Good/Great bowlers that owned good/great batsman...

[vcs]

YouTube - Sachin LBW controversy

Yep, have always thought it looked out. Ball was on the way down if anything IMO.

Yeah, that one looks out. You have to say he was very unlucky with the bounce though.

 

[Sir Alex]

Martyn and Strauss from memory only got 3 each, may even have just been 2 in the former. Granted, though, 3 bad decisions in ~10 innings' is extreme misfortune. IIRR, Tendulkar got 1, maybe 2 at best, bad decisions in the 2007 Test series in England - it's just that 1 was so awful it stands-out like a thumb and some people over-emphasise it.

Well 2 out of 6 makes it even worse than 3 in 10 isn't it?

And I don't think anyone is "over-emphasising" that by asking for those innings to be "expunged" from his record or something like that.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, that one looks out. You have to say he was very unlucky with the bounce though.

Being unlucky with uneven bounce and being unlucky with an Umpiring decision aren't the same thing though are they? Tendulkar was no more unlucky there than, for instance, Nasser Hussain was when the ball from Carl Hooper crept along the carpet at Bourda in 1998 or Mark Richardson when Hoggard got one to spit and hit his glove off a relatively full length at Headingley in 2004.

Getting a RUD is part of life as a batsman; bad Umpiring decisions are something which everyone has a right to hope will be avoided.

 

[Richard]

Well 2 out of 6 makes it even worse than 3 in 10 isn't it?

If he'd gotten 2 then it might be, but as I say, to my knowledge he got 1.

And I don't think anyone is "over-emphasising" that by asking for those innings to be "expunged" from his record or something like that.

No-one's asking anything of the sort - they're just talking of instances where batsmen got unusual amounts of bad luck in a series. Often when something is a crazily bad decision it gets treated as if it was more than one bad decision. Two marginally-wrong calls against you is twice the amount of bad luck as one outrageously wrong call against you.

 

[Sir Alex]

If he'd gotten 2 then it might be, but as I say, to my knowledge he got 1.

No-one's asking anything of the sort - they're just talking of instances where batsmen got unusual amounts of bad luck in a series. Often when something is a crazily bad decision it gets treated as if it was more than one bad decision. Two marginally-wrong calls against you is twice the amount of bad luck as one outrageously wrong call against you.

Lol ok ok.

 

[Burgey]

lol.. sorry about bursting your bubble mate, but McGrath's hattrick was on the same tour when Lara got the 182 at Adelaide...


If you are taking about the 2005 tour, you are totally wrong coz Lara looked every inch the greatest batsman of the generation then... (I know the call is debatable, but he was bloody good and was basically robbed by the umps 3 times and by a couple of awesome catches).

Burgey, I'd love to have the Player vs Player stats for McGrath vs Lara tussles. If those were similar to what happened incase of Ishant vs Ponting, I'll be happy to plead the loudmouth Australian's case. (McGrath to avoid confustion )

The difference also lies in the fact that Ponting never really "dominated" Ishant like Lara did for how small a period... As I showed above, every single dismissal by Ishanth came by him getting on top of Ponting, (and not because Ponting tried something aggressive). Ishanth really never was put under any sort of pressure in the 7 matches they played against each other, but Ishanth was able to put Ponting under heavy duress for atleast 6-7 times.

I think we're at cross-purposes here. What I'm trying to say, albeit it was via my phone last night before I went to bed so it may not have come across so well, is that each of the bowlers in these two examples have had success against the batsmen a lot, and in each case the batsmen have scored runs in other games where the bowlers have been playing.

I don't think in either case the bowler has owned the batsman like McGrath did with Atherton. McGrath played vs Lara a fair few times, Sharma against Ponting less so. But each of the combatants have had their moments, I'd say, against the other. Were you to use the example of Harbhajan Singh vs Ponting, I would agree whole heartedly with you.

See if McGrath gets Lara out, but Lara's made a 50 or a ton, he can't have owned him in that game. Likewise, if Ponting scores a 50 or a ton in a game and Sharma gets him, how can you say he's been owned by him in that game? Suppose it depends on how one defines it - when Lara made either his 150 or 200 in that famous 99 series, I seem to recall coment being made to the effect he scored very few runs off McGrath in that innings (it may have been another time I can't be ****ed looking it up). But just because he's played him circumspectly and not scored many runs off him does not mean the bowler's won the day - he can't have.

And such an example also doesn't mean that Sharma has a poor record against Ponting, or McGrath a poor one vs Lara though.

Reading this back, it's probably no clearer than what I wrote last night anyway, but I've done my best

Should also say Sir Alex's comment regarding McGrath perhaps illustrates why he's so keen to differentiate in a way that belittles McGrath's record, as opposed to Sharma's in this instance.

 

[Richard]

Just to note there were at least a couple of Lara innings' where he scored something massive after an early let-off off McGrath's bowling. The most notorious being the 213 he got in 1999 after Mark Waugh, of all people, put him down at slip.

 

[Burgey]

Maybe, but that's hardly his fault I suppose (not that you're saying it was).

This, which was posted in the "Interesting match ups" thread by Zinzan today, is helpful in bringing back some memories in relation to this aspect of the game. It covers all forms of the game, not just tests.

Records | Combined Test, ODI and T20I records | Bowling records | Bowler/batsman combinations | Cricinfo.com

 

[honestbharani]

I think we're at cross-purposes here. What I'm trying to say, albeit it was via my phone last night before I went to bed so it may not have come across so well, is that each of the bowlers in these two examples have had success against the batsmen a lot, and in each case the batsmen have scored runs in other games where the bowlers have been playing.

I don't think in either case the bowler has owned the batsman like McGrath did with Atherton. McGrath played vs Lara a fair few times, Sharma against Ponting less so. But each of the combatants have had their moments, I'd say, against the other. Were you to use the example of Harbhajan Singh vs Ponting, I would agree whole heartedly with you.

See if McGrath gets Lara out, but Lara's made a 50 or a ton, he can't have owned him in that game. Likewise, if Ponting scores a 50 or a ton in a game and Sharma gets him, how can you say he's been owned by him in that game? Suppose it depends on how one defines it - when Lara made either his 150 or 200 in that famous 99 series, I seem to recall coment being made to the effect he scored very few runs off McGrath in that innings (it may have been another time I can't be ****ed looking it up). But just because he's played him circumspectly and not scored many runs off him does not mean the bowler's won the day - he can't have.

And such an example also doesn't mean that Sharma has a poor record against Ponting, or McGrath a poor one vs Lara though.

Reading this back, it's probably no clearer than what I wrote last night anyway, but I've done my best

Should also say Sir Alex's comment regarding McGrath perhaps illustrates why he's so keen to differentiate in a way that belittles McGrath's record, as opposed to Sharma's in this instance.

fair enough.. and for the record, I don't think Sharma "owned" Ponting... He just got the better of him on a few occassions. Fully expect Ponting to wallop Sharma if they played a test any time this year..

 

[Cevno]

Ponting averages 44 in matches against Ishant, Tendulkar averages 36 against McGrath IIRC. You seemed to miss that important stat.

You can get a player out 10 times in 10 innings but if he is scoring enough runs then it's hardly dominating him is it?

Batting records | Combined Test, ODI and T20I records | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Ponting averages 42.40 in all matches involving Ishant and 43.91 in tests involving Ishant.

Batting records | Combined Test, ODI and T20I records | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Tendulkar averages 36.33 in all matches involving Mcgrath and 36.77 in Tests involving Mcgrath.

It is a only difference of about 4 to 6 runs per innings and over this sample size ,that is hardly a difference.
And when u take into account the fact that these runs were scored against the whole bowling attack and not just the a particular bowler, there is no difference at all as Ponting and Mcgrath always had a stronger bowling attack supporting him than Ishant did.

And that is not taking into account the fact that pontings average here is based on hundreds on two flat tracks where matches were drawn and the fact that matches involving Sachin and Mcgrath are generally low scoring by a margin than those involving Ponting and Ishant.


Ponting averages 20 in 4 matches which were not drawn against Ishant in tests ,while Sachin averages 36.77 in 9 matches(all of them) which were not drawn agaisnt Mcgrath.

 

[Ikki]

Batting records | Combined Test, ODI and T20I records | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Ponting averages 42.40 in all matches involving Ishant and 43.91 in tests involving Ishant.

Batting records | Combined Test, ODI and T20I records | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Tendulkar averages 36.33 in all matches involving Mcgrath and 36.77 in Tests involving Mcgrath.

It is a only difference of about 4 to 6 runs per innings and over this sample size ,that is hardly a difference.
And when u take into account the fact that these runs were scored against the whole bowling attack and not just the a particular bowler, there is no difference at all as Ponting and Mcgrath always had a stronger bowling attack supporting him than Ishant did.

And that is not taking into account the fact that pontings average here is based on hundreds on two flat tracks where matches were drawn and the fact that matches involving Sachin and Mcgrath are generally low scoring by a margin than those involving Ponting and Ishant.


Ponting averages 20 in 4 matches which were not drawn against Ishant in tests ,while Sachin averages 36.77 in 9 matches(all of them) which were not drawn agaisnt Mcgrath.

I am sorry, but that's quite a big difference actually. Especially considering the combined format stats. And the difference is not 4 to 6 but 6 to 7 runs on average. And the sample for Tendulkar vs McGrath is almost twice as many matches as Ponting vs Ishant.

One is averaging in the 40s vs a bowler which is perfectly acceptable, and the other in the 30s, which is not, especially for a batsman of Tendulkar's caliber.

 

[Burgey]

I am sorry, but that's quite a big difference actually. Especially considering the combined format stats. And the difference is not 4 to 6 but 6 to 7 runs on average. And the sample for Tendulkar vs McGrath is almost twice as many matches as Ponting vs Ishant.

One is averaging in the 40s vs a bowler which is perfectly acceptable, and the other in the 30s, which is not, especially for a batsman of Tendulkar's caliber.

Yeah but mate, let's get fair dinkum. The difference in quality between McGrath and the bowlers who supported him, compared with Sharma and his support crew is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the difference between Tendulkar and Ponting.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah but mate, let's get fair dinkum. The difference in quality between McGrath and the bowlers who supported him, compared with Sharma and his support crew is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the difference between Tendulkar and Ponting.

Since Tendulkar routed Warne I'd say the difference is a bit less than that, but yeh that's a valid point. Sharma has a knack of getting Ponting out early, but my position is pretty much the same as yours in this post.

 

[Top_Cat]

Personally reckon the stats will be evened-out next time Ponting and Sharma play. Sharma faced Ponting bowling really well and a bit of an unknown quantity at the same time Ponting was really out of sorts (and maybe injured).

Mind you, I still rate Sharma as potentially a great quick so could be wrong. Would have been interesting to see how he went when Ponting was tearing it up early last decade.

 

[satyam]

I am sorry, but that's quite a big difference actually. Especially considering the combined format stats. And the difference is not 4 to 6 but 6 to 7 runs on average. And the sample for Tendulkar vs McGrath is almost twice as many matches as Ponting vs Ishant.

One is averaging in the 40s vs a bowler which is perfectly acceptable, and the other in the 30s, which is not, especially for a batsman of Tendulkar's caliber.

Stop putting garbage. Mcgrath never owned sachin.

IN 2000 when India toured Australia , Tendulkar was man of the series.Then how did he own sachin.

In 2001 when Australia toured India, Tendulkar had a average of 50 in the series ,this is not called owning.

Now the other 3 test when Sachin faced Mcgrath, one was at delhi. And look at scorecard.
When Mcgrath dismissed sachin, India needed only 30 runs to win
Only Test: India v Australia at Delhi, Oct 10-13, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

And the rest 2 test were in 2004, when tendulkar came out of injury and even in one of those he scored 51 on minefield of Mumbai.

On the other hand i would like you to answer me why did Mcgrath miss 2004 test series in Aus and 1998 test series in Ind. If he was injured then so was sachin in 2004. But he still played.

 

[bagapath]

i strongly believe that dropped catches, bad decisions and injuries can never be used as excuses to coverup/undermine a player's record. If a cricketer is in the playing XI then he is considered fully ready to represent his team. What a batsman does on the field until the umpire lifts his finger is what matters. in the course of a cricketer's career all these get evened out. you cannot factor in intagibles like dropped catches (which one is a "catchable" chance?), or bad decisions or injuries (how about greenidge scoring a double standing on one leg or dean jones throwing up his way to a 210? Are they worth more than what they are?) while using statistics to determine the success/failure of someone who has played cricket for years.

my opinion on specific debates going on in this thread:

mcgrath did not own sachin. sachin was not as dominant against him as he would be against others; but that is not a surprise. mcgrath is as great a bowler as sachin is a great batsman. mcgrath would fancy his chances against sachin but so would sachin. it all would boil down to who finds the extra gear on that day. "owning" is something else. that would be the cullinan/warne story when the batter is paralyzed by the bowler. when it is a no hope situation for him when a particular bowler has the ball in hand. for sachin, his biggest nemesis must have been pollock. never seen him dominate shaun they way he had hit mcgrath or akram or waqar or akhthar on certain occasions.

ishant has had great success against ponting. but it is similar to what solkar had against boycott. i expect ricky to knock ishant out of the team the next time they meet in a series; for class is permanent, in the case of ricky. but mediocrity is also permament, in ishant's case.

 

[satyam]

List of ODI matches in which Tendulkar forced Captain to take Mcgrath out of attack.

1. After bowling 3 consecutive maidens to Ajay jadeja and Vinod Kambli in the WC of 1996, Mcgrath bowled to Sachin for first time in his 4th over and the result was 28 runs in next 2 overs that included 5 fours 1 six and a double in 12 balls.
19th Match: India v Australia at Mumbai, Feb 27, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

YouTube - Sachin 1996 World Cup

And yes it was another choke from India against Aus. Take out tendulkar win against India.

2.Mcgrath had gone for 30 runs in first 4 overs . When Tendulkar got out then he returned with a spell for 6 overs 22 runs.
9th Match: India v Australia at Mohali, Nov 3, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

3.22 runs of 10 balls of Mcgrath.

1st ODI: India v Australia at Bangalore, Mar 25, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
YouTube - Sachin Tendulkar Vs Glenn McGrath

4. Tendulkar virtually manhandled Mcgrath and destroyed him completely. 40 RUNS of 3 overs
4th ODI: India v Australia at Visakhapatnam, Apr 3, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

5.Another assault on Mcgrath

3rd ODI: India v Australia at Indore, Mar 31, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

6.3 sixes and 2 fours of Mcgrath bowling.
1st QF: Australia v India at Nairobi (Gym), Oct 7, 2000 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

YouTube - Tendulkar FOs Mcgrath.wmv

7. 5 fours on Mcgrath

5th Match: Australia v India at Dunedin, Feb 22, 1995 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

I hope Aussie poster also show me when Ishant sharma was destroyed by Punter and taken out of bowling attack.

 

[Sir Alex]

In ODIs as far as I remember it was perfectly even stevens between Tendulkar and McGrath

 

[Sir Alex]

mcgrath did not own sachin. sachin was not as dominant against him as he would be against others; but that is not a surprise. mcgrath is as great a bowler as sachin is a great batsman. mcgrath would fancy his chances against sachin but so would sachin. it all would boil down to who finds the extra gear on that day. "owning" is something else. that would be the cullinan/warne story when the batter is paralyzed by the bowler. when it is a no hope situation for him when a particular bowler has the ball in hand. for sachin, his biggest nemesis must have been pollock. never seen him dominate shaun they way he had hit mcgrath or akram or waqar or akhthar on certain occasions.

Yep, if any bowler can be termed to have "owned" Tendulkar, it is only the great Shaun Pollock.

 

[satyam]

Yep, if any bowler can be termed to have "owned" Tendulkar, it is only the great Shaun Pollock.

I agree on this. Pollock troubled tendulkar. But saying that Mcgrath owned tendulkar is outrageous.