The best batsman and bowler of the 1990s

[Avada Kedavra]

When the averages in question are 33 and 38 (Tendulkar actually averages 32 when either or both Pollock and Donald bowled to him) 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.

1 test or not, he certainly did better. It can also be argued that Tendulkar averaged 36 over 4 matches. Isn't it harder averaging more over a longer period of time ?

I read you were making a point about Tendulkar scoring most of his runs against an out of form Warne and not against McGrath. Which is why I chose matches that had both Donald and Pollock. When you have two world class bowlers bowling from both ends, it is harder. 38 vs 33 is a significant difference in Tendulkar's favour.


"As for Bradman, again; he considered many batsmen to be better than he was himself. "

He was obviously being modest. He isn't likely going to shout around saying I AM THE BEST right ? Incidentally Lara says Tendulkar is better than him so what does that do to your argument I wonder. However when picking from other players, he would have no bias.

I have no problem with anyone rating Ponting or Lara ahead of Tendulkar as there is very little to choose between them. It is when people twist facts and lie to make their point that I see red. I like watching Lara a lot more than I like watching Tendulkar by the way.

 

[Ikki]

1 test or not, he certainly did better. It can also be argued that Tendulkar averaged 36 over 4 matches. Isn't it harder averaging more over a longer period of time ?

36 is not a good average, especially for the likes of Tendulkar. It's debatable that Lara would have kept his low average. 1 test is not a good sample to prove anything.

I read you were making a point about Tendulkar scoring most of his runs against an out of form Warne and not against McGrath. Which is why I chose matches that had both Donald and Pollock. When you have two world class bowlers bowling from both ends, it is harder. 38 vs 33 is a significant difference in Tendulkar's favour.

Yet Tendulkar did worse when Pollock had not even debuted yet. That's why in an either/or situation he actually averages even less.

"As for Bradman, again; he considered many batsmen to be better than he was himself. "

He was obviously being modest. He isn't likely going to shout around saying I AM THE BEST right ? Incidentally Lara says Tendulkar is better than him so what does that do to your argument I wonder. However when picking from other players, he would have no bias.

He's obviously going to have his opinion, one way or another. You shouldn't take opinions so seriously, even if it is from Bradman. It's probably better to look at everybody's opinion about these two and it's usually split.

I have no problem with anyone rating Ponting or Lara ahead of Tendulkar as there is very little to choose between them. It is when people twist facts and lie to make their point that I see red. I like watching Lara a lot more than I like watching Tendulkar by the way.

Who lied about Tendulkar?

 

[zaremba]

Not a discussion I want to get involved in, but Don Bradman's best-ever XI is perhaps the worst-ever best-ever XI I've seen. I mean, for crying out loud, Don Tallon at 6, Lindwall at 7? (And I doubt even Ikki would pick 7 Australians in his all-time World XI )

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Fine then, you want to do an either/ or ? Using the either/or query against McGrath and Warne, Tendulkar averages 53.29 and Lara averages 50.16. You can't have the cake and eat it too my friend.

36 may not be good, but certainly better than 24. Obviously it is debatable what Lara would have done. Everything is debatable. Whether or not Lara would have succeeded against Walsh and Ambrose is also debatable. I am merely going by the evidence at hand.

 

[Sir Alex]

Fine then, you want to do an either/ or ? Using the either/or query against McGrath and Warne, Tendulkar averages 53.29 and Lara averages 50.16. You can't have the cake and eat it too my friend.

36 may not be good, but certainly better than 24. Obviously it is debatable what Lara would have done. Everything is debatable. Whether or not Lara would have succeeded against Walsh and Ambrose is also debatable. I am merely going by the evidence at hand.

Lara struggled big time in games against Ambrose in the domestic cricket.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If only it had been pointed out sooner that Lara only averaged 24 in one Test he could have been eliminated from the debate straight away.

 

[Richard]

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!"

I believe that last falls under the sort of comments you've been told to stop making... so I'd advise you to do so. All the bowlers I named (Alderman, Lawson, Hughes, McDermott, Reid, Reiffel) were excellent Test bowlers, far better than merely good (couldn't really care for the term "great" as I've said many times as it's sacred and vague), and the point has nothing whatsoever to do with how far they extended into the 1990s so stop making anything of that. The point is that starting in '89 facing Australia's attack was a considerable challenge for any batsman and this has only rarely let-up since.

A "quality" bowler generally means something better than merely adequate-Test-class; to equate "quality" with "among the tiny group of the best there's ever been" would be rather incongruous so I doubt that's what was meant and if it was it was plain bad choice of words. Australia's attack has been quality - ie, very, very good at absolute worst and often outstanding - since 1989 with very rare, very short-term exceptions.

 

[Richard]

Bradman IIRC said Stan McCabe was better than he was.

Bradman actually said McCabe had played several innings he felt (whether he was right or wrong is debateable) he was incapable of playing. He stopped short of saying anyone was better than himself.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Lara struggled big time in games against Ambrose in the domestic cricket.

Yeah I have heard that he did.

 

[bagapath]

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.

Ikki, but earlier you made it sound as though Bradman never said Sachin was better than Lara and that he merely said Tendulkar reminded the Don of himself and that was it. In reality he actually did rate Sachin above Brian by choosing him for his team. It is a crap team, I know. But it does negate your initial claim that the Don didnt rate Tendulkar above Lara. He did and you have to accept that. You can disagree with the call but not with the fact that he did indeed prefer one over the other.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I believe that last falls under the sort of comments you've been told to stop making... so I'd advise you to do so. All the bowlers I named (Alderman, Lawson, Hughes, McDermott, Reid, Reiffel) were excellent Test bowlers, far better than merely good (couldn't really care for the term "great" as I've said many times as it's sacred and vague), and the point has nothing whatsoever to do with how far they extended into the 1990s so stop making anything of that. The point is that starting in '89 facing Australia's attack was a considerable challenge for any batsman and this has only rarely let-up since.

A "quality" bowler generally means something better than merely adequate-Test-class; to equate "quality" with "among the tiny group of the best there's ever been" would be rather incongruous so I doubt that's what was meant and if it was it was plain bad choice of words. Australia's attack has been quality - ie, very, very good at absolute worst and often outstanding - since 1989 with very rare, very short-term exceptions.

I am impressed. Excellent post.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki, but earlier you made it sound as though Bradman never said Sachin was better than Lara and that he merely said Tendulkar reminded the Don of himself and that was it. In reality he actually did rate Sachin above Brian by choosing him for his team. It is a crap team, I know. But it does negate your initial claim that the Don didnt rate Tendulkar above Lara. He did and you have to accept that. You can disagree with the call but not with the fact that he did indeed preferred one over the other.

No, I agree. I was wrong, as you point out the fact that he picked Tendulkar instead of Lara means he did rate him better. I actually said "IIRC", which appears I didn't recall correctly.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Ikki is just tap dancing here. First he tried arguing that Bradman never said anything of that sort, implying that his opinion had a lot of weightage. Once he was proven wrong, he resorted to 'Oh but it is only his opinion'.

He also asked "Really when" when I told him that Tendulkar performed better than Lara against Imran Khan. Then he edited his post and started making excuses when once again he was proven wrong.

He argues that Lara did better when McGrath and Warne played together, yet doesn't want to use the same crietrion for Donald and Pollock (or even Wasim and Waqar for that matter).

 

[Ikki]

I believe that last falls under the sort of comments you've been told to stop making... so I'd advise you to do so. All the bowlers I named (Alderman, Lawson, Hughes, McDermott, Reid, Reiffel) were excellent Test bowlers, far better than merely good (couldn't really care for the term "great" as I've said many times as it's sacred and vague), and the point has nothing whatsoever to do with how far they extended into the 1990s so stop making anything of that. The point is that starting in '89 facing Australia's attack was a considerable challenge for any batsman and this has only rarely let-up since.

A "quality" bowler generally means something better than merely adequate-Test-class; to equate "quality" with "among the tiny group of the best there's ever been" would be rather incongruous so I doubt that's what was meant and if it was it was plain bad choice of words. Australia's attack has been quality - ie, very, very good at absolute worst and often outstanding - since 1989 with very rare, very short-term exceptions.

Firstly, let the mod team tell me what I can or cannot say. If I think you're talking non-sense, I'll call you on it. In fact, I haven't repeatedly been told anything, so you can stop repeatedly saying that. Of course, your advise is neither wanted nor invited for, so no thanks anyway.

Secondly, you're wrong about the bowlers, whether you think so or not is neither here nor there. Your rating of players is infamously inept. Calling Lawson an excellent bowler is quite a stretch, the same for a few of those others too. Some of them for a time were excellent, but on the whole...no.

Thirdly, we were talking about the best attacks of the 90s and how Tendulkar and co faced them. So, I interprete that to mean the best attacks/the great attacks. I would think an attack with a variation of the aforesaid players would get handled by an accomplished batsman like Tendulkar, and it's no surprise they did. The "great" bowlers are a more intriguing discussion. The fact that you plot them together when they played so few tests together and even go into another decade indicate you're clutching at straws. Australia's attack from 90-93 was merely good, not even close to "at worst, very very good". It's from that period onwards where Warne and McGrath debut that we become excellent at worst and all-time great at best .

 

[Ikki]

Ikki is just tap dancing here. First he tried arguing that Bradman never said anything of that sort, implying that his opinion had a lot of weightage. Once he was proven wrong, he resorted to 'Oh but it is only his opinion'.

I said I recalled Bradman making the claim on stylistic basis, although I did concede that obviously the picking of his XI does mean he rated Lara better. Actually, in the mid 90s he rated both Lara and Tendulkar the best. The list came out when Bradman had died (2001) and was said to be a revised version; and considering Lara kinda fell apart towards the end of the 90s it makes sense.

He also asked "Really when" when I told him that Tendulkar performed better than Lara against Imran Khan. Then he edited his post and started making excuses when once again he was proven wrong.

Actually, I edited it a few times, and also said "Really, when did he do better that much better than Lara", then I just rephrased the whole thing.

He argues that Lara did better when McGrath and Warne played together, yet doesn't want to use the same crietrion for Donald and Pollock (or even Wasim and Waqar for that matter).

You've confused yourself there. I said Lara does better with McGrath and Warne together but not in the way you cherry pick Donald and Pollock's games together. I was referring to the fact that Lara faced those 2 much more often than Tendulkar did which is why his record against Australia is more impressive than Sachin's.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I said I recalled Bradman making the claim on stylistic basis, although I did concede that obviously the picking of his XI does mean he rated Lara better. Actually, in the mid 90s he rated both Lara and Tendulkar the best. The list came out when Bradman had died and was said to be a revised version; and considering Lara kinda fell apart towards the end of the 90s it makes sense.



Actually, I edited it a few times, and also said "Really, when did he do better that much better than Lara", then I just rephrased the whole thing.



You've confused yourself there. I said Lara does better with McGrath and Warne together but not in the way you cherry pick Donald and Pollock's games together. I was referring to the fact that Lara faced those 2 much more often than Tendulkar did which is why his record against Australia is more impressive than Sachin's.

I haven't cherry picked anything. Using the either/or query against McGrath and Warne like YOU did for Donald and Pollock, Tendulkar comes out on top. Choose one or the other, you can't have both.

Tendulkar averages a full 10 points more against Imran Khan. What Lara WOULD have done if he had played more matches is merely speculation. Just like if I tell you that Lara would have failed miserably against Ambrose and Walsh.

 

[Ikki]

I haven't cherry picked anything. Using the either/or query against McGrath and Warne like YOU did for Donald and Pollock, Tendulkar comes out on top. Choose one or the other, you can't have both.

You did, because I didn't use the either/all for McGrath or Warne. You did for Donald and Pollock.

Tendulkar averages a full 10 points more against Imran Khan. What Lara WOULD have done if he had played more matches is merely speculation. Just like if I tell you that Lara would have failed miserably against Ambrose and Walsh.

Lara played 1 test against Imran. And Tendulkar averaged in the 30s. You're clutching at straws.

 

[Ikki]

I just checked McGrath and Warne for Lara and whether you use either or all he averages 50+ against them. So if you were thinking I was cherry picking, you're comically off the mark.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

You did, because I didn't use the either/or for McGrath or Warne. You did for Donald and Pollock.



Lara played 1 test against Imran. And Tendulkar averaged in the 30s. You're clutching at straws.

Tendulkar averaged in the 30s (36) and Lara averaged in the 20s (24). What straws am I clutching at ? Are you telling me for sure that Lara's average WOULD HAVE improved had he played more games ? Can you tell me for sure that Lara WOULD HAVE not failed miserably against Ambrose and Walsh ? Both are just speculations. Go by what you have, not what you don't.

Speaking of clutching at straws, you are the one doing it.

I used matches in which Donald and Pollock both played together, and Tendulkar comes out averaging a full 5 points more. Clear so far ?

You said that is irrelevant because using the either/or query, that is matches in which either Donald or Pollock or both played, both Tendulkar and Lara averaged 33.

Therefore I used the either matches in which McGrath played or Warne played or both, and Tendulkar comes out with an average 3 points better than Lara. Clear ?

 

[Ikki]

Not a discussion I want to get involved in, but Don Bradman's best-ever XI is perhaps the worst-ever best-ever XI I've seen. I mean, for crying out loud, Don Tallon at 6, Lindwall at 7? (And I doubt even Ikki would pick 7 Australians in his all-time World XI )

Haha, you know what's funny? I was thinking to myself when reading the list..."if anyone ever calls me on picking too many Aussies I am gonna cite this list!"