Avada Kedavra
Banned
You are welcome mate.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The best batsman and bowler of the 1990s
- Thread starter Ilovecric
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah, those noted hacks Alderman, Lawson, McDermott, Reid, Hughes and Reiffel were all dreadful.
FTR while they may all fall short of the very top tier all were outstanding Test bowlers for a time; in the cases of some a lengthy time. Yes, Tendulkar did not play against all of them but there is only one brief point between 1989 and 2006/07 - the home summer of 2003/04 - that the Australian attack could be said to be anything other than top-quality. Any series against Australia bar the one of 2003/04 at home to India was a serious challenge for any batsman.
Maximus0723
State Regular
I also think it's ridiculous to say that Sachin did good against this bowler or that bowler b.c they were playing in subcontinent.
but wait, didn't Wasim and Waqar bowl to him in the subcontinent? They seem to have done better against him then others.
So why couldn't other great bowlers do well against him in subcontinent?
Most important reason, b/c Sachin was good.
but wait, didn't Wasim and Waqar bowl to him in the subcontinent? They seem to have done better against him then others.
So why couldn't other great bowlers do well against him in subcontinent?
Most important reason, b/c Sachin was good.
Maximus0723
State Regular
according to cricinfo,
Inzy's average in Test is 49.xx and his average when Pakistan wins is 78.xx
that's ridiculous.
Sobers average is also insane. Unfiltered=57.xx and when WI wins it's 77.xx.
Lara's, Sachin's, Ricky's and Kallis's numbers fall into same ballpark, Sachin has little edge tho.
Inzy's average in Test is 49.xx and his average when Pakistan wins is 78.xx
that's ridiculous.
Sobers average is also insane. Unfiltered=57.xx and when WI wins it's 77.xx.
Lara's, Sachin's, Ricky's and Kallis's numbers fall into same ballpark, Sachin has little edge tho.
Last edited:
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
The fact is that, hundreds aside, Tendulkar averages 34 against Donald and 32 against Waqar/Wasim, whereas Lara averages around 32 against Donald and 30 against Waqar/Wasim. So no, Tendulkar has not been "significantly" better.
The opinion of contemporaries is actually split. The two greatest bowlers of the decade, Murali and McGrath, consider Lara better. Wasim has gone back and forth on the issue. So do experts like Shastri, Tony Greig, Atherton and Ian Chappell.
Last edited:
bagapath
International Captain
how will it be relevant in the warne - murali thread if it is not relevant in the 90s thread, richard?BTWat the whole Warne-vs-India thing rearing its head yet again. That should be as banned-except-in-one-thread as Warne-vs-Murali is.
may be, it should be banned altogether.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Alderman was awesome with his 8 tests and all. But did he play against India?
Lawson, Geoff? He didn't play in the 90s, and you'd have to be kidding. Reid, constantly injured. Hughes, good, but certainly not great. Reiffel, debuted against India in the early 90s, was mid-tier more than anything else. McDermott was pretty good, but nothing more than that.I didn't know 1989 counted for the early 90s. The problem was that during 92-95 the shape of that bowling changed. Many of the pretty good bowlers of the 80s were declining and it's rather well known how many of our good prospects like Reid never really got going.
The attacks in the early 90s were good, but not near great. Just taking a look at the bowling on offer in the 90s doesn't compare well with this bunch.
Imagine if I had actually called them hacks...you'd have something real to argue for a change.
Last edited:
Avada Kedavra
Banned
The overall averages are still in Tendulkar's favor. And like I said, Lara played Donald more in the 00s when Donald was past his peak and still failed to get a century against him. And how conveniently you ignored the rest of my post. Anyway let us do it your way.
The great fast bowlers Tendulkar performed better than Lara ; significantly or otherwise.
1. Wasim
2. Waqar
3. Donald
4. Hadlee
5. Imran Khan
6. Pollock (I'd give Tendulkar the edge because he scored runs against him when he bowled in tandem with Donald and also at a time when Pollock was at or close to his best in the 90s)
+
7. Ambrose
8. Walsh
The great fast bowlers that Lara performed better against :
1. McGrath
Akram has not gone back and forth, McGrath has. Tony Greig said that Tendulkar is the best after Bradman, how do you include him in the pro-Lara list ?
Anyway I challenge you to come up with cricketers better than Bradman, Hadlee, Sobers, Ponting, Warne, Waugh bros, Donald, Wasim etc
If you are going to include names like Shastri and Chappell, well I'll include Flintoff, Marlon Samuels, Andy Flower, Gavaskar, Bhogle, Mike Coward, Kasprowicz etc
Last edited:
Shri
Mr. Glass
Just playing the game doesn't give people a better analytical brain. And I see no reason to value the gibberish that most of them speak when there are common people who make good points and back their claim convincingly. So, if Sachin is better than the rest in Warne's book, I don't have to necessarily believe that statement blindly.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
It's a huge stretch to say that Tendulkar performed against those bowlers and Lara didn't. Tendulkar didn't either. Whether he scored 2 centuries against Donald is kinda beside the point when he played 20 innings against him.
Neither succeeded against Pakistan nor S.Africa. Both succeeded against Australia, where Lara probably has a better case since he faced the better Australian attacks more often. Of course, Lara couldn't face his own attack while Tendulkar succeeded against the WIndies.
And did Bradman say Tendulkar is better than Lara? IIRC he just said Sachin reminds him of himself.
Neither succeeded against Pakistan nor S.Africa. Both succeeded against Australia, where Lara probably has a better case since he faced the better Australian attacks more often. Of course, Lara couldn't face his own attack while Tendulkar succeeded against the WIndies.
And did Bradman say Tendulkar is better than Lara? IIRC he just said Sachin reminds him of himself.
Last edited:
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
It is not crystal clear.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Maybe, but I didn't say it should be put in the Warne-vs-Murali thread; I said it should have its own thread and be banned from being posted about anywhere else.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
You backed-up a comment that said they weren't quality... which is patent nonsense. My comment about 1989 relates purely to the fact that that's the point where Australia went from rubbish to excellent; Alderman and Lawson played a fair part in that even if their careers were coming to an end by then and didn't extend far into the 1990s.Alderman was awesome with his 8 tests and all. But did he play against India?
I didn't know 1989 counted for the early 90s. The problem was that during 92-95 the shape of that bowling changed. Many of the pretty good bowlers of the 80s were declining and it's rather well known how many of our good prospects like Reid never really got going.
The attacks in the early 90s were good, but not near great. Just taking a look at the bowling on offer in the 90s doesn't compare well with this bunch.
Imagine if I had actually called them hacks...you'd have something real to argue for a change.
McDermott, Reid (on the rare occasions he played) and Hughes were all outstanding bowlers who averaged 25-26 over lengthy periods. Yes, they weren't quite as good as McGrath, who is one of the best ever, but all are outstanding Test bowlers - far more than merely good, like for instance Dean Headley - and yes, an attack of McDermott, Reid, Hughes or McDermott, Hughes, Reiffel, Warne or in fact most of the attacks on view pre-McGrath were still outstanding and a considerable challenge for any batsman; only in fact a modicum less of a challenge than one featuring McGrath and some others who were comparable to McDermott et al (eg Gillespie, Fleming, Kasprowicz).
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Wrong, throughout I said they were good. And if by "quality" MrIncredible meant "great" then I agreed with him. This was all said explicitly. Next time, argue something that was actually said. And no, none of those bowlers were particularly great. At best, good.
Alderman and Lawson didn't extend much at all into the 90s. Alderman stopped playing in 91 and Lawson didn't even see the 90s. And no, apart from Reid there weren't any outstanding bowlers amongst them. McDermott who was merely good against most batsmen, and excelled against England and surprisingly WIndies. Nevermind that the aforementioned group barely played together - Hughes, Reid and McDermott played together a whopping 9 times (6 of them in the 90s); nevermind Reiffel with them. There's probably as many if not more tests with Matthews and Whitney diluted into that attack.
This is another one of those arguments where you've gone ass backward in and will probably resort to "by this, I meant this...see I wasn't wrong!"
Alderman and Lawson didn't extend much at all into the 90s. Alderman stopped playing in 91 and Lawson didn't even see the 90s. And no, apart from Reid there weren't any outstanding bowlers amongst them. McDermott who was merely good against most batsmen, and excelled against England and surprisingly WIndies. Nevermind that the aforementioned group barely played together - Hughes, Reid and McDermott played together a whopping 9 times (6 of them in the 90s); nevermind Reiffel with them. There's probably as many if not more tests with Matthews and Whitney diluted into that attack.
This is another one of those arguments where you've gone ass backward in and will probably resort to "by this, I meant this...see I wasn't wrong!"
Last edited:
Avada Kedavra
Banned
And yet Lara didn't.
Neither succeeded in your books but Tendulkar did better. And like u talk about Lara facing better attacks, Tendulkar faced better SA and Pakistani attacks. And yes he faced Walsh and Ambrose and did well against them. He also did better against Imran Khan and Hadlee.
Once again you are twisting facts..Bradman did say Tendulkar reminds him of himself. He also picked his best 11. Tendulkar was the only player of this era in that 11, Lara wasn't in that team.
Late Bradman rates top 11 cricketers
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Who cares?
Batsman A scores 0, 0, 100 and averages 33.33; Batsman B scores 33, 34, 32 and averages 33. They've scored about the same.
Why? They averaged the same against those bowlers. You might consider batsman A better than B (in the above) but that's a rather subjective assessment.
Bradman IIRC said Stan McCabe was better than he was. Is Stan McCabe better than Tendulkar? Jack Hobbs didn't make it and Arthur Morris did.
It's just an opinion.
Lara only played Imran in 1 test. Tendulkar did poorly against those 2 also. And those 2 were right at the end of their careers anyway.
Last edited:
Avada Kedavra
Banned
In matches involving BOTH Donald and Pollock, Tendulkar averages 38.70 and Lara averages 33.33
Yes Bradman's opinion is only his opinion but the greatest batsman's opinion certainly has more value than Ikki's
I am also glad to see that you have edited "Really when" to "Lara only played 1 test against Imran Khan"
Just for the record. Tendulkar averages 35.83 against Imran Khan. Lara averages 24.50
Yes Bradman's opinion is only his opinion but the greatest batsman's opinion certainly has more value than Ikki's
I am also glad to see that you have edited "Really when" to "Lara only played 1 test against Imran Khan"
Just for the record. Tendulkar averages 35.83 against Imran Khan. Lara averages 24.50
Avada Kedavra
Banned
It doesn't matter that he was at the end of his career. Both of them faced still faced him right ? Tendulkar actually faced him a full year before Lara
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
When the averages in question are 33 and 38 (Tendulkar actually averages 32 when either or both Pollock and Donald bowled to him - same as Lara) there's really not much of an argument as to who did what better. Tendulkar didn't do well against Hadlee or Imran - an Imran who by then did little bowling. And then you're trying to build a case against Lara based on 1 test? You're insulting everybody's intelligence.
As for Bradman, again; he considered many batsmen to be better than he was himself. So were they, just because he thought so? Anyway, by the time Tendulkar played I doubt how much Cricket he actually watched. I'd be more interested in what the players who played against him said.
Also, if you're so interested in how batsmen did against the best; you should check out Waugh who did better than these two did in the 90s. Or even Ponting.
As for Bradman, again; he considered many batsmen to be better than he was himself. So were they, just because he thought so? Anyway, by the time Tendulkar played I doubt how much Cricket he actually watched. I'd be more interested in what the players who played against him said.
Also, if you're so interested in how batsmen did against the best; you should check out Waugh who did better than these two did in the 90s. Or even Ponting.
Last edited: