The best batsman and bowler of the 1990s

[stephen]

Doesn't make sense for Lara to be there. He only played half of the decade.

He's still the 8th highest run scorer in that time.

1234th post!

 

[Furball]

Doesn't make sense for Lara to be there. He only played half of the decade.

Try 70%

 

[bagapath]

Whoa, yeh. Poor guy is off for a while and people forget about him. Dravid should probably get the Tendulkar spot. Which is good in a way as you can move Lara up and put him at 5.

agree. tendulkar doesnt deserve to be in the 00s team

 

[bagapath]

From Robert Craddock's article....

During a recent trip to Brisbane, I asked Brian Lara why Walsh and Ambrose were so great.

He recounted the day in 1992 when a one-off Test against South Africa in Barbados was almost lost entering the final day's play.

"Our team meeting before play lasted two minutes," Lara said. "Walsh and Ambrose just walked out the front and said 'leave it to us today, the ball will not leave our hands. We will do the job.' Then they just left the room."

Men of fibre and a team of destiny | The Daily Telegraph

 

[Richard]

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.

You've been told many times to stop making deliberately disparaging comments; suggesting that you merely limit it to "your non-sense" (can't you even write the whole word correctly?) is being self-generous. The mod team have told you what you can and cannot say; I'm now telling you again. The second sentence below falls into the latter category - deliberately disparaging remarks are not permitted on CW.

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.

They were all excellent during the time in question (1989-1994/95; ie, pre-McGrath). Alderman averaged 20 from 1989-1990/91; Hughes 25 from 1989-1993; McDermott 26 from 1990/91-1995/96... etc. etc. Even though there was usually one weak-link in the attack, it was an exceptionally good one throughout which was always going to pose considerable challenge to any batsman and to emerge from it having scored well was a fine achievement.

Australia's attack from 90-93 was merely good, not even close to "at worst, very very good".

Well, no, not really; it was, well, as I said it was. And I'm not going to bother arguing this with you any further.

 

[Ikki]

No, the mod team haven't said anything to me for a long long time now. I will continue posting as I please and I think I am in my rights to call you on your non-sense. If I think your rating of players is "infamously inept", I'll say so. Who do you think you are? You're certainly not beyond criticism.

 

[zaremba]

"your non-sense" (can't you even write the whole word correctly?)

Misplaced hyphen alert!

 

[Richard]

No, the mod team haven't said anything to me for a long long time now. I will continue posting as I please and I think I am in my rights to call you on your non-sense. If I think your rating of players is "infamously inept", I'll say so. Who do you think you are? You're certainly not beyond criticism.

No, you're just not allowed to use abusive comments like "your <insert something> is infamously inept", and countless other abusive terms you regularly throw my - and others' - way. The reasons the mod team haven't spoken to you recently could be many and varied (among them might well be that most just can't be bothered reading most of your vast, near-pointless posts), but they've still told you not to do it in the past, and I'll keep reminding you that they've done so, and the fact that no mod has posted about it recently doesn't mean the instruction has been withdrawn.

 

[Richard]

Misplaced hyphen alert!

Spurious hyphen, more like. It's one word split into two then hyphenated.

 

[MrIncredible]

A difference of 5 points is *slight* Hmmmm

I don't see how Tendulkar could have done worse than Waugh against good/great attacks seeing Tendulkar also faced Australia's attack which was and has always been much much better than India's pie-throwers.

Waugh was better vs Wi ( amby and walsh) Pak (W W etc) and SA (Donald, Pollock etc)

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Waugh was better vs Wi ( amby and walsh) Pak (W W etc) and SA (Donald, Pollock etc)

Waugh Tendulkar

Average vs Pak : 37 30
Average vs WI : 46 63
Average vs SA : 65 34

Average vs Australia 58

 

[MrIncredible]

Waugh Tendulkar

Average vs Pak : 37 30
Average vs WI : 46 63
Average vs SA : 65 34

Average vs Australia 58

Umm no Tendy averages 57 vs Amby/Walsh (together) over one series. Waughs 46 averarage vs Amby/walsh home and away was 46 and this includes series from the 80s that also included bowlers like Marshall, Bishop, P Patterson. either way Waugh conclusively did better (significantly so) vs the very good/great attacks that both men faced.

Last but not least tendy's average vs oz also includes series vs crap attacks (98 in india, 04 in 0z).

 

[Cruxdude]

Umm no Tendy averages 57 vs Amby/Walsh (together) over one series. Waughs 46 averarage vs Amby/walsh home and away was 46 and this includes series from the 80s that also included bowlers like Marshall, Bishop, P Patterson. either way Waugh conclusively did better (significantly so) vs the very good/great attacks that both men faced.

Last but not least tendy's average vs oz also includes series vs crap attacks (98 in india, 04 in 0z).

The aussie attack of 98 cannot be called crap just because it doesn't suit your analysis. Kasper, Reiffel, Warne is a decent attack, and this is just one out of 4 series in the 90s. His batting in that series was sublime and would be among the best displays in any series in the 90s.

Against pakistan Sachin had 3 tests as compared to 14 of Waugh. No way is that a good indicator.

The only area in which Steve Waugh is ahead is against SA. Steve Waugh's average against lowly India is also not that great.

There is no basis for saying Steve Waugh is "without argument" better than Sachin of the 90s. Most statistics say the contrary is true.

 

[Ikki]

No, you're just not allowed to use abusive comments like "your <insert something> is infamously inept", and countless other abusive terms you regularly throw my - and others' - way. The reasons the mod team haven't spoken to you recently could be many and varied (among them might well be that most just can't be bothered reading most of your vast, near-pointless posts), but they've still told you not to do it in the past, and I'll keep reminding you that they've done so, and the fact that no mod has posted about it recently doesn't mean the instruction has been withdrawn.

Haha, so you're allowed to demean my posts yet if I comment on yours you have a cry? I have only been censured by the mods once some few years ago because of an encounter with C_C that got into a heavy name-calling match. IIRC you've also been banned on this site too. Your advise is neither invited nor wanted. Get a life, Richard.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Umm no Tendy averages 57 vs Amby/Walsh (together) over one series. Waughs 46 averarage vs Amby/walsh home and away was 46 and this includes series from the 80s that also included bowlers like Marshall, Bishop, P Patterson. either way Waugh conclusively did better (significantly so) vs the very good/great attacks that both men faced.

Last but not least tendy's average vs oz also includes series vs crap attacks (98 in india, 04 in 0z).

How does 04 come into the discussion when we are talking about the 1990s ? Stop lying and resorting to cheap tactics to prove your point.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Haha, so you're allowed to demean my posts yet if I comment on yours you have a cry? I have only been censured by the mods once some few years ago because of an encounter with C_C that got into a heavy name-calling match. IIRC you've also been banned on this site too. Your advise is neither invited nor wanted. Get a life, Richard.

I owe you an apology for the other day.I was just pissed off because you kept telling me that I was someone else. Sorry.

 

[Ikki]

I owe you an apology for the other day.I was just pissed off because you kept telling me that I was someone else. Sorry.

Is your name Richard, too? I'm confused because you quoted me. If you did quote me as a reply, I wasn't referring to you bro.

Unless you are just apologising anyway? Which I would accept, and thank you for your humility.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Is your name Richard, too? I'm confused because you quoted me. If you did quote me as a reply, I wasn't referring to you bro.

Unless you are just apologising anyway? Which I would accept, and thank you for your humility.

Nah I am not Richard. Apologising because I was rather rude the other day. I am new to this thing, quoted you by mistake.

 

[Richard]

Haha, so you're allowed to demean my posts yet if I comment on yours you have a cry?

Not remotely "demeaning" anything of yours with that previous comment, and nor have I "had a cry" about anything, you'd just prefer it if it was that way. I simply stated that most people don't bother to read massive long multi-quote posts which are not directed specifically at them - and they don't. This includes moderators.

I have only been censured by the mods once some few years ago because of an encounter with C_C that got into a heavy name-calling match. IIRC you've also been banned on this site too.

My comments have nothing whatsoever to do with that and if you honestly believe that's the only time you've been censured by mods then it's no surprise you've failed to act on the instructions you've been given.

 

[aussie]

The aussie attack of 98 cannot be called crap just because it doesn't suit your analysis. Kasper, Reiffel, Warne is a decent attack, and this is just one out of 4 series in the 90s. His batting in that series was sublime and would be among the best displays in any series in the 90s.

Against pakistan Sachin had 3 tests as compared to 14 of Waugh. No way is that a good indicator.

The only area in which Steve Waugh is ahead is against SA. Steve Waugh's average against lowly India is also not that great.

There is no basis for saying Steve Waugh is "without argument" better than Sachin of the 90s. Most statistics say the contrary is true.

No thats AUS attack in 98 was crap. It was one man attack lead by Warne. Reifel was passed his peak as test bowler & never had the skills to bowl on flat decks & Kasper was poor in those days. Kasper didn't peak as a bowler until 2004.