Fatal Shot
Club Cricketer
So for a great bowler to be in outstanding form, he needs to take 10 wickets every match? That's pretty rubbish. I think it should be all dependent on what average he takes his wickets.
Why don't my bowlers ever have good form?
- Thread starter mrtwisties
- Start date
mrtwisties
Club Cricketer
I've just finished the 7 x ODI series against England in September 2009. It was a clean sweep - Mitchell Johnson took 29 wickets at a shade under 15 (included a lethal spell where he took 7-14 in two overs), Peter Siddle took 15 wickets at just over 12, and at the conclusion of the series the top ODI batsmen in the world were (in order): Mitchell Johnson, Phillip Hughes, Michael Hussey, Ricky Ponting. Mitchell Johnson was also the best ODI bowler in the world - now THAT's what I call an all-rounder!
My batsmen are all on 4 or 5 stars of form.
Johnson and Siddle are on zero stars of form.
Zero!
Rubbish.
My batsmen are all on 4 or 5 stars of form.
Johnson and Siddle are on zero stars of form.
Zero!
Rubbish.
mrtwisties
Club Cricketer
I should note that I had a friend change the batting/bowling values for Australian team members by a randomised +- 100 so that I wouldn't know who was the best.
I suspect that Johnson and Siddle are incredible.
I suspect that Johnson and Siddle are incredible.
Fatal Shot
Club Cricketer
My fast bowler took 6-61 in a test innings, and his form went up to a unheard of 1.5 stars. :happy
Meh, I think it's fine as it is when you know how it works. If I have 3-4 bowlers of equalish skills and records competing for a spot, their form is a good indicator of who to pick. It's useless when comparing bowlers of different skills, but it's like that in real life anyways. Yuvraj in the best bowling for of his life isn't going to be better than McGrath is his poorest form. Different players of different skills have different standards for what is good and bad form.
