Talk:Comparison of cricket bowlers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't understand the point of this page. Why does it include the bowlers it does, and not other bowlers? It's not a "top N" list or even a "influenced the game" type list, but seems to be randomly selected. -- Sam Holden

Because the statistics of the current bowlers change all the time and it would be a nuisance and even pointless to update this average each time. Wikipedia isn't cricinfo... :-) "Influenced the game" is kind of POV (Point of View) and I rather be on the safe side. squash 20:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Past bowlers is fine. But why does it include the bowler's it does and not the ones it doesn't? Why are the countries so unbalanced and Sri Lanka missing (Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, I can understand)? No spin bowlers from the subcontinent teams? "Influenced the game" is POV, but if you don't want to use something objective like "most wickets", "best average" then having some reason for inclusion seems better than no reason at all. Sam Holden 04:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes that is fine by me. It would be better though if the information for the existing players in this article be finished first then more bowlers such as the ones from the subcontinent - as you say are added. The reason for inclusion of these bowlers in the article are because they are considered to be the most successful pairing opening bowlers for their respective teams in terms of their wickets, experience, accuracy or the in teams of being the most successful bowler from their respective team. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 20:12, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

How many times did Richie Benaud make up one half of the opening bowlers in a Test match? How many times did Shane Warne do so in a One dayers? And I must have missed the match in which Lillee and Benaud opened the bowling together :) Sam Holden 12:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good point, but I thought it was better to use an example from the past (Richie) and a fairly present (Dennis) to make a comparison about how the past bowlers of that time compared to a much different bowler, both of era and bowling type (spin, pace, fast, express or medium) to see if the batsmen in this fair present era (70s, 80s and 90s) who wear helmets have been more successful against the bowlers of this time then those batsmen in the past who do not wear helmets like Sir Donald Bradman who wore his baggy-green instead of a helmet.

Squash, I welcome your enthusiasm for introducing more cricket pages into Wikipedia. We need more editors like us! But I must admit I don't like this page. The title is strange. The term "cricket bowlers" is unusual. There are many other bowlers we could add here. Trueman, Tyson, Larwood (to name but three Englishmen). This list in itself is POV. Also, isn't this a direct copyright infringement (of Cricinfo)? Plus, as you note, it ignores current players. I don't see how a list like this can ignore Muralitharan or Warne, or even the current no.1 bowler, Harmison. jguk 22:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First of all the team "cricket bowlers" is used as there are other bowlers in other sports like a ten-pin bowling and such. I do not think it is a direct copyright infringment of Cricinfo as this is not plagarising words off their website but is just merely a set of numbers. If this were the case, that every statistic website were to be copyrighted, there would be copyright wars going on through out the word. And yes the fact that it does not contain the current bowlers will.. make it seem quite nasty indeed but it's just the way it is... you can't put current players because of the ever changing averages, strike rates and so on. Maybe that article can be 'fixed' so that it is not POV and instead compare the wickets taken and strike rates of some past bowlers. For every table you almost certainly can't put everything in it, so you have to have that some margin of 'POVness'. Nobody can be ever satisfied with the current Wikipedia policy especially with the POV debate and such. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 05:51, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)