The best batsman and bowler of the 1990s

[Richard]

No its not. In fact very few of the very good/great fast bowlers have poor records in India (Mcgrath, Akram, Donald, Walsh, Pollock) but quite a few have poor records in Oz (comparatively speaking) draw from that what u may. Oh and btw (and i know im goin to ruffle a few feathers) but even the great Tendulkar wasnt ne great shakes vs quality pace either (see his record vs the very good/great pace lineups of his time)

Well I don't agree with that at all, and those you named - McGrath, Wasim, Donald, Walsh and the Pollock who was really, really good (rather than merely good) against anyone else (ie, 1995/96-2001) - also had good-to-excellent records in Australia. Who are these outstanding, top-of-the-tree bowlers who failed there and succeeded in India?

Second India (post 00) has never had as reliable opening pair as Oz their middle orders are comparable and India has no answer to Gilchrist, or no answer to the stubborness of the Oz lower order. Seriously Richard!!

Gilchrist post-2003/04 wasn't much crack - certainly no better than Dhoni and probably worse, though yes, better than Patel or Karthik - and the Indian middle-order has by-and-large been comfortably better than the Australian one. Hayden and Sehwag, little challenge though they may have been posed by particularly good attacks, have been equally prolific and while Langer was indeed far better than all other openers India tried until very recently with Gambhir, that's one place out of seven.

 

[Richard]

The problem I have with "taking wickets for the other end" is that it only gets mentioned when you aren't taking wickets at your end. Dale Steyn takes bucketloads of wickets for the other end. Someone whizzing the ball past your outside edge every over is going to get to your head for sure (personally I'd be more inclined to feel the pressure in that situation than I would against a bowler pinning me down ala Andrew Flintoff, but it's different for everyone). Steyn, unlike Flintoff, gets no credit for these wickets because he takes wickets at his end too.

I don't disagree - obviously with new batsmen at the crease you're improving your fellows' chances of taking wickets (though if they bowl crap that chance is merely improved from negligable to fairly negligable). Pretty much invariably, "he takes wickets at the other end" is used as a means to excuse the non-wicket-taking of the bowler who is not taking wickets and say that he bowled well anyway, not as a means to credit someone for something.

Personally I like bowlers with a healthy strike rate rather than the economical ones. When you throw the ball to Waqar, he's statistically got about a 1 in 7 chance of getting you a wicket that over compared to Ambrose's 1 in 9. While I certainly wouldn't argue for Waqar being better than Ambrose, that's pretty statistically significant when comparing players.

Oh I'd have absolutely no hesitation in (in Test matches) having the Waqar of 1990/91-1994/95 ahead of Ambrose and in fact pretty much anyone, but there are a good few I'd have ahead of the Waqar of 1995/96-2000/01.

 

[Richard]

The bit I like about him is that he's had a few years now where people have been able to have a good look at him, develop plans, etc. Batters know exactly what he's about yet he still takes poles. Top bowler and, tbh, a bit under-estimated by those who don't face him..

Simple fact is that regardless of how well you know what it is someone's going to bowl, if that something is constant 90mph outswingers aimed at the stumps it doesn't matter - it's still going to get you out before all that long.

If the ball is swinging and he's bowling like that - as has been the case for most of Steyn's Tests in the last 3 years - he is a truly fearsome proposition, and in fact must very strongly resemble the Waqar of 1990/91-1994/95.

 

[Uppercut]

Simple fact is that regardless of how well you know what it is someone's going to bowl, if that something is constant 90mph outswingers aimed at the stumps it doesn't matter - it's still going to get you out before all that long.

If the ball is swinging and he's bowling like that - as has been the case for most of Steyn's Tests in the last 3 years - he is a truly fearsome proposition, and in fact must very strongly resemble the Waqar of 1990/91-1994/95.

Doesn't reverse it though- can only imagine how horrific he'd be to face if he could get it reversing back into the RHB too.

I'd also credit him for only needing a hint of swing to do serious damage- as is what happened with his ten-wicket haul in the second test in Australia last year. It's quite unique at the moment.

 

[Top_Cat]

Doesn't reverse it though- can only imagine how horrific he'd be to face if he could get it reversing back into the RHB too.

Then he'd be Waqar of the early days. Similar pace. That said, he's doing so well, developing new tools might be low on the agenda. He's found a method and is sticking with it for now. As you said, though, he's not just bowling hooping outswingers, smart bowler too. Can throttle back and hit a good length when needed. Lots to like about him.

 

[MrIncredible]

Well I don't agree with that at all, and those you named - McGrath, Wasim, Donald, Walsh and the Pollock who was really, really good (rather than merely good) against anyone else (ie, 1995/96-2001) - also had good-to-excellent records in Australia. Who are these outstanding, top-of-the-tree bowlers who failed there and succeeded in India?

Gilchrist post-2003/04 wasn't much crack - certainly no better than Dhoni and probably worse, though yes, better than Patel or Karthik - and the Indian middle-order has by-and-large been comfortably better than the Australian one. Hayden and Sehwag, little challenge though they may have been posed by particularly good attacks, have been equally prolific and while Langer was indeed far better than all other openers India tried until very recently with Gambhir, that's one place out of seven.

Those highlighted donot have good records in Oz come again. And seriously, u say post 03/04 Gilchrist wasnt crack im talking about overall, and overall the Oz lineup of :

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
M Waugh/D Lehman
S Waugh
D Martyn
A Gilchrist

Was and is better than ne thing India has managed to put together, infact that Oz lineup is one of the all time greats (irrespective of what u think of Hayden). And last but not least the Oz lineup of the 90s era were the ultimate test (home and away) vs ne quality pacemen. India were a test at home (no doubt) but they were paupers away.

 

[subshakerz]

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
M Waugh/D Lehman
S Waugh
D Martyn
A Gilchrist

The Australian lineup you mention was much better than the Indian lineup of the same time. No doubt India improved as travelers after 2000, but they were still far from as reliable as Australia. In fact, I believe their batting rise overseas this decade has much to do with not having to face guys like Donald, Ambrose, Walsh, Waqar, Wasim, McGrath, and Flintoff in their home grounds.

 

[Richard]

Doesn't reverse it though- can only imagine how horrific he'd be to face if he could get it reversing back into the RHB too.

I'd also credit him for only needing a hint of swing to do serious damage- as is what happened with his ten-wicket haul in the second test in Australia last year. It's quite unique at the moment.

Yeah, those are the two big differences - Waqar swung new ball out and old ball in, and did both quite terrifyingly at times.

Still, the number of bowlers like them - who bowl fast, full, at the stumps and with a near-perfect seam-position ball after ball after ball without worrying too much about how many runs they concede doing it - are incredibly rare and always have been. Perhaps that's why they're such an enticing sight.

 

[Richard]

Those highlighted donot have good records in Oz come again.

Walsh had a moderate record in Australia agreed but I doubt many would make the claim that he couldn't bowl there, and Pollock in 1997/98 did superbly. From 2001/02 to 2005/06 he hardly did well anywhere, so to say "he didn't do well in Aus" is rather disingenious.

And seriously, u say post 03/04 Gilchrist wasnt crack

He wasn't. Apart from a very brief spell of 8 Tests in 2004/05, Gilchrist averaged 26 from 2003/04-2007/08 - that's in 40-odd other Tests. Though yes, even that's better than Parthiv Patel or Dinesh Karthik.

im talking about overall

There is no "overall". Each Test is a new one, and much as it might be nice to generalise and say that overall a certain line-up has certain names so it must've been good, the fact is that there was only the odd Test here and there where Australia had a truly excellent line-up filled with quality players who were in-form. The Oval 2001 was one; Cairns 2004 was another. But almost always, there was one weak-link, sometimes more. And I don't know how many times I have to say it but the good Indian batsmen were mostly a fair bit better than the good Australian ones. Tendulkar > Stephen Waugh though not by much; Dravid >>> any other Australian batsman except Stephen Waugh; IMO Azhar and Laxman > any other Australian batsman except Stephen Waugh and Ponting.

 

[Richard]

In fact, I believe their batting rise overseas this decade has much to do with not having to face guys like Donald, Ambrose, Walsh, Waqar, Wasim, McGrath, and Flintoff in their home grounds.

There is indeed a possibility that that's true, but I'd also say that Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman have proven themselves wholly capable players of quality seam bowling as well as outstanding bashers of moderate-to-poor seam (and spin) bowling.

 

[MrIncredible]

There is indeed a possibility that that's true, but I'd also say that Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman have proven themselves wholly capable players of quality seam bowling as well as outstanding bashers of moderate-to-poor seam (and spin) bowling.

Like when?? On a consistent basis??

 

[MrIncredible]

Walsh had a moderate record in Australia agreed but I doubt many would make the claim that he couldn't bowl there, and Pollock in 1997/98 did superbly. From 2001/02 to 2005/06 he hardly did well anywhere, so to say "he didn't do well in Aus" is rather disingenious.

He wasn't. Apart from a very brief spell of 8 Tests in 2004/05, Gilchrist averaged 26 from 2003/04-2007/08 - that's in 40-odd other Tests. Though yes, even that's better than Parthiv Patel or Dinesh Karthik.

There is no "overall". Each Test is a new one, and much as it might be nice to generalise and say that overall a certain line-up has certain names so it must've been good, the fact is that there was only the odd Test here and there where Australia had a truly excellent line-up filled with quality players who were in-form. The Oval 2001 was one; Cairns 2004 was another. But almost always, there was one weak-link, sometimes more. And I don't know how many times I have to say it but the good Indian batsmen were mostly a fair bit better than the good Australian ones. Tendulkar > Stephen Waugh though not by much; Dravid >>> any other Australian batsman except Stephen Waugh; IMO Azhar and Laxman > any other Australian batsman except Stephen Waugh and Ponting.

As if India has had line ups that all clicked at the same time. I distinctly remember a few years ago when Tendy's career started to nose dive (b4 his recent recovery) ditto Dravid.

Excuse me, but Rahul Dravid is not better than Ricky Ponting (not just Steve Waugh). And i would like to know the Indian batsmen who were a fair bit better Azhar, Laxman, Tendy, Dravid a fair bit better than Ponting, Waugh, Waugh (s) Martyn, Gilchrist? Really ?? If Oz's lineup has had weak links India has had holes (esp away).

 

[Furball]

Like when?? On a consistent basis??

You don't score 2,000+ Test runs in Australia if you can't play quick bowling.

 

[subshakerz]

There is indeed a possibility that that's true, but I'd also say that Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman have proven themselves wholly capable players of quality seam bowling as well as outstanding bashers of moderate-to-poor seam (and spin) bowling.

No doubt they are quality players of pace bowling, yet rarely do you witness the batting lineup as a whole firing away from home. My point was that I doubt India's batting lineup from 2001 onwards was significantly better than its lineup from 1996-2001. The only real changes have been the introduction of Sehwag, the flattening of pitches worldwide and the retirement of worldclass pacers or their absence from key home series (such as McGrath in 2004 and Flintoff/Harmison in 2007).

 

[MrIncredible]

You don't score 2,000+ Test runs in Australia if you can't play quick bowling.

True that. But few of those runs came against quality pace. ( '92 and '99).

 

[Richard]

As if India has had line ups that all clicked at the same time. I distinctly remember a few years ago when Tendy's career started to nose dive (b4 his recent recovery) ditto Dravid.

Dravid has had his downtime starting from 2006/07 and Tendulkar from 2003/04, but one has definately recovered and the other possibly might now be being. Of course India has also had times when the names have looked great if you only look at entire careers but don't consider phases, as Australia did, but as I say - AFAIC you can find more instances of Indian superiority to Australia than Australian superiority to India.

Excuse me, but Rahul Dravid is not better than Ricky Ponting (not just Steve Waugh). And i would like to know the Indian batsmen who were a fair bit better Azhar, Laxman, Tendy, Dravid a fair bit better than Ponting, Waugh, Waugh (s) Martyn, Gilchrist? Really ?? If Oz's lineup has had weak links India has had holes (esp away).

I'd consider Dravid notably better than Ponting personally. For me all of Dravid, Tendulkar, Azhar and Laxman were superior to Boon, Mark Waugh, Langer, Martyn, Healy and Gilchrist. Taylor, Slater and Hayden were obviously openers so the matter is a little different but if one were forced to compare I'd also place the Indian trio ahead of all. Only Stephen Waugh and, later (not initially), Ponting were superior to Laxman and Azhar. Tendulkar was better than Waugh and Ponting and Dravid was better than Ponting and arguably than Waugh as well.

 

[Richard]

No doubt they are quality players of pace bowling, yet rarely do you witness the batting lineup as a whole firing away from home. My point was that I doubt India's batting lineup from 2001 onwards was significantly better than its lineup from 1996-2001. The only real changes have been the introduction of Sehwag, the flattening of pitches worldwide and the retirement of worldclass pacers or their absence from key home series (such as McGrath in 2004 and Flintoff/Harmison in 2007).

India might well have done better in 2007 had Harmison played instead of Tremlett. Whether India's batting would have been significantly better post-2001 than it had been hitherto but for the flattening-out of decks and loss (temporary or permanent) of quality bowlers, frankly, is something we'll never know. I'm happy to leave it at "it's possible" myself.

 

[Richard]

True that. But few of those runs came against quality pace. ( '92 and '99).

Tendulkar played easily well enough in 1991/92 and 1999/2000 to convince wholesomely. And it's not quite the case that the attack of 2007/08 was sheer hopelessness either - Lee bowled superlatively for a year including that series, Clark was (and is) good and Johnson had his moments (and has since become superlative - sometimes). Only Hogg\Tait was an out-and-out weak-link in 2007/08, whereas in 2003/04 (where in any case he failed dismally until the final match) the attack was a one-man Gillespie show.

 

[The Sean]

For me all of Dravid, Tendulkar, Azhar and Laxman were superior to Boon, Mark Waugh, Langer, Martyn, Healy and Gilchrist.

Putting aside the rest of your post - if Heals is reading these pages then I reckon he'll consider even being mentioned in that list to be the biggest compliment he's ever received.

 

[Sir Alex]

So you're seriously telling me that bowling against India in India was less of a challenge than bowling against Australia, in Australia or anywhere else?

A genuine fast bowler could be expected to rattle Indian batsmen in India than australian batsmen in Australia.