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

[Burgey]

Actually, I think a lot of people (and I include myself here) forget that Warne was a fair bit better in 04 in India than in 01 or 98, at least from how well he bowled, though not necessarily in trerms of his dominating in terms of wickets.

 

[honestbharani]

Actually, I think a lot of people (and I include myself here) forget that Warne was a fair bit better in 04 in India than in 01 or 98, at least from how well he bowled, though not necessarily in trerms of his dominating in terms of wickets.

It is an iffy thing for me to discuss, coz I watched him bowl and I don't think he was necessarily bowling better. He was bowling flatter, for sure, but I still think if the Indian batsmen been in better nick, they would have scored off him for sure.. Maybe not as quickly and easily as in 2001 or 98 but still, they would have handled him easily. That is why I find it difficult to rate how well McGrath or Warne or Gillespie or even Kasper bowled in that series, because the Indian batting was the worst I have seen in a long time. Maybe it was because Aussies bowled that well but also maybe it was because our guys were batting so badly that they looked so good.


I am not really not sure of this one but having watched every ball of that series, I am more inclined to think that it was because the Indian batsmen played so poorly that the Aussie bowlers looked that good. Not that they didn't bowl better than earlier but I still think they would not have been THAT successful had Indian batsmen played normally.

 

[Burgey]

I wonder what approach they'll take this year? Should be interesting.

 

[honestbharani]

I wonder what approach they'll take this year? Should be interesting.

yeah, thought their field settings really helped them choke the Indian batsmen to an extent but they had similar fields in Australia this season sometimes and that didn't seem to work there..

Will be good to watch though.

 

[Top_Cat]

It is an iffy thing for me to discuss, coz I watched him bowl and I don't think he was necessarily bowling better. He was bowling flatter, for sure, but I still think if the Indian batsmen been in better nick, they would have scored off him for sure.. Maybe not as quickly and easily as in 2001 or 98 but still, they would have handled him easily. That is why I find it difficult to rate how well McGrath or Warne or Gillespie or even Kasper bowled in that series, because the Indian batting was the worst I have seen in a long time. Maybe it was because Aussies bowled that well but also maybe it was because our guys were batting so badly that they looked so good.


I am not really not sure of this one but having watched every ball of that series, I am more inclined to think that it was because the Indian batsmen played so poorly that the Aussie bowlers looked that good. Not that they didn't bowl better than earlier but I still think they would not have been THAT successful had Indian batsmen played normally.

I also watched plenty of the series and I guess we'll have to disagree about the Indian top-order and their form. From what I saw, they were choked by tight bowling which was a widely advertised change in team tactics after the series was done, the usual Aussie line being in the corridor moving away (which cause Steve Waugh no end of grief in 2001 as balls which zip away in Aus were easily dispatched by Laxman and co).

It was a fairly fundamental shift in thinking to bowl more at the stumps like they did with the ball coming back in. They simply weren't allowed to play well, the pressure got to them and that was that. It stands to reason that the exact same tactic wouldn't work the next time the two sides meet too because it was no longer a secret and the Indian batsmen are just too good to fall for it again (plus it's not as effective in Aussie pitches). Besides which, it really didn't matter how either side bowled, this year's pitches were flaaaaaat. India's pacers did well because the swung the ball and didn't rely on the pitches for help, which was just as well really.

Also, I think you'll find that Glenn McGrath had a brilliant series in 2001; in the midst of all those runs and a series loss, he averaged 15 and went for less than 2 an over. Mind you, I think you're right about Warne; he didn't seem to be bowling markedly differently in 2004. Just more patient, perhaps.

 

[honestbharani]

I also watched plenty of the series and I guess we'll have to disagree about the Indian top-order and their form. From what I saw, they were choked by tight bowling which was a widely advertised change in team tactics after the series was done, the usual Aussie line being in the corridor moving away (which cause Steve Waugh no end of grief in 2001 as balls which zip away in Aus were easily dispatched by Laxman and co).

It was a fairly fundamental shift in thinking to bowl more at the stumps like they did with the ball coming back in. They simply weren't allowed to play well, the pressure got to them and that was that. It stands to reason that the exact same tactic wouldn't work the next time the two sides meet too because it was no longer a secret and the Indian batsmen are just too good to fall for it again (plus it's not as effective in Aussie pitches). Besides which, it really didn't matter how either side bowled, this year's pitches were flaaaaaat. India's pacers did well because the swung the ball and didn't rely on the pitches for help, which was just as well really.

Also, I think you'll find that Glenn McGrath had a brilliant series in 2001; in the midst of all those runs and a series loss, he averaged 15 and went for less than 2 an over. Mind you, I think you're right about Warne; he didn't seem to be bowling markedly differently in 2004. Just more patient, perhaps.

He was brilliant but he never looked like running through the side. Which is kinda my point because here we are discussing about great seamers vis-a-vis great spinners on flat tracks in hot conditions...



And reg. the other stuff, I am not sure that the Indian batsmen would have been choked this much if they were in better nick. AS I said, the fundamental shift of the line of attack and the field settings definitely helped but I still think India would have been good enough to have gotten some runs inspite of all that.... I put it down like 50% good bowling and field setting by Oz but also 50% poor form of Indian batsmen... Obviously, I can see where you are coming from but this is just my opinion.

 

[subshakerz]

Lara was also outclassed by Murali and Warne too. Too much is made of the fact that Lara and Tendulkar were very good players of spin. They were just as good players of pace.
.

Wrong here. Lara has never been outclassed by either Warne and definitely not to Murali. Outclassed means he was totally dominated and left clueless by their bowling, and I've never seen that happen.

 

[Richard]

Actually Mcgrath did have a pretty good series in 2000-01 and I think he bowled better than 2004. That said He does average 30+ against Pak in away condition.

Most spinners average 30+ in Pakistan too.

 

[Ikki]

Wrong here. Lara has never been outclassed by either Warne and definitely not to Murali. Outclassed means he was totally dominated and left clueless by their bowling, and I've never seen that happen.

Then McGrath never troubled Lara or Tendulkar either. They both average 50+ against us. This is my entire point: if you are going to say that Lara and Tendulkar outclassed Murali and Warne then the same goes for McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Akram, etc.

So what is your definition of outclassed? Merely taking their wicket, after they scored a crap-load of runs?

 

[Ikki]

Most spinners average 30+ in Pakistan too.

But Murali and Warne who're 'overrated' don't.

 

[Richard]

So?

 

[Ikki]

So?

Again, needs spelling out eh?

Sanz mentioned McGrath averaged 30+ in Pakistan? You tried to demean that point by saying most spinners do too. That's not relevant as the discussion has been about Murali and Warne.

 

[weldone]

All spinners in all tests in India and Srilanka average 32.42.
All pacers in all tests in India and Srilanka average 32.79.

All spinners in 3rd or 4th innings in all tests in India and Srilanka average 28.52.
All pacers in 3rd or 4th innings in all tests in India and Srilanka average 29.91.

All Indian spinners (not only top spinners, so it includes spinners like Sachin) in 3rd or 4th innings in all tests in India average 25.05.

So, spinners are equally (if not more) effective in these pitches as pacers...So, if I have bowlers of equal calibre, I shall take 2 spinners and 2 pacers in my bowling line-up (except some pitches like Mohali)...

 

[Richard]

Again, needs spelling out eh?

Sanz mentioned McGrath averaged 30+ in Pakistan? You tried to demean that point by saying most spinners do too. That's not relevant as the discussion has been about Murali and Warne.

It's a useless point. Most bowlers average over 30 in Pakistan. So Murali and Warne didn't? Give them a medal. There's a few seamers who did, too.

McGrath actually played his first series in Pakistan when he was no good - anywhere. Those games are completely meaningless.

 

[Slifer]

Then McGrath never troubled Lara or Tendulkar either. They both average 50+ against us. This is my entire point: if you are going to say that Lara and Tendulkar outclassed Murali and Warne then the same goes for McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Akram, etc.

So what is your definition of outclassed? Merely taking their wicket, after they scored a crap-load of runs?

You'll find from their earlier career records, that both Lara and SRT had a lot more trouble scoring against the likes of Donald, Wasim and co thatn they did against Murali and Warne.

 

[Ikki]

You'll find from their earlier career records, that both Lara and SRT had a lot more trouble scoring against the likes of Donald, Wasim and co thatn they did against Murali and Warne.

Lara early in his career was very very good, so I am not sure about that. Tendulkar started young so I give him some leeway there.

But it doesn't matter, they are both great players of pace. And when you are talking about all-time sides, most the batsmen faced more pacers and had more success against such pacers but very few faced or did well against the kind of spinners you have in Murali and Warne.

 

[Ikki]

It's a useless point. Most bowlers average over 30 in Pakistan. So Murali and Warne didn't? Give them a medal. There's a few seamers who did, too.

McGrath actually played his first series in Pakistan when he was no good - anywhere. Those games are completely meaningless.

Why is it a useless point? The reason most spinners averaged that high was because they were not as good as Murali or Warne.

But some of the best seamers don't average <30 there.

I doubt you would not pick them simply because they had a few average-to-poor tests there.

 

[Richard]

The reason a great many seamers (including some top-class ones) and a great many spinners averaged so poorly in Pakistan is because there were and always have been a great many pitches there which offer nothing to seam or spin.

 

[andruid]

Andy Flower, Steve Tikolo, and probably Justin Kemp are definetely not overrated.