• 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.

*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

Migara

International Coach
Depends - would he be allowed to wear a helmet and chest protector? And would the Windies be allowed to set the Bodyline field?
I thought that Windies pace quartet was the best and even better than a bodyline attack. Marshall, Walash and Ambrose or Roberts, Holding, Croft and Garner, in the same attack looks better than a body line IMO. But according to JBMAC it looks as Windies pace quartet is a piece of cake compared to body line.
 
Last edited:

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Bodyline isn't really about the bowlers, the aspect that separates it from being "intimdatory bowling" is the fields. It absolutely restricted the players' scoring zones an enormous amount.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I thought that Windies pace quartet was the best and even better than a bodyline attack. Marshall, Walash and Ambrose or Roberts, Holding, Croft and Garner, in the same attack looks better than a body line IMO. But according to JBMAC it looks as Windies pace quartet is a piece of cake compared to body line.
Not really.. Whatever qualities the Windies quartet may have had, their best bet was that they always bowled the good wicket taking ball in between the short barrage.. And the fact that Bradman would not have to:

A. Think of his personal welfare (with helmets and better protection)
B. Not have to deal with a plethora of catchers behind the wicket on the leg side


means he is more than likely to do MUCH better than he did at Bodyline especially because the wicket taking deliveries of the quartet would still be on the lines and lengths that he smashed to all parts of the ground throughout his career...
 

Migara

International Coach
What exactly suggest you that they coudn't do a "limited" bodyline on him?

As I have heard, in the bodyline series, it was other bastmen who fell to leg trap, not Bradman. Bradman got out to orthadox deliveries. If it is the case the point will still stand.

EDIT: most of the batsmen played WI quartet without helmets.
 
Last edited:

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
What exactly suggest you that they coudn't do a "limited" bodyline on him?

As I have heard, in the bodyline series, it was other bastmen who fell to leg trap, not Bradman. Bradman got out to orthadox deliveries. If it is the case the point will still stand.

EDIT: most of the batsmen played WI quartet without helmets.
Wasn't that because Bradman backed away to the left and tried to hit them over the off side?
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
It would have been interesting to see the development of the "ramp over slips" shot (a la Tendulkar, Gilchrist, Sehwag and Lehmann to a lesser extent) if bodyline had remained for 10-20 years. Probably the most effective way of dealing with it.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
It would have been interesting to see the development of the "ramp over slips" shot (a la Tendulkar, Gilchrist, Sehwag and Lehmann to a lesser extent) if bodyline had remained for 10-20 years. Probably the most effective way of dealing with it.
Would have been so dangerous though
 

Migara

International Coach
Wasn't that because Bradman backed away to the left and tried to hit them over the off side?
Iam not that sure. But there was a fair number of lbws too. I am not entirely educated about Bradman's mode of dismissals in bodyline series. Somebody may enlighten us?
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
What exactly suggest you that they coudn't do a "limited" bodyline on him?

As I have heard, in the bodyline series, it was other bastmen who fell to leg trap, not Bradman. Bradman got out to orthadox deliveries. If it is the case the point will still stand.

EDIT: most of the batsmen played WI quartet without helmets.
If it is a "limited" bodyline, he would still average above 60, won't he?????? :)
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
Iam not that sure. But there was a fair number of lbws too. I am not entirely educated about Bradman's mode of dismissals in bodyline series. Somebody may enlighten us?
AFAIK, Bradman being a freak, developed the technique of moving rapidly to the left, giving himself space to hit. This resulted in larwood and co. trying to surprise Bradman by bowling yorkers while he was away from the wicket expecting a short 'un. Will explain if there are a number of lbws and bowled.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Absolute rubbish to call Laxman a FTB!What is this place coming to?
Problem with calling Jayawardene a FTB is that he has not had many opportunities away from home.Sanga is certainly no FTB!!!
KP doesn't even average 50 in this supposedly easy era.His record is crap in the SC.But that is ok,lets make excuses and bs to gloss over that.
The problem with some people is that they try and put past players on a pedestal just to sound knowledgeable and impressive.
I never called Laxman & Jaya FTBs. I said i dont believe they would be 50+ average batsmen in past difficult batting era. But rather 40+.

Funny how the flat track theory doesn't work in reverse-Steyn and Asif>all bowlers of the 80s?
No. All of those bowlers had unique skills to to bowl on flat pitches too & if they had to bowl on the roads of the last 10 years, allthe likes of Marshall, Donald, Akram, Hadlee would have done just as well.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
I just missed Kallis, Ponting, Border and Steve Waugh as well. Will average 50 in any era.
Agreed. But why mention Border, he didn't play in the 2000s?.

Plus Waugh is basically a 90s baby as well.

These players are big home track bullies. They'll bully even the best on their home tracks. But all of them are average on foreign soils. (Note that SL tracks are not flat by any means, so Jayawardane and Samaraweera are HTBs, not FTBs). Hayden, Smith, Clarke, Laxman and Chanderpaul I reserve my judgment of them being HTBs. I think they'll average high 40s even against the best of attacks, because they are technically accomplished players although they are unorthodox.
Agreed, have always said this about those players.


BTW how are SL tracks not flat?.

Yes they were and it was by bowling umpteen number of bouncers and at a snail paced over rate. Get the over rare up to 15 and cut the bouncers and put them on flat tracks today, they'll be in for much more work than they used to do. Indian pitches of 80s and 90s were frankly bad for batting because of variable bounce, and that was the exact thing that WIndies bowlers extracted. Calling these decks flat is speculative. They were supremely fit, but still even fitness geeks of this era do break down due to the work load.

Nah it wasn't the bouncers that forced the game to moev @ a snails pace really, although it played a part. It was in general back then urgency to get through overs for all nations was lacking.

The only extra work they would be into is that given in the 90s & 2000s. India had their best combination of batsmen in history in Tendy/Dravid/Laxman/Ganguly/Azhar. Compared to what the IND batsmen they bowled to in the 80s & 70s, they would have to war harder for wickets. But if Donald/Pollock & McGrath/Dizzy/Kasper, Steyn/Morkel/Ntini, Hoggard/Flintoff had owned them & won/drew series in India. I see no reason why Marshall/Holding/Garner/Roberts etc couldn't do the same if they had to bowl to them.



How has indian pitches of the 80s & 90s any different to what it has been in the 2000s era?. Nothing has changed expect for one & two English style greentops have popped up now & again this decade. But the trend with Indian pitches remains the same for probably the last 40 years. They start flat, bounce uneven & they deteriorate come the 4th & 5th days & the spinners come into play.

Just to use my knowledge i saw no difference with the Indian pitches when AUS toured India in 1998 to 2001, 04, 08 & 2010.

Yea they could break down & get injured given the amount of cricket played not. But none of them hard any troubling actions like a Waqar, Flintoff, Bond, Schultz, Akhtar that would cause them to be in & out of cricket regularly. Action of Marshall & co where fairly simple like McGrath, Donald whose bodies lasted in modern times.
 

JBH001

International Regular
You expect Bradman to average more than the bodyline series against the Windies pace quartet?

I assume then Larwood was ****. or Bodyline was an exaggeration.
IIRC Bradman averaged 57 in that series achieved, mainly, by backing away to leg and using the off-side.

I don't know if the wickets were all that sporting though, given that it was the 30's probably not.

Just fast and direct bowling by H Larwood at his peak.
 

JBMAC

State Captain
No need to make it personal, JBMAC.
I'll apologise for the remark. It was not meant to be personal. Just sticks in my craw when some of these young fellows, admittedly in a minority, disparage things because they can read a stats book and not having seen it, draw some unsubstantiated conclusions. There was NO personal slight or offense intended.:)
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Surely you can't blame under-rating Bradman based on an over-reliance on statistics, given what his statistics are actually like. If anything it's the opposite - an over-reliance on assumptions, biases and personal experiences.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Murali probably; at least he turns it towards leg.

Shane Warne did have a wicked surprise bouncer though.
Wasn't being all that serious, tbh. Just interesting how a thread on two of the best slow bowlers ever has devolved into a 'discussion' on the relative merits of long-gone fast bowlers and a type of field only really useful to them.
 

Migara

International Coach
BTW how are SL tracks not flat?.
If you have been watching cricket in SL you'll realize. SL has one of the lowest batting averages in 2000s, after NZ IIRC. There's always spin, some times the ball boomerangs as well due to humidity. Apart from SSC, there are no flat tracks in SL.


Nah it wasn't the bouncers that forced the game to moev @ a snails pace really, although it played a part. It was in general back then urgency to get through overs for all nations was lacking.
What ever the cause the over rates by then was poor. It was poor not due to laziness, but it proved a purpose for them. When the batsmen were going well their overrate dropped even more.

The only extra work they would be into is that given in the 90s & 2000s. India had their best combination of batsmen in history in Tendy/Dravid/Laxman/Ganguly/Azhar. Compared to what the IND batsmen they bowled to in the 80s & 70s, they would have to war harder for wickets. But if Donald/Pollock & McGrath/Dizzy/Kasper, Steyn/Morkel/Ntini, Hoggard/Flintoff had owned them & won/drew series in India. I see no reason why Marshall/Holding/Garner/Roberts etc couldn't do the same if they had to bowl to them.
I do agree with you that they can own Indian line up once in a while. But we have seen the same Indian line up owning great fast bowling attacks too. So it's a two way exercise.

How has indian pitches of the 80s & 90s any different to what it has been in the 2000s era?. Nothing has changed expect for one & two English style greentops have popped up now & again this decade. But the trend with Indian pitches remains the same for probably the last 40 years. They start flat, bounce uneven & they deteriorate come the 4th & 5th days & the spinners come into play.
Once again you have not watched cricket in SC. Indian pitches of 80s and 90s spun from Day 1, and became dusty minefields by day 4. Current tracks are umpteen times flatter than them. FFS, Raju, Chauhan, Kumble and Harbhajan etc averaged 20 - 23 on those tracks, because the bounce was unpredictable. Indian fans here will tell you that Indian pitches has lost their "dustbowl" status, and that is taking a heavy toll on their spinners.

Just to use my knowledge i saw no difference with the Indian pitches when AUS toured India in 1998 to 2001, 04, 08 & 2010.
Was it? Can you remember Ponting beaten on the pull by Kumble on th 3rd day dur to low bounce?

Yea they could break down & get injured given the amount of cricket played not. But none of them hard any troubling actions like a Waqar, Flintoff, Bond, Schultz, Akhtar that would cause them to be in & out of cricket regularly. Action of Marshall & co where fairly simple like McGrath, Donald whose bodies lasted in modern times.
That is one positive point I agree on Marshall, Roberts, Ambrose, Garner and Holding. Walsh had an awfully chest action, but did not break down. Ian Bishop broke down very early. But bowlers like Patterson and Croft won't last long with their unorthodox actions.
 

Top