The stats do not do him justice!

[wfdu_ben91]

I just spent an hour looking throw youtube clips of the West Indies and I'm confident in saying that apart from Malcolm Marshall, the Australian batsman would have no problem handling Michael Holding, Andy Roberts or Joel Garner. It seems that they feasted on batsman with loose techniques and who in truth, weren't really that good. Allot of their wickets that I've seen (apart from Marshall's) have come from a bunch of minor errors that a modern batsman would have covered and wickets would come allot harder for them.

Infact I'd go as far as to say that the bowling attack of Pollock, Ntini and Nel would rival Holding, Roberts and Garner based on what I've seen. All of which, are very similar bowlers, if you compare by footage.

I do however stand corrected on anything I've ever said wrong about Malcolm Marshall. The gap between him and Garner, Holding and Roberts is allot larger then what I originally thought. I imagine that he carried the West Indies and has obviously decieved allot of people into thinking that Garner, Holding and Roberts were allot better then what they really were. But anyways, here's what I came up with:

YouTube - Michael Holding wickets vs England

1st wicket of David Gower - Would get easily dispatched by any Australian left-handed batsman down the legside for four.
2nd wicket of Allan Lamb - Would most likely be hit through the on-side for four by any modern-day batsman.
4th wicket of Tony Greig - Half-volley on legside. Would absolutely get murdered by Ricky Ponting, that's his bread and butter shot.
5th wicket of Chris Broad - Absolutely shocking, got himself into an awful position, wouldn't expect cheap wickets like that against Australia.
7th wicket of D Steele - Poor execution - Would've been put into the grandstand by Ricky Ponting or Matthew Hayden.

YouTube - Andy Roberts clips

1st wicket - What was the batsman trying to do? Modern-Day batsman would've gotten out the way of that.
2nd wicket - A perfect example of how batting techniques have gotten allot better over time.
3rd wicket - Another example of poor technique. Unless you are bowling to tailenders, you wouldn't expect a decent modern-day batsman to get out to that.
5th wicket - Appauling, probably a tailender.

YouTube - "Big Bird" Garner - Cricket

His quite similar to Morne Morkel or Makhaya Ntini and we handled them quite well. We all saw what Phillip Hughes did to poor Morne.

As far as the ones I've left out, you can't really tell because of the poor angle of the camera.

 

[grecian]

YouTube - "Big Bird" Garner - Cricket

His quite similar to Morne Morkel or Makhaya Ntini and we handled them quite well. We all saw what Phillip Hughes did to poor Morne.

As far as the ones I've left out, you can't really tell because of the poor angle of the camera.

Quite how you got that from watching Garner have Sunil Gavaskar groping for the ball, I don't quite know.

Looked utterly ferocious to me, but there ya go.....

 

[wpdavid]

Quite how you got that from watching Garner have Sunil Gavaskar groping for the ball, I don't quite know.

Looked utterly ferocious to me, but there ya go.....

Perhaps he didn't realise that the Garner clip was in slow motion?

 

[andruid]

4th wicket of Tony Greig - Half-volley on legside. Would absolutely get murdered by Ricky Ponting, that's his bread and butter shot.

Dude was almost decapitated by that"half volley"

 

[Migara]

I just spent an hour looking throw youtube clips of the West Indies and I'm confident in saying that apart from Malcolm Marshall, the Australian batsman would have no problem handling Michael Holding, Andy Roberts or Joel Garner. It seems that they feasted on batsman with loose techniques and who in truth, weren't really that good. Allot of their wickets that I've seen (apart from Marshall's) have come from a bunch of minor errors that a modern batsman would have covered and wickets would come allot harder for them.

Infact I'd go as far as to say that the bowling attack of Pollock, Ntini and Nel would rival Holding, Roberts and Garner based on what I've seen. All of which, are very similar bowlers, if you compare by footage.

I do however stand corrected on anything I've ever said wrong about Malcolm Marshall. The gap between him and Garner, Holding and Roberts is allot larger then what I originally thought. I imagine that he carried the West Indies and has obviously decieved allot of people into thinking that Garner, Holding and Roberts were allot better then what they really were. But anyways, here's what I came up with:

YouTube - Michael Holding wickets vs England

1st wicket of David Gower - Would get easily dispatched by any Australian left-handed batsman down the legside for four.
2nd wicket of Allan Lamb - Would most likely be hit through the on-side for four by any modern-day batsman.
4th wicket of Tony Greig - Half-volley on legside. Would absolutely get murdered by Ricky Ponting, that's his bread and butter shot.
5th wicket of Chris Broad - Absolutely shocking, got himself into an awful position, wouldn't expect cheap wickets like that against Australia.
7th wicket of D Steele - Poor execution - Would've been put into the grandstand by Ricky Ponting or Matthew Hayden.

YouTube - Andy Roberts clips

1st wicket - What was the batsman trying to do? Modern-Day batsman would've gotten out the way of that.
2nd wicket - A perfect example of how batting techniques have gotten allot better over time.
3rd wicket - Another example of poor technique. Unless you are bowling to tailenders, you wouldn't expect a decent modern-day batsman to get out to that.
5th wicket - Appauling, probably a tailender.

YouTube - "Big Bird" Garner - Cricket

His quite similar to Morne Morkel or Makhaya Ntini and we handled them quite well. We all saw what Phillip Hughes did to poor Morne.

As far as the ones I've left out, you can't really tell because of the poor angle of the camera.

You are doing that cardinal sin. You only look for the balls that dismissed batsmen. You have no idea how they were set up by a series of good balls which are rarely in Utube clips. Wide half volly is known as the sucker ball, after a series of short pitched balls. looped up arm ball is the sucker ball after a set of flat off breaks.

 

[Migara]

His quite similar to Morne Morkel or Makhaya Ntini and we handled them quite well. We all saw what Phillip Hughes did to poor Morne

Only difference was that he was umpteen times accurate than Morkel. And almost every ball flew on top of the off at reasonable pace.

 

[Richard]

Funny how everyone singles out dismisses the modern era and the 1930s as the flattracks and poor bowlers and how all of the success from batsman should immediately be overlooked. Simply just can't acknowledge the fact that they were the two eras that featured and produced the greatest variety of batsman.

That presumes that the batsmen controls the game. He doesn't. The batsman can only react to what pitch and bowler throws at him, and if they're too good, there's not a lot he can do.

Ergo, the flatness of wickets meant batsmen scored more heavily. Not the batsmen made the wickets look flat.

Much as Bradman was unquestionably the greatest batsman in history, and much as the likes of Hammond, Ponsford, etc. were unquestionably magnificent players, the fact is that the 1930s was a ridiculously easy decade for batting. How such moster batsmen would have fared in more normal decades, where ball dominated bat, can only ever be speculated upon; how those who've made hay since 2001/02 who also featured before then can be far more than that - it can in my view be pretty certain.

 

[Richard]

Especially if they played on the super flat tracks of the 30s (not that many were rain-affected, especially in oz) and against short bowlers and fieldsmen who habitually dropped him and his peers if you believe the contemporaneous reports of matches. He was pretty good, but a bit of hyperbole surrounds him when people try to extrapolate. They seem to look at disadvantages he encountered without acknowledging that some things about the modern game might have made things more difficult for him.

Why on Earth would there have been more short bowlers in the 1930s than any other time?

As for dropped catches, have studied the thing in massive detail and all evidence suggests dropped catches were actually far rarer in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s than they have been in more recent times.

 

[zaremba]

I just spent an hour looking throw youtube clips of the West Indies and I'm confident in saying that apart from Malcolm Marshall, the Australian batsman would have no problem handling Michael Holding, Andy Roberts or Joel Garner. It seems that they feasted on batsman with loose techniques and who in truth, weren't really that good. Allot of their wickets that I've seen (apart from Marshall's) have come from a bunch of minor errors that a modern batsman would have covered and wickets would come allot harder for them.

Infact I'd go as far as to say that the bowling attack of Pollock, Ntini and Nel would rival Holding, Roberts and Garner based on what I've seen. All of which, are very similar bowlers, if you compare by footage.

I do however stand corrected on anything I've ever said wrong about Malcolm Marshall. The gap between him and Garner, Holding and Roberts is allot larger then what I originally thought. I imagine that he carried the West Indies and has obviously decieved allot of people into thinking that Garner, Holding and Roberts were allot better then what they really were. But anyways, here's what I came up with:

YouTube - Michael Holding wickets vs England

1st wicket of David Gower - Would get easily dispatched by any Australian left-handed batsman down the legside for four.
2nd wicket of Allan Lamb - Would most likely be hit through the on-side for four by any modern-day batsman.
4th wicket of Tony Greig - Half-volley on legside. Would absolutely get murdered by Ricky Ponting, that's his bread and butter shot.
5th wicket of Chris Broad - Absolutely shocking, got himself into an awful position, wouldn't expect cheap wickets like that against Australia.
7th wicket of D Steele - Poor execution - Would've been put into the grandstand by Ricky Ponting or Matthew Hayden.

YouTube - Andy Roberts clips

1st wicket - What was the batsman trying to do? Modern-Day batsman would've gotten out the way of that.
2nd wicket - A perfect example of how batting techniques have gotten allot better over time.
3rd wicket - Another example of poor technique. Unless you are bowling to tailenders, you wouldn't expect a decent modern-day batsman to get out to that.
5th wicket - Appauling, probably a tailender.

YouTube - "Big Bird" Garner - Cricket

His quite similar to Morne Morkel or Makhaya Ntini and we handled them quite well. We all saw what Phillip Hughes did to poor Morne.

As far as the ones I've left out, you can't really tell because of the poor angle of the camera.

I don't want to be too offensive but I have to say that this is a strong contender for the most preposterous post of 2009.

First, as has been pointed out, there are slightly more reliable ways of analysing players than by looking at batsmen's dismissals on YouTube and trying to draw conclusions from them.

Second, your YouTube analysis of Garner is so very, very wide of the mark. You're right that Marshall was a great bowler, but you're wrong in thinking that he was miles better than Garner - he simply wasn't. Their records are closely comparable and anyone that watched Garner bowl would agree that he was an all-time great bowler. If you want to get an idea of the sort of bowler he was, think Glenn McGrath but with a better bouncer and an unbelievable yorker. To compare him to Ntini is absolutely laughable.

Third, your theory that all it would take to tame these bowlers is a decent Aussie is admirably patriotic but leaves you without a great deal of credibility. You may think that David Gower was not as good as at putting away balls down the legside as "any Aussie left-hander", but that's because you obviously didn't watch David Gower play.

 

[zaremba]

That presumes that the batsmen controls the game. He doesn't. The batsman can only react to what pitch and bowler throws at him, and if they're too good, there's not a lot he can do.

One of your consistent theories, Richard, but one which puzzles me. Didn't Viv Richards control the game? Didn't Ian Botham? Didn't (urgh) Matt Hayden? Didn't Gilchrist? Didn't Boycott or Atherton or Kirsten?

 

[MrIncredible]

I just spent an hour looking throw youtube clips of the West Indies and I'm confident in saying that apart from Malcolm Marshall, the Australian batsman would have no problem handling Michael Holding, Andy Roberts or Joel Garner. It seems that they feasted on batsman with loose techniques and who in truth, weren't really that good. Allot of their wickets that I've seen (apart from Marshall's) have come from a bunch of minor errors that a modern batsman would have covered and wickets would come allot harder for them.

Infact I'd go as far as to say that the bowling attack of Pollock, Ntini and Nel would rival Holding, Roberts and Garner based on what I've seen. All of which, are very similar bowlers, if you compare by footage.

I do however stand corrected on anything I've ever said wrong about Malcolm Marshall. The gap between him and Garner, Holding and Roberts is allot larger then what I originally thought. I imagine that he carried the West Indies and has obviously decieved allot of people into thinking that Garner, Holding and Roberts were allot better then what they really were. But anyways, here's what I came up with:

YouTube - Michael Holding wickets vs England

1st wicket of David Gower - Would get easily dispatched by any Australian left-handed batsman down the legside for four.
2nd wicket of Allan Lamb - Would most likely be hit through the on-side for four by any modern-day batsman.
4th wicket of Tony Greig - Half-volley on legside. Would absolutely get murdered by Ricky Ponting, that's his bread and butter shot.
5th wicket of Chris Broad - Absolutely shocking, got himself into an awful position, wouldn't expect cheap wickets like that against Australia.
7th wicket of D Steele - Poor execution - Would've been put into the grandstand by Ricky Ponting or Matthew Hayden.

YouTube - Andy Roberts clips

1st wicket - What was the batsman trying to do? Modern-Day batsman would've gotten out the way of that.
2nd wicket - A perfect example of how batting techniques have gotten allot better over time.
3rd wicket - Another example of poor technique. Unless you are bowling to tailenders, you wouldn't expect a decent modern-day batsman to get out to that.
5th wicket - Appauling, probably a tailender.

YouTube - "Big Bird" Garner - Cricket

His quite similar to Morne Morkel or Makhaya Ntini and we handled them quite well. We all saw what Phillip Hughes did to poor Morne.

As far as the ones I've left out, you can't really tell because of the poor angle of the camera.

What a moronic comparison to make Pollock Ntini and Nel comparable to Holding, Garner and Roberts? U must be seriously high or on sumthin else. Seriously. If Australia couldnt handle the English bowlin attack in 2005 i seriously doubt they'd last long against the apocalypse. Hell Hayden and Ponting and others could barely deal with Ambrose and Walsh how on earth will they deal with circa late 70s early 80s WI attacks.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Footage doesn't lie, they got wickets with delieveries that would most likely be spanked to the boundry by a half-decent modern-day batsman.

 

[aussie]

If Australia couldnt handle the English bowlin attack in 2005 i seriously doubt they'd last long against the apocalypse.

Thats not the best or correct way to judge whether the Australian batsman of 95-2006/07 - could handle the windies quicks.

All of Australia's best batsem ranging from the in this period at this peak made runs againts quality pace, in tough conditions at some point in their career. Excpept for Gilchrist & Martyn - but that doesn't mean they could play the quicks well either.

Hell Hayden and Ponting and others could barely deal with Ambrose and Walsh how on earth will they deal with circa late 70s early 80s WI attacks.

Poor example. Ponting & Hayden when they faced Ambrose & Walsh weren't the same players that they were post 2000 clearly.

 

[wpdavid]

Footage doesn't lie, they got wickets with delieveries that would most likely be spanked to the boundry by a half-decent modern-day batsman.

Applying that logic to individual dismissal in the 2005 series, you can't rate most of the recent Aus batters at all. Hayden being bowled through the gate by Hoggard's standard inswinger at Lord's, Langer's shoddy technique causing him to play on, Ponting fencing at a harmless Flintoff delivery that he should hve murdered at Edgbaston, Martyn giving catching practice to another Fred delivery that any decent batsman would have relocated somewhere over midwicket, Clarke unable to spot Jones' inswinger or Harmison's slower ball, Gilchrist horribly uncertain outside off stump, etc, etc. Clearly over-rated, all of them. That's the joy of evaluating a batsman based on a single dismissal, isn't it? Can't believe Bradman missed Hollies' wrongun - must be crap as well.

 

[zaremba]

Applying that logic to individual dismissal in the 2005 series, you can't rate most of the recent Aus batters at all. Hayden being bowled through the gate by Hoggard's standard inswinger at Lord's, Langer's shoddy technique causing him to play on, Ponting fencing at a harmless Flintoff dismissal that he should hve murdered at Edgbaston, Martyn giving catching practice to another Fred delivery that any decent batsman would have relocated somewhere over midwicket, Clarke unable to spot Jones' inswinger or Harmison's slower ball, Gilchrist horribly uncertain outside off stump, etc, etc. Clearly over-rated, all of them. That's the joy of evaluating a batsman based on a single dismissal, isn't it? Can't believe Bradman missed Hollies' wrongun - must be crap as well.

This.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Applying that logic to individual dismissal in the 2005 series, you can't rate most of the recent Aus batters at all. Hayden being bowled through the gate by Hoggard's standard inswinger at Lord's, Langer's shoddy technique causing him to play on, Ponting fencing at a harmless Flintoff dismissal that he should hve murdered at Edgbaston, Martyn giving catching practice to another Fred delivery that any decent batsman would have relocated somewhere over midwicket, Clarke unable to spot Jones' inswinger or Harmison's slower ball, Gilchrist horribly uncertain outside off stump, etc, etc. Clearly over-rated, all of them. That's the joy of evaluating a batsman based on a single dismissal, isn't it? Can't believe Bradman missed Hollies' wrongun - must be crap as well.

Atleast none of them got cleanbowled by a half volley on legstump. But anyways, it's about evaluating the batsman, it's about evaluating the bowlers and how they got their wickets and judging by some of the dismissals, wickets would be allot more harder to come by against Australia.

 

[fredfertang]

Applying that logic to individual dismissal in the 2005 series, you can't rate most of the recent Aus batters at all. Hayden being bowled through the gate by Hoggard's standard inswinger at Lord's, Langer's shoddy technique causing him to play on, Ponting fencing at a harmless Flintoff dismissal that he should hve murdered at Edgbaston, Martyn giving catching practice to another Fred delivery that any decent batsman would have relocated somewhere over midwicket, Clarke unable to spot Jones' inswinger or Harmison's slower ball, Gilchrist horribly uncertain outside off stump, etc, etc. Clearly over-rated, all of them. That's the joy of evaluating a batsman based on a single dismissal, isn't it? Can't believe Bradman missed Hollies' wrongun - must be crap as well.

To use a topical phrase that, I believe, is game, set and match to the broad minded

 

[Manee]

Atleast none of them got cleanbowled by a half volley on legstump. But anyways, it's about evaluating the batsman, it's about evaluating the bowlers and how they got their wickets and judging by some of the dismissals, wickets would be allot more harder to come by against Australia.

Wow, completely avoided the point of the quoted post there.

 

[wpdavid]

Atleast none of them got cleanbowled by a half volley on legstump. But anyways, it's about evaluating the batsman, it's about evaluating the bowlers and how they got their wickets and judging by some of the dismissals, wickets would be allot more harder to come by against Australia.

Hayden in the first innings at Lord's ?
Anyway, enough of judging batsmen on one delivery. If you have the time, check out what guys like the Chappells who actually played against the great WI bowlers made of them. Or observers of the game like Benaud who've seen every great player since WW2. I mighty be wrong - and I certainly coudn't post any links - but I suspect they'd tell a different story about what is was like facing the 4-pronged WI attack of the late 1970's and1980's. Enjoy.

EDIT
I meant to add - CW's own Burgey saw a heck of a lot of of WI when touring Aus in the early 1980's. His view on the matter would be educative.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Hayden in the first innings at Lord's ?
Anyway, enough of judging batsmen on one delivery. If you have the time, check out what guys like the Chappells who actually played against the great WI bowlers made of them. Or observers of the game like Benaud who've seen every great player since WW2. I mighty be wrong - and I certainly coudn't post any links - but I suspect they'd tell a different story about what is was like facing the 4-pronger WI attack of the late 1970's and1980's. Enjoy.

Hayden's dismissal wasn't a legstump half volley... it swung from outside offstump and took middle and off, if I remember correctly.

I lost faith in Richie Benuad's knowledge after he claimed that Adam Gilchrist was one of the finest cricketers to have ever played the game and I strongly disagree on that, which makes me tend to believe that he may of overrated acouple of other cricketers in the past.

However, I have seen the likes of Chappell and he was good. From what I've seen, him, Miandad, Gavasakr, Dean Jones are amongst the list that actually look like they'd be successful in the modern era. I'm not really that convinced over Allan Border though. He was more of a nudger and a nurdler and didn't have that sort've spark about him, that you'd generally get when you are watching a 50+ average batsman.