How do you feel about Shane Warne?

[Richard]

Richard,

you just dont get it

Marshall, Imran and Hadlee are brilliant bowlers

I've said many, many, many times that the best bowlers I've ever seen include 2 of the above plus Mcgrath and Akram

Unfortunately, no matter how good you are, you need help when conditions vary

No, you don't. Some bowlers are so good they can conquer almost all conditions. Warne and Murali are such bowlers, but they are not in the class of Marshall, Donald, Hadlee or Imran Khan.

 

[social]

Goughy and SS

Much as I dislike Sunny, he achieved a stellar record against the good bad and indifferent test sides including the West Indies

 

[social]

No, you don't. Some bowlers are so good they can conquer almost all conditions. Warne and Murali are such bowlers, but they are not in the class of Marshall, Donald, Hadlee or Imran Khan.

If Donald was so good, why was he so average against Australia?

Every series was played on wickets that suited his bowling

Just unlucky I guess

 

[Richard]

So there we have it

My batting line up is:

Sunny
Gooch
IVA
Chappell G
A Nother (Tendy or Lara)
An all-rounder (Kallis or Sobers or other - you make the choice)
Gilchrist

backed by choice of 2 of Lillee/McGrath/Akram/Garner etc etc etc plus Warne and Murali

We play 5 tests under non greentop conditions (even then its little more than 50/50)

In summary:

• I dont have to go back more than 25 years
  
• I dont have to pick great unproven players from SA
  
• The core of my batting lineup has taken bowlers EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS YOURS for an average of over 50

In summary - you're done and dusted

I'll fairly comfortably trump that, though obviously you've got all the best batsmen of the time, especially Sobers and Tendulkar. Clearly, the fact that all I've got left are the likes of Greenidge, Boycott, Kallicharran, etc. puts any side I might have at a disadvantage. It'd only be a fair comparison given they were bowling the same batsmen.

And no, no-one has ever faced, never mind taken for an average of 50, a bowling-attack anywhere near the calibre of Marshall, Donald, Hadlee, Imran.

 

[Richard]

Goughy and SS

Much as I dislike Sunny, he achieved a stellar record against the good bad and indifferent test sides including the West Indies

No, he achieved a stellar record against the decent, and the poor. He achieved a fairly good record against West Indies' top-notch seam attacks. No more than that.

 

[Richard]

If Donald was so good, why was he so average against Australia?

Every series was played on wickets that suited his bowling

Just unlucky I guess

Donald wasn't "so average" against Australia. He averaged 27, with a fair few excellent Tests, which isn't outstanding but nor is it remotely poor. Almost no bowler in history has a completely unblemished record.

And once more, you place too much emphasis on what happened against Australia. Other teams do play cricket, and some of them do some things better than Australia. In Donald's career, India did "batting" better.

 

[social]

I'll fairly comfortably trump that, though obviously you've got all the best batsmen of the time, especially Sobers and Tendulkar. Clearly, the fact that all I've got left are the likes of Greenidge, Boycott, Kallicharran, etc. puts any side I might have at a disadvantage. It'd only be a fair comparison given they were bowling the same batsmen.

And no, no-one has ever faced, never mind taken for an average of 50, a bowling-attack anywhere near the calibre of Marshall, Donald, Hadlee, Imran.

You have ALL TIME and, as you're quite happy to point out, Bradman, Hobbs etc are better than anyone today despite the fact that they never played in the subcontinent, naver saw a doosra, and never saw a legspinner remotely in Warne's class.

Take Tendy and I'll add a batsman with an average of nearly 60 who loves quicks (Ponting or Pollock)

Take Sobers (you need variation) and I'll take another batsman in Kallis who is averaging nearly 60 with over 200 hundred wickets in the most batsman friendly era in history

Why dont we start again

As Ive told you - the only rules are that you get the first 11 picks as long as there are no spinners and I pick the venues

EVERYTHING is in your favour because seamers are supposedly better bowlers irrespective of the conditions

 

[social]

Donald wasn't "so average" against Australia. He averaged 27, with a fair few excellent Tests, which isn't outstanding but nor is it remotely poor. Almost no bowler in history has a completely unblemished record.

And once more, you place too much emphasis on what happened against Australia. Other teams do play cricket, and some of them do some things better than Australia. In Donald's career, India did "batting" better.

Sorry, but his average was over 31 against Australia

On the brighter side, might've touched 40 if that "dud" Hayden hadn't been playing

 

[Smudge]

Have to admit I've seen only about half of those, but wasn't impressed by his performance in any of them.

And his performance as a sane man on the Oprah show was very unconvincing...

 

[Sanz]

No he didn't. He scored freely against substandard attacks, and did well (compared to what everyone else did) when they were at their peak, but did not pound them by any means. He averaged something like 35-40, which is very respectable, but not something that remotely qualifies as 'pounding'.

May I ask you, how you arrived at the 35-40 average ? Sunny played 20 test matches where at least one of (Roberts, Garner, Marshall, Holding) and he scored with an average of 49.

 

[honestbharani]

We're talking about all time bowlers. Ntini and Steyn, good they might be, but Malcolm Marshall they are not. Marshall, and bowlers of that calibre, were exceptional at bowling on spin friendly pitches.

But their spin bowling counterparts were still better. You are talking abt all time great fast bowlers but the all time great spinners would have spun webs around anyone. Bedi etc. would be almost unplayable on 4th or 5th day tracks, much more than a Marshall or even a Barnes... You guys treat spinners way too easily here...

 

[honestbharani]

Seldom hurt WI.

Variety is great but is secondary to ability.

Indeed... but amongst the all time greats here... I would rather lose out on one more right arm medium pace bowler for a spinner because all time great batsmen will get it that much easier facing upto the same type of bowling. How many times have we seen RSA being pummelled on a flat track because they simply have no other dimension to their bowling attack???? Their captains and commentators have lamented on this for a number of years now, ever since they got back to the international fold.

 

[honestbharani]

I couldn't care less how many wickets they've taken. All that means is they've played more games and bowled more overs than some bowlers. Given an equal footing, a large number of the best seam-bowlers will do far better on a game-by-game basis.

You vastly underestimate the calibre of those four bowlers. Every single one of them was as deadly with old ball as new, and lost very little by bowling on non-greentop pitches. All were exceptionally capable as both strike (short spell) and stock (long spell) bowlers.

Utterly laughable, really, to suggest four seam-bowlers from the very top drawer (or indeed a good few of those quite a bit further down the list) would require absolute greentops to be effective.

The best players of right-arm pace are the best players. Full-stop. Same way the best players of left-arm wristspin are the best players.

You don't get to the very top of the game by being weak against one angle of attack or one speed of bowling.

Aside from the fact that the original stipulation was that 90 overs will be completed however long it takes - it's really not so difficult as you seem to think to bowl 15 overs per hour. None of the bowlers had extraordinarily long run-ups, even Donald, and they were all incredibly fit and did not need to constantly take breathers.

I don't care about balance, I care about quality.

As great as they were with the old ball, they still won't be able to run through a batting side of Bradman, Chappell, Lara, Tendulkar on a flat first day track at Chennai for all that quality. You simply NEED variety in your attack unless and until the difference in quality between ur extra seamer and your first spinner is so bad like it was for RSA recently and the Windies most of the time in the 80s.... Honestly, that is why every cricketer worth his salt chooses a spinner in his all time XI. For you guys to brandish around here with stuff from statsguru showing that you know better is honestly starting to look silly now. This is not a simple X Vs Y player comparison to come to conclusions based on stats. These are things you know from having watched the game over a period of time. When you have the luxury to pick great bowlers with variety, you do that... It's a no brainer.

 

[weldone]

You simply NEED variety in your attack unless and until the difference in quality between ur extra seamer and your first spinner is so bad like it was for RSA recently and the Windies most of the time in the 80s....

AWTA

 

[honestbharani]

No, you don't. Some bowlers are so good they can conquer almost all conditions. Warne and Murali are such bowlers, but they are not in the class of Marshall, Donald, Hadlee or Imran Khan.

Are you seriously implying Donald was better than Warne and Murali???????? The guy couldn't do anything on flat tracks.... And I do know what I am talking about.... Watch him get tonked when the track flattened out in 97 at his best against Sachin and Azhar...... I can agree about the other 3 but this is getting ridiculous now... That would be like me telling Kumble is better than Joel Garner....

 

[Nutter]

Warnie's great. So entertaining on the field, and off it. Brilliant player, and brilliant personality.

 

[Son Of Coco]

That game was a dead one. You seriously believe Australia would have won it if it'd been live?

Given the West Indies poor form on more than one occasion against spin in that period it's highly possible, so yes.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, you don't. Some bowlers are so good they can conquer almost all conditions. Warne and Murali are such bowlers, but they are not in the class of Marshall, Donald, Hadlee or Imran Khan.

 

[bond21]

yea but Warne is a better bowler on a day 5 pitch with footmarks on a full length on leg stump.

 

[Ikki]

As great as they were with the old ball, they still won't be able to run through a batting side of Bradman, Chappell, Lara, Tendulkar on a flat first day track at Chennai for all that quality. You simply NEED variety in your attack unless and until the difference in quality between ur extra seamer and your first spinner is so bad like it was for RSA recently and the Windies most of the time in the 80s.... Honestly, that is why every cricketer worth his salt chooses a spinner in his all time XI. For you guys to brandish around here with stuff from statsguru showing that you know better is honestly starting to look silly now. This is not a simple X Vs Y player comparison to come to conclusions based on stats. These are things you know from having watched the game over a period of time. When you have the luxury to pick great bowlers with variety, you do that... It's a no brainer.

Amen.