SS "Most overrated batsmen of all time: All of them"

[Perm]

Don't you two get get sick of telling each other that they don't know anything about cricket?

It's pretty tiresome ITBT, and I think I speak on behalf of pretty much every CWer.

 

[Top_Cat]

It's pretty tiresome ITBT, and I think I speak on behalf of pretty much every CWer.

It was worse betwee Rich and TEC, though.

 

[Dasa]

It was worse betwee Rich and TEC, though.

Nah, there weren't that many insults traded between them iirc, just long arguments.

 

[Richard]

It was worse betwee Rich and TEC, though.

As Dasa said, not even close. I've always thought tec was a perfectly decent bloke.

 

[Top_Cat]

As Dasa said, not even close. I've always thought tec was a perfectly decent bloke.

Not that interested in your comment on the situation, Rich. You're part of the problem. One or both of you, please, STOP.

 

[Son Of Coco]

so u mean, without knowing anything about the game, you formed your opinion that seam >>>>>> spin?


Or you saying it only took you one second to figure out the game of cricket?

He's saying his opinions are the same ones he had when he was 5

 

[Richard]

Not that interested in your comment on the situation, Rich. You're part of the problem. One or both of you, please, STOP.

I'm well aware of that. The point is not that this is not a problem, but that myself and tec's battles back in t'day weren't another example of said problem, because there was always respect on both sides there.

 

[honestbharani]

He's saying his opinions are the same ones he had when he was 5

ah... that explains a lot.

 

[vic_orthdox]

A great spinner is a great thing to have in the side, but if I have top quality quicks (something like Holding, Garner, Roberts, Marshall), I'd much rather play all four of them then any three of them and a Murali or a Warne. That's all I'm saying.

Absolutely no way on Earth for me.

 

[Slifer]

Y not?

 

[JBH001]

Because Murali and Warne are as good as, or imo, better than Roberts, Garner, Holding?

 

[silentstriker]

Absolutely no way on Earth for me.

If you had all four of those, you can maintain a certain atmosphere that you can't otherwise. Other than being simply better bowlers (which obviously you disagree with ), relentless fast bowling really wears a batsman down mentally, more than anything else. Anyone can knock you out. Obviously this is just a personal preference, but I'm confident that this bowling attack would be superior to any other.

 

[Burgey]

Because Murali and Warne are as good as, or imo, better than Roberts, Garner, Holding?

It depends on the conditions though. Put that great fast bowling attack on Adelaide's last two decks and it would be a struggle even for them. In those conditions I'd want variety, but it's a matter of opinion obviously, and I'm certainly not saying that attack isn't a superb one.

 

[JBH001]

No, thats a fair point. And one related to the point I raised earlier in this thread (pages back now probably) about batsmen being able to counter good spin bowling better than good pace bowling. You really saw it, for example, in the recent SL tests against Australia. The Australian batsmen collectively played Murali well, who was also blunted by two absolute roads, and yet on the same surfaces (albeit against lesser batsmen) Lee (who is an inferior bowler to Mural) absolutely carved up on the strength of consistent and effective pace and swing. Thats the edge that pace bowling has, thats why you dont have consistently good teams of batsmen who play pace well (unlike say India and Australia when it comes to spin), and thats why, imo, the top 5 bowlers of all time, if you absolutely had to name them, would be pace bowlers. However, that said, I do think that Murali and Warne would be in the next 5, as I consider them as good as, if not better than the best pace bowlers outside that very top tier.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, I wouldn't have too much trouble suggesting (or agreeing with the suggestion) that the 5 top bowlers of all time are pacers rather than spinners either.

 

[honestbharani]

If you had all four of those, you can maintain a certain atmosphere that you can't otherwise. Other than being simply better bowlers (which obviously you disagree with ), relentless fast bowling really wears a batsman down mentally, more than anything else. Anyone can knock you out. Obviously this is just a personal preference, but I'm confident that this bowling attack would be superior to any other.

relentless fast bowling wears out fast bowlers too, you know... Try grounding that battery against Bradman, Lara, Sachin and Sobers on a Chennai track in May. You wont have bowlers to bowl you overs by the 2nd day.....

 

[Slifer]

On the other hand, I wouldnt want to put either one of Shane Warne or Murali up against ne one of those batsmen for ne length of time regardless of the wicket.

 

[honestbharani]

On the other hand, I wouldnt want to put either one of Shane Warne or Murali up against ne one of those batsmen for ne length of time regardless of the wicket.

that may be your opinion but there are a very great number of tracks where I would want ONLY those guys against these very batsmen... And I am not alone.

 

[silentstriker]

that may be your opinion but there are a very great number of tracks where I would want ONLY those guys against these very batsmen... And I am not alone.

Considering how good (in the current generation) Lara and Sachin are against spin, I don't think it would be a good idea. Against both of them, you'd have a much better chance of getting their wicket if you were bowling Marshall and Ambrose, compared to Warne and Murali. I'd be astonished if you disagreed, considering both of their performances against spin, especially Sachin vs. Warne and Lara vs Murali. People were saying they are the best bowlers in history - I don't see how you could be best in history and be consistently dominated like that against the best players of your type of bowling.

 

[Slifer]

Considering how good (in the current generation) Lara and Sachin are against spin, I don't think it would be a good idea. Against both of them, you'd have a much better chance of getting their wicket if you were bowling Marshall and Ambrose, compared to Warne and Murali. I'd be astonished if you disagreed, considering both of their performances against spin, especially Sachin vs. Warne and Lara vs Murali. People were saying they are the best bowlers in history - I don't see how you could be best in history and be consistently dominated like that against the best players of your type of bowling.

Very well put. If i am to pick an all time bowling attack, bowling to the likes of : Lara, SRT, Sobers etc regardless of the pitch, and based on what Ive seen, i would certainly pick the likes of :Marshall, Mcgrath, Hadlee over Murali and Warne ne day.