format bowler.

Hmmm…..

Bumrah hasn’t shown longevity yet. Waqar had 200 wickets in 38 tests.

Let’s see where Bumrah gets to.

He hasn’t surpassed anyone on that list yet. You can talk nah when he gets over 300 wickets, has at least one 10fer and is destructive on dead tracks.

Until then keep nerding away at stats all you want, no one will take you seriously.

Bumrah’s stats are good, but this is his peak. Others have had better peaks.

 

[mominsaigol]

Hmmm…..

Bumrah hasn’t shown longevity yet. Waqar had 200 wickets in 38 tests.

Let’s see where Bumrah gets to.

He hasn’t surpassed anyone on that list yet. You can talk nah when he gets over 300 wickets, has at least one 10fer and is destructive on dead tracks.

Until then keep nerding away at stats all you want, no one will take you seriously.

Bumrah’s stats are good, but this is his peak. Others have had better peaks.

Is their any all time great cricketer who doesnt have 10 fers?

Tbh Scott boland is actually better then Bumrah at present. But for some reason aus never gave him a test career.

Boland ironically is > the aus test trio atm. He would have made the difference this wtc.

 

[uppercut]

Dude in the exact same thread he is using lack of longevity and total wickets to put down Bumrah and using longevity and total runs as a negative for Sachin and claiming Lara who had much smaller career at peak is better.

Do you think he is arguing in good faith?

they cant ... thats why its majorly fun to use their own methods against the trolls and get them all bent out of shape beyond recognition.

 

[mominsaigol]

they cant ... thats why its majorly fun to use their own methods against the trolls and get them all bent out of shape beyond recognition.

Yeah, you're clearly winning when you

A) Vanish into oblivion when up against me

B) get humiliated over and over

C) Argue bumrah > Marshall and Mcgrath

 

[uppercut]

Yeah, you're clearly winning when you

A) Vanish into oblivion when up against me

You ran away ... not me

B) get humiliated over and over

You mean like avg calculation ?

C) Argue bumrah > Marshall and Mcgrath

Bump my post ... lets see if you can actually stand up and debate without running away.

 

[Ted123]

I agree with this list but I would put booms ahead of Imran tbh

I won’t put Booms ahead of Imran yet. Imran performed vs the great Windies with bowl in 1988.

Hmmm…..

Bumrah hasn’t shown longevity yet. Waqar had 200 wickets in 38 tests.

Let’s see where Bumrah gets to.

He hasn’t surpassed anyone on that list yet. You can talk nah when he gets over 300 wickets, has at least one 10fer and is destructive on dead tracks.

Until then keep nerding away at stats all you want, no one will take you seriously.

Bumrah’s stats are good, but this is his peak. Others have had better peaks.

You and your other friends need to understand and accept that performance vs minnows of weak opponents is not same as performance vs top teams.

Waqar’s record is hugely inflated via bashing 7th,8th and 9th ranked nations during his time - New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Remove them and check his record.

Compare Bumrah’s stats vs SENA with Waqar’s record against top teams of his era and you will get a true reality check. Wasim was never ranked no.1 in Test cricket either and has huge % of wickets vs tailenders.

You guys have been shown the evidences enough time proving that Bumrah performs vs top teams and away from home while Wasim and Waqar cashed on heavily vs NZ and SL. But ofcourse you won’t accept it because you are nostalgic, enjoyed watching them bowl as a kid and you haven’t produced a fast bowler even of that calibre since then.

 

[mominsaigol]

You ran away ... not me



You mean like avg calculation ?



Bump my post ... lets see if you can actually stand up and debate without running away.

How many times have I pinged you . No response. Dont play this game with me.

Bump my post ... lets see if you can actually stand up and debate without running away.

First make a movie titled "Bumrah and his eternal quest to acquire a 10 fer"

 

[kron]

How many times have I pinged you . No response. Dont play this game with me.

Bump my post ... lets see if you can actually stand up and debate without running away.

First make a movie titled "Bumrah and his eternal quest to acquire a 10 fer"

Bumrah will get 9 fer or less but not 10 fer because his new ball swing isn’t that good. His one flaw

He is top class with semi old and older ball when it reverses etc

But new ball he struggles with too much seam movement. He doesn’t have the control of say Anderson with the new ball

 

[mominsaigol]

Bumrah will get 9 fer or less but not 10 fer because his new ball swing isn’t that good. His one flaw

He is top class with semi old and older ball when it reverses etc

But new ball he struggles with too much seam movement. He doesn’t have the control of say Anderson with the new ball

Boland managed to get a 10 fer in his first series in over 1.5 years.

Bumrah is still searching. Zero 10 fers typically entail that they are consistently poor in atleast one innings of a test.

Getting a 10 fer isnt that hard to do. Mcgrath only has 3 mainly cause Australia never asked him to bowl to tailenders much. The few times he did he took 8 of 24.

Wasim has god knows how many. Bumrah has 0

 

[IMMY69]

Boland managed to get a 10 fer in his first series in over 1.5 years.

Bumrah is still searching. Zero 10 fers typically entail that they are consistently poor in atleast one innings of a test.

Getting a 10 fer isnt that hard to do. Mcgrath only has 3 mainly cause Australia never asked him to bowl to tailenders much. The few times he did he took 8 of 24.

Wasim has god knows how many. Bumrah has 0

All good but have you ever come across a "bowler"* who trundles in off around 7-8 steps and hurls it in at high speed and gets the bounce and movement like that Bumrah does?

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

How many times have I pinged you . No response. Dont play this game with me.

Bump my post ... lets see if you can actually stand up and debate without running away.

First make a movie titled "Bumrah and his eternal quest to acquire a 10 fer"

He runs away every time. Those who interact with him in the Time Pass forum know this well. When cornered, he starts acting like he is taking a viva, yet he dodges any direct questions thrown at him and then has the audacity to claim that others are the ones running away.

 

[kron]

Boland managed to get a 10 fer in his first series in over 1.5 years.

Bumrah is still searching. Zero 10 fers typically entail that they are consistently poor in atleast one innings of a test.

Getting a 10 fer isnt that hard to do. Mcgrath only has 3 mainly cause Australia never asked him to bowl to tailenders much. The few times he did he took 8 of 24.

Wasim has god knows how many. Bumrah has 0

Problem is Wasim don’t get too many top batsman wickets. Or top order in general.

Immy khan did though.

 

[kron]

He runs away every time. Those who interact with him in the Time Pass forum know this well. When cornered, he starts acting like he is taking a viva, yet he dodges any direct questions thrown at him and then has the audacity to claim that others are the ones running away.

People spend a lot of time on time pass still?

 

[uppercut]

How many times have I pinged you . No response. Dont play this game with me.

Ohh yeah ? Whats this then ... :


Post in thread 'The Jasprit Bumrah workload myth: Is opting out of the 2nd Test against England justified?'

Post in thread 'The Jasprit Bumrah workload myth: Is opting out of the 2nd Test against England justified?'

Monday at 6:36 PM

what did I say that was not factual ?

No no, you are word of God bro. But seriously I am not answering this. I cant subject myself to such torture.

It's like trying to argue with a kid who asked me what 2 + 2 was.

• mominsaigol

• 

Looks like your usual chicken run to me

Bump my post ... lets see if you can actually stand up and debate without running away.

First make a movie titled "Bumrah and his eternal quest to acquire a 10 fer"

Naah the more immediate need is for a movie titled ... "Test Cricket for dummies" .... considering that there is no shortage of dumass punks like you ... it would be a blockbuster.

And ? You think only you can troll

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

I won’t put Booms ahead of Imran yet. Imran performed vs the great Windies with bowl in 1988.

You and your other friends need to understand and accept that performance vs minnows of weak opponents is not same as performance vs top teams.

Waqar’s record is hugely inflated via bashing 7th,8th and 9th ranked nations during his time - New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Remove them and check his record.

Compare Bumrah’s stats vs SENA with Waqar’s record against top teams of his era and you will get a true reality check. Wasim was never ranked no.1 in Test cricket either and has huge % of wickets vs tailenders.

You guys have been shown the evidences enough time proving that Bumrah performs vs top teams and away from home while Wasim and Waqar cashed on heavily vs NZ and SL. But ofcourse you won’t accept it because you are nostalgic, enjoyed watching them bowl as a kid and you haven’t produced a fast bowler even of that calibre since then.

Back then, teams were tougher, and batsmen valued their wickets, taking fewer risks. Dismissing a set batsman required real skill and Wasim and Waqar did it consistently. In today's era, they would have made most batsmen look like clowns. Imagine Bumrah bowling in Sri Lanka, Pakistan in the late 90s and early 2000s. He would have said goodbye to cricket.

 

[mominsaigol]

All good but have you ever come across a "bowler"* who trundles in off around 7-8 steps and hurls it in at high speed and gets the bounce and movement like that Bumrah does?

None, Only chuckers can achieve this feat

 

[mominsaigol]

Ohh yeah ? Whats this then ... :


Post in thread 'The Jasprit Bumrah workload myth: Is opting out of the 2nd Test against England justified?'

Post in thread 'The Jasprit Bumrah workload myth: Is opting out of the 2nd Test against England justified?'

Monday at 6:36 PM

what did I say that was not factual ?

No no, you are word of God bro. But seriously I am not answering this. I cant subject myself to such torture.

It's like trying to argue with a kid who asked me what 2 + 2 was.

• mominsaigol

• 

Looks like your usual chicken run to me




Naah the more immediate need is for a movie titled ... "Test Cricket for dummies" .... considering that there is no shortage of dumass punks like you ... it would be a blockbuster.

And ? You think only you can troll

Yeah im chickening out because I dont wish to explain the nuance off why an ODI world cup is obviously the most important trophy for any team.

At best maybe their cam be some debate over Ashes but even then 99% of Australians who are millennial and Gen Z prefer World cup over Ashes.

Its only Baby boomers, Gen X etc etc who prefer Ashes.

Besides You cant even figure out which is more important. In one comment you stated test > t20 wc is > Odi wc, then you stated Test > T20 wc = Odi wc.

First agree with your own rubbish metrics before questioning others.

And ? You think only you can troll

Truth be Told i never troll in actuality. I sarcastically or Bluntly or Humrously lay truth bombs that Agenda posters cannot handle.

it is not my fault that people claiming 24 avg fc lower order no 6-8 batter Redsy should replace both sai and karun at no 3 in the next test.

^^ These types of arguments troll themsleves.

 

[mominsaigol]

He runs away every time. Those who interact with him in the Time Pass forum know this well. When cornered, he starts acting like he is taking a viva, yet he dodges any direct questions thrown at him and then has the audacity to claim that others are the ones running away.

Either way the clown gang is beneath me. Actually it is beneath every human on earth in terms of intelligence.

When I first came on this forumn I remember having discussions with Pakistani posters and thought that their was a spectrum. Some very good posters who were better then me, and others not so much but I still enjoy discussing with them and maybe 2 to 3 trolls as usual.

Then I met the gang and that Spectrum Broke into a 100 pieces.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

No more personal remarks

 

[sweep_shot]

Yeah im chickening out because I dont wish to explain the nuance off why an ODI world cup is obviously the most important trophy for any team.

At best maybe their cam be some debate over Ashes but even then 99% of Australians who are millennial and Gen Z prefer World cup over Ashes.

Its only Baby boomers, Gen X etc etc who prefer Ashes.

Besides You cant even figure out which is more important. In one comment you stated test > t20 wc is > Odi wc, then you stated Test > T20 wc = Odi wc.

First agree with your own rubbish metrics before questioning others.

And ? You think only you can troll

Truth be Told i never troll in actuality. I sarcastically or Bluntly or Humrously lay truth bombs that Agenda posters cannot handle.

it is not my fault that people claiming 24 avg fc lower order no 6-8 batter Redsy should replace both sai and karun at no 3 in the next test.

^^ These types of arguments troll themsleves.

Anyone who thinks T20 World Cup is superior to ODI WC is either new to cricket or not worth having a discussion with.

ODI WC is the ultimate tournament. It has a legacy that goes back to 1975 (first ICC event).

 

[kron]

Back then, teams were tougher, and batsmen valued their wickets, taking fewer risks. Dismissing a set batsman required real skill and Wasim and Waqar did it consistently. In today's era, they would have made most batsmen look like clowns. Imagine Bumrah bowling in Sri Lanka, Pakistan in the late 90s and early 2000s. He would have said goodbye to cricket.

Not true at all

Teams have much better bowling units now

Can’t compare eras anyway

If those same players played t20 and received t20 level money their priorities and techniques would be aggressive as well. Shot making ability is far superior now in current era if you are going to bring up how old stars valued their defensive skills.

Plenty of test specialists still exists but the allure of money in t20 means players will want both, financial security and legacy. So they will try to find the right balance with their techniques. Apply the t20 skills to test cricket in a more refined way to ensure they maintain their aggressive shot making ability. It’s a result oriented era too. So that changes things.

No more playing for draws.

Bumrah in 90s would average 10 on those uncovered pitches

I don’t easily rate players and I despise stat padders as many would know from my old posts. I don’t put Sachin etc in my top 5 great bats list and kohli is not even in the conversation amongst modern greats etc.

But bumrah definitely is something special.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Anyone who thinks T20 World Cup is superior to ODI WC is either new to cricket or not worth having a discussion with.

ODI WC is the ultimate tournament. It has a legacy that goes back to 1975 (first ICC event).

West Indies of all teams have won it twice. That tells you a lot about the superiority of T20 WC.

 

[sweep_shot]

West Indies of all teams have won it twice. That tells you a lot about the superiority of T20 WC.

Yes.

I guess we shouldn't expect intelligence from bhakts. Their brains work differently.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

People spend a lot of time on time pass still?

Yes. Everything that's not related to cricket goes there.

 

[mominsaigol]

Anyone who thinks T20 World Cup is superior to ODI WC is either new to cricket or not worth having a discussion with.

ODI WC is the ultimate tournament. It has a legacy that goes back to 1975 (first ICC event).

Their is debate over Ashes which is older but I dont consider it > for a few reasons.

A) Ashes being the first doesnt mean much as it was only between 2 teams. Other teams didn't exist lol.

B) It's only 2 teams so not relevant to other teams.

C) I've never seen an aussie get emotional over an Ashes loss as compared to Ponting in 2011 as well as Waugh in 1996. World cup obviously meant alot to them.

Infact with every country. These indians should know this considering they spent millions on a bollywood movies clarifying this statement

 

[sweep_shot]

Their is debate over Ashes which is older but I dont consider it > for a few reasons.

A) Ashes being the first doesnt mean much as it was only between 2 teams. Other teams didn't exist lol.

B) It's only 2 teams so not relevant to other teams.

C) I've never seen an aussie get emotional over an Ashes loss as compared to Ponting in 2011 as well as Waugh in 1996. World cup obviously meant alot to them.

Infact with every country. These indians should know this considering they spent millions on a bollywood movies clarifying this statement

Agree.

Ashes is a series between two sides. ODI WC is a global event among many sides. Not sure why this is difficult to understand for this sanghi.

ODI WC is the main WC and always has been. Every sport has one ultimate World Cup (Football has FIFA WC, Rugby has Rugby WC etc.) and cricket's ultimate WC is the ODI WC.

 

[TheSultan]

I won’t put Booms ahead of Imran yet. Imran performed vs the great Windies with bowl in 1988.

You and your other friends need to understand and accept that performance vs minnows of weak opponents is not same as performance vs top teams.

Waqar’s record is hugely inflated via bashing 7th,8th and 9th ranked nations during his time - New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Remove them and check his record.

Compare Bumrah’s stats vs SENA with Waqar’s record against top teams of his era and you will get a true reality check. Wasim was never ranked no.1 in Test cricket either and has huge % of wickets vs tailenders.

You guys have been shown the evidences enough time proving that Bumrah performs vs top teams and away from home while Wasim and Waqar cashed on heavily vs NZ and SL. But ofcourse you won’t accept it because you are nostalgic, enjoyed watching them bowl as a kid and you haven’t produced a fast bowler even of that calibre since then.

I’ve addressed this laughable argument before.

1. Waqar took 35 wickets in 6 tests vs Windies between 1990-1993 when West Indies were the best side in the world. Yes the gap was less than the 1980s but they were still the best side until 1995

2. New Zealand were not the 8th ranked side lol. They were better than India, SL and probably on par with England. Do I need to remind you that NZ drew 2 series vs Australia in the early 90s?

3. Waqar took 7 wickets in a match vs Australia in the 1994 test in Karachi that Pakistan won which was the series differentiator.

Now if he took 25 wickets In a series vs Zimbabwe in 1993, so what? It’s not as if he wasn’t performing elsewhere.

If you want to argue Bumrah is better than post 1996, past his peak Waqar then fine. I’d agree. But 1990-1994 Waqar was a different beast. Probably the greatest peak ever.

And as for your snide remark about Wasim and Waqar removing tailenders, maybe if Bumrah could do the same India would be 2-1 or even 3 up in this series.

Go and educate yourself boy and then try again.

 

[mominsaigol]

I’ve addressed this laughable argument before.

1. Waqar took 35 wickets in 6 tests vs Windies between 1990-1993 when West Indies were the best side in the world. Yes the gap was less than the 1980s but they were still the best side until 1995

2. New Zealand were not the 8th ranked side lol. They were better than India, SL and probably on par with England. Do I need to remind you that NZ drew 2 series vs Australia in the early 90s?

3. Waqar took 7 wickets in a match vs Australia in the 1994 test in Karachi that Pakistan won which was the series differentiator.

Now if he took 25 wickets In a series vs Zimbabwe in 1993, so what? It’s not as if he wasn’t performing elsewhere.

If you want to argue Bumrah is better than post 1996, past his peak Waqar then fine. I’d agree. But 1990-1994 Waqar was a different beast. Probably the greatest peak ever.

And as for your snide remark about Wasim and Waqar removing tailenders, maybe if Bumrah could do the same India would be 2-1 or even 3 up in this series.

Go and educate yourself boy and then try again.

Bro their gonna claim rubbish such as modern tailenders > old tailenders.

Total nonsense. Based of what are the likes of Bumrah, Lyon, Boland, Bashir legendary Tailenders that can score super centuries?

Lol Umar Gul is a better batsmen then all of them despite playing a decade prior

 

[RidiculousMan]

Can we stop comparing Wasim with Bumrah. It's just ridiculous. I can't even with the commentators here defending Bumrah's position against Wasim.

There's a limit to bias. Those who are putting Bumrah ahead of Wasim are either retarded or delusional.

 

[James]

Bumrah is a good, sometimes a very good bowler but I don’t personally view him as being anywhere near the GOAT to be quite honest. I would rate Cummins and Starc ahead of him from this generation of bowlers alone, never mind going back to previous eras.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I’ve addressed this laughable argument before.

1. Waqar took 35 wickets in 6 tests vs Windies between 1990-1993 when West Indies were the best side in the world. Yes the gap was less than the 1980s but they were still the best side until 1995

2. New Zealand were not the 8th ranked side lol. They were better than India, SL and probably on par with England. Do I need to remind you that NZ drew 2 series vs Australia in the early 90s?

3. Waqar took 7 wickets in a match vs Australia in the 1994 test in Karachi that Pakistan won which was the series differentiator.

Now if he took 25 wickets In a series vs Zimbabwe in 1993, so what? It’s not as if he wasn’t performing elsewhere.

If you want to argue Bumrah is better than post 1996, past his peak Waqar then fine. I’d agree. But 1990-1994 Waqar was a different beast. Probably the greatest peak ever.

And as for your snide remark about Wasim and Waqar removing tailenders, maybe if Bumrah could do the same India would be 2-1 or even 3 up in this series.

Go and educate yourself boy and then try again.

Waqar is the victim of revisionist history and sadly many weak Pakistanis also fall into the camp of needlessly denigrating him.

An X factor bowler like him at his peak has not been born yet.

Here on PP it seems to be open season due to some dumbos starting rumours about him, they have even relegated his legacy to say he would be smashed around if he was in the modern era!

Smashed around by who? Modern era batsmen would lock themselves in the bathroom than come out and face him.