Vaas vs Srinath vs Lee vs Zaheer vs Sobers

[Ikki]

Vaas home - 180 wickets at 26.32, away - 175 wickets at 32.34
Lee home - 186 wickets at 28.72, away - 119 at 33.42


Next time check your facts instead of talking crap.It is amazing how biased you are - Asian batsmen are never given credit and 'they get more flat tracks' excuse is always used against them yet no mention of that when it comes to bowling.On top of that you are a liar. Sheesh.

Um, check the SR.

Vaas home - 180 wickets at 26.32 with an SR of 60.7, away - 175 wickets at 32.34 with an SR of 70.3.
Lee home - 186 wickets at 28.72 with an SR of 51.3, away - 119 at 33.42 with an SR of 55.2.

Next time you want to reply...don't. You just embarrassed yourself.

And he benefited from the fact that McGrath, Gillespie and Warne would often do what he was unable to, in knocking-over the best batsmen. No coincidence that, outside 2007/08, Lee did even worse when he was surrounded by fellow ordinary\crap bowlers rather than when surrounded by excellence.

Playing with McGrath, Fleming, Gillespie, Warne etc. was, for the most part, a help to Lee not a hindrance. Still didn't preclude him from being utterly hopeless for most of his career though.

If anything he became a much better bowler once he was leading the attack. Sure, there are positives and negatives about hunting in a pack, but when the two bowlers in question are taking so many wickets, I'd tend to consider it harder to strike so effectively. Any momentum you create by taking one batsmen can be used by other bowlers. Also, their percentage of top-to-mid batting order wickets taken is pretty much the same.

Frankly, I don't wish to argue with you about it as I've read some utter tosh from you about Lee and that's more than an indicator for me about how sensical it would be to debate it.

 

[Sir Alex]

Vaas had to operate on some of the hardest wickets for a pacer to bowl on and credit to him for succeeding despite that.

 

[Ikki]

Vaas had to operate on some of the hardest wickets for a pacer to bowl on and credit to him for succeeding despite that.

Sure, but outside those wickets he actually did worse - he was better at home than anywhere else bar NZ. He was specialised for his home conditions and succeeded there. He was mediocre away from home.

 

[Richard]

If anything he became a much better bowler once he was leading the attack.

He did indeed - and it lasted a whole 9 Tests, same way the spell where he was one of a pack of quality right at the start of his Test career did.

Sure, there are positives and negatives about taking hunting in a pack, but when the two bowlers in question are taking so many wickets, I'd tend to consider it harder to strike so effectively. Any momentum you create by taking one batsmen can be used by other bowlers. Also, their percentage of top-to-mid batting order wickets taken is pretty much the same.

Frankly, I don't wish to argue with you about it as I've read some utter tosh from you about Lee and that's more than an indicator for me about how sensical it would be to debate it.

Yeah, I'm capable of offering an assessment of Lee that isn't blinded by being Australian, or something, well done me. Anyway, there are drawbacks and benefits to being part of a pack of quality bowlers (regardless of whether you yourself are quality or crap), and by-and-large these will cancel each-other out. There's little sense in arguing that someone would've done better\worse with better\worse fellow bowlers, AFAIC.

 

[Sir Alex]

Vaasy has the better allround record. Lee averaged above 40 against 3 test nations, above 30 vs 3 while Vaasy averaged above 40 vs only 1 team, and above 30 vs 4 teams

 

[Sir Alex]

Sure, but outside those wickets he actually did worse - he was better at home than anywhere else bar NZ. He was specialised for his home conditions and succeeded there. He was mediocre away from home.

Doesn't matter. if he managed to "convert" himself to an effective bowler in sri lankan conditions, which is much much much harder than bowling on Australian outbacks, then all the more credit to him, because Sri Lanka plays more than half of their matches in SL and they need such a bowler to make the first breakthroughs.

 

[Sir Alex]

Doesn't matter. if he managed to "convert" himself to an effective bowler in sri lankan conditions, which is much much much harder than bowling on Australian outbacks, then all the more credit to him, because Sri Lanka plays more than half of their matches in SL and they need such a bowler to make the first breakthroughs.

Lee had just 4 good seasons in his entire career. 2 were when he debuted and 2 during 2007-08 and 2008. Other than those he was utterly mediocre to poor.

 

[Sir Alex]

You're clutching at straws Ikki by glorifying the SRs when pretty much EVERY other stat is in Vaas's favor. And your bias couldn't be more exposed. Lee had pretty much everything in his favor, great fast bowler like McGrath to mentor, pitches that helped fast bowling, never really having to "bear the burden" of pace attack till the last few years etc. Vaasy never had all this, and pretty much for more than a decade, Sri Lankan bowling attack was just Vaas and Murali. He had to bear the burden from beginning itself, had to operate on the pace bowlers' nightmares, yet he somehow managed to end up with such good figures.

 

[Sir Alex]

edited

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, I'm capable of offering an assessment of Lee that isn't blinded by being Australian, or something, well done me.

Unfortunately, you can't give an assessment that isn't laden with Richard-esque non-sense so that counter acts that bias to nationality.

Vaasy has the better allround record. Lee averaged above 40 against 3 test nations, above 30 vs 3 while Vaasy averaged above 40 vs only 1 team, and above 30 vs 4 teams

Unfortunately for Lee, he couldn't play B/Z more often to improve his record .

Lee's record against 5 of the other 8 Test teams is more than good, ranging from low 30s to teens. Vaas has a decent record all-round average wise and doesn't fluctuate the way Lee's does but his wicket taking (his SR) is frankly mediocre. Lee, even if he averages high, is taking wickets at a very good clip.

As I've said before, the discrepancy between their SRs, especially home/away really put Lee ahead.

 

[Ikki]

Doesn't matter. if he managed to "convert" himself to an effective bowler in sri lankan conditions, which is much much much harder than bowling on Australian outbacks, then all the more credit to him, because Sri Lanka plays more than half of their matches in SL and they need such a bowler to make the first breakthroughs.

Er, what? If he could take wickets on pitches where it's harder to take them, he should be taking them on wickets which give more assistance. It's as simple as that. He didn't, therefore you can't pretend like he had it rough because when he had the opportunity to "cash in" he was pretty mediocre.

You're clutching at straws Ikki by glorifying the SRs when pretty much EVERY other stat is in Vaas's favor. And your bias couldn't be more exposed. Lee had pretty much everything in his favor, great fast bowler like McGrath to mentor, pitches that helped fast bowling, never really having to "bear the burden" of pace attack till the last few years etc. Vaasy never had all this, and pretty much for more than a decade, Sri Lankan bowling attack was just Vaas and Murali. He had to bear the burden from beginning itself, had to operate on the pace bowlers' nightmares, yet he somehow managed to end up with such good figures.

Every other stat is not in his favour. Even with the wicket-taking competition he had Lee still took proportionately more 4fers/5fers. They're close average-wise and while Vaas doesn't have the wild troughs like Lee he doesn't have his peaks either. But their SRs are from two completely different worlds. Vaas is 1 run on average better than Lee yet almost 13 balls slower per wicket.

 

[Sir Alex]

edited

 

[Sir Alex]

Unfortunately for Lee, he couldn't play B/Z more often to improve his record .

With an avg of 47 vs Ban (92 in Ban) and 37 vs Zimbabwe, Lee should be thanking his stars Australia didn't play them as often during his career.

Now it is not as if Vaasy averages 11 or 14 against these guys either, vs Ban he averages 26, vs Zim 28 which is pretty much "around" his career average.

So next "excuse" please.

Lee's record against 5 of the other 8 Test teams is more than good, ranging from low 30s to teens. Vaas has a decent record all-round average wise and doesn't fluctuate the way Lee's does but his wicket taking (his SR) is frankly pretty poor. Lee, even if he averages high, is taking wickets at a very good clip.

As I've said before, the discrepancy between their SRs, especially home/away really put Lee ahead.

BS. Please tell me how Lee's records are "more than good" against the 5 test teams??

You are clutching onto straws when the only thing you're hyping up for Lee is his superior SR

 

[Ikki]

With an avg of 47 vs Ban (92 in Ban) and 37 vs Zimbabwe, Lee should be thanking his stars Australia didn't play them as often during his career.

Yeah, he played Bang 4 times and Zimbabwe 2 times. I am sure that is indicative of how he would have went had he played them more .

Now it is not as if Vaasy averages 11 or 14 against these guys either, vs Ban he averages 26, vs Zim 28 which is pretty much "around" his career average.

So next "excuse" please.

You're counting the amount of Test sides that they average "well" against where Lee did, average wise, poorly against the two worst sides of his era...for the reason of him not playing more. Stop digressing.

BS. Please tell me how Lee's records are "more than good" against the 5 test teams??

You are clutching onto straws when the only thing you're hyping up for Lee is his superior SR

Country - Average, SR
India - 31.98, 57.1
NZ - 21.09, 37.7
Sri Lanka - 17.56, 35.5
WIndies - 23.00, 42.2
S.Africa - 34.64, 62.4

Do you guys even look at the records before pressing post or what?

 

[Richard]

Unfortunately, you can't give an assessment that isn't laden with Richard-esque non-sense so that counter acts that bias to nationality.

Nah, there's not even such thing as "Richard-esque non-sense" (and you still can't write nonsense properly), it's just a concept you like to use to write-off anything at your whim. Anyway, hopefully you'll get pulled-up on it again sometime soon with the recent clampdown.

 

[Uppercut]

Nah, there's not even such thing as "Richard-esque non-sense" (and you still can't write nonsense properly)

@ Richard calling out someone's incorrect overuse of hyphens.

 

[Richard]

I use hyphens to join two connected words together (beaten-up, worked-out), not to separate two parts of a word. "Non-sense" is like "ty-phoon" (to pick one completely random example).

 

[GIMH]

It's not the same really, though, because there is logic between hyphenating the middle of nonsense.

I saw you hyphenate write-off before, but in verb form. I couldn't care less but if you're going to bring up people's use of language then you should probably be a bit more careful with these things, just leaving yourself open really.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yeah, he played Bang 4 times and Zimbabwe 2 times. I am sure that is indicative of how he would have went had he played them more .



You're counting the amount of Test sides that they average "well" against where Lee did, average wise, poorly against the two worst sides of his era...for the reason of him not playing more. Stop digressing.



Country - Average, SR
India - 31.98, 57.1
NZ - 21.09, 37.7
Sri Lanka - 17.56, 35.5
WIndies - 23.00, 42.2
S.Africa - 34.64, 62.4

Do you guys even look at the records before pressing post or what?

I decided to end this argument the moment you started qualifying averages of 32 and 35 as "more than good record".

 

[Richard]

It's not the same really, though, because there is logic between hyphenating the middle of nonsense.

Is there? What possible logic is there in splitting-up (see?) one word into two then hyphenating them?

I saw you hyphenate write-off before, but in verb form.

A write-off and to write it off is the same thing though - well, it can be, at least, there are actually a couple of things which can be meant by "a write-off", but one of them is the noun form of write-off (verb).