Try running it by wickets instead of average and you’ll get a far more complete picture. It’s a bit of an argument, average vs wickets taken. Personally, weight of wickets does it for me as it suggests longevity over a sustained period of time. He’s 32 and even if he doubles his Test wickets tally he’d still just sneak into the current top 10 (in 10th place) and still be 95 wickets behind Glenn McGrath.
He’s not really in the conversation for being the greatest, unfortunately.
I was busy posting my response and didn’t even see this post until now. My apologies my friend.
Impact matters more than longevity for me.
Bumrah , for his small career. Has had the impact across games.
I’d still hope for him to get 2 more years of tests though.
But average / strike rate combo is something you just can’t look over.
The strike rate also matters too. And am sure you’d agree.
I can run your suggested algorithm and let’s see where guys shape up
I’ll say one thing though. Waqar pre injury was a beast.
For sure. It’s an age old debate. However it’s always close to the overall top run scorer and wicket taker that makes it to the debate. Unless you’re Don Bradman, of course.
Jim Laker was a remarkable cricketer by all accounts and took 19 wickets in a Test. He’d rank in the top 5 by average but at just shy of 200 Test wickets, aside from that 19 wickets that gets told every other year by commentators looking to fill up air time, he never bears a mention.
I decreased the amount to total of 200 wickets. There is so much cricket being played across formats that most fast bowlers will be 70-80 tests at the max.
But bumrah is the only one among that list who has an average of under 20 and the least strike rate. He’s closer to the end of his career than he is to the beginning.
And I’m restricting this only to tests.
I might rate bumrah in my metrics pretty highly. But whichever way you go , he’s there within the top 5 provided people know how less test cricket is being played nowadays
For me the best bowler of all time was always between Steyn and Marshall.
Bumrah just sneakily came into the conversation later
Indians don’t value him enough. And more is the pity, he and to a lesser extent shami have carried us into relevancy w.r.t the bowling
Strange to hear that. Perhaps the dilution of the game means that his wickets taking hasn’t reached the 500-600 level that would propel him into a level of all time great ( which is what we’re discussing)
It’s expected from Indians that bumrah will always deliver. He’s the fucking cheatcode
As of now , he’s the guy carrying the Indian team.
And this is only with his long form game.
If we get the short form formats , that gets a whole new thing altogether.
Like I said , restricted the comparisons purely to tests till now
What is the whole picture? I state from the get go that I don’t know.
Below is the most wickets combined, across all formats, and it’s a strange picture… If you take out the spinners, as they don’t really count…, you’re left with Anderson, McGrath, Akram, Broad, Pollock and Younis. Akram and Younis, maybe McGrath at a push, I have in the conversation but so many that could be considered are missing - if based on the number of wickets. In the end it is very subjective.
I always thought that Michael Holding, Lillee, Marshal, Thompson, Hadlee and then the likes of Ambrose, Akram, Younis, Donald and Steyn.
Bumrah is an odd one - on many levels. He “only” has 500 wickets but has the best average - McGrath being the closest one that is also high on the first list. Maybe he is not the best Test bowler and may be individually not the best at any one format but combined there could be a case made for him - but then the earlier bowlers didn’t have the different formats and breadth of opposition so who knows…
Seems like only one team is loosing it from here…
That’s amazing.
The first time in all those years.
