England can beat India "every day of week": Gough

[Prince EWS]

Cook is amazing - I've said this since he debuted - I'm a huge fan.

Martyn (Ashes Retained): What is sehwags test average?
Pepper: 54 point something
Martyn (Ashes Retained): Right well I think cook is better because its harder to bat in england so 46>>>54
Pepper: Haha post it!
Martyn (Ashes Retained): SS will just tell me he loves cook

 

[GIMH]

Cook is amazing - I've said this since he debuted - I'm a huge fan. People here can attest - I've even said I like him more than Pietersen.



If Cook's average was as high as Sehwag and his S/R as well, he'd certainly be better (Zaheer's average and S/R are the same or slightly better than Anderson this year).

I knew you'd say that!

Look, I'm not going to discuss it any further, as I said. Ill leave you a final thought, though. People often laugh at England because we haven't had a 50 plus batsman in years. And rightly so. But why don't people make allowances like they do for Indian bowlers? THAT is a double standard. Nothing I have said has been because I personally have never detracted from Indian batsmen.

 

[smash84]

And then every match at home for every country would result in a home win cause they'd all prepare roads but somehow the home bowlers would be averaging 22 while the opposition 40....

So ? How does it matter if it stands out more than Ponting's ? If the Australian batsmen in Ponting's team have made better use of their conditions than the South Africans have made use of theirs then that isn't Ponting's fault. Dale Steyn is comfortably the best fast bowler in the world today; that doesn't automatically mean he is better than Malcom Marshall just because Marshall didn't stand out among his peers.

That argument has absolutely zero relevance anyway. Try reading what Imran Khan and the likes have to say about bowling in the sub-continent. It is a nightmare for fast bowlers, an absolute nightmare. Just because the bowler themselves do well there, it doesn't automatically make it easier to bowl well on them. Bowling on ultra flat pitches in 40 degrees celsius is a lot harder than bowling on lively pitches, in chilly, breezy conditions.

Yeah I don't find it a pretty convincing argument that there is no such thing as bowling well on flat pitches. Why then are there much higher average scores on sub-continental pitches than in other areas???? Why then do great bowlers like Dennis Lillee refuse to visit the SC after a few tests??? Imran is damn right when he says that fast bowling in the SC is a tough job. It is back breaking work and becomes much tougher when you bend your back and the ball barely rises above waist heght.

 

[silentstriker]

Look, I'm not going to discuss it any further, as I said. Ill leave you a final thought, though. People often laugh at England because we haven't had a 50 plus batsman in years. And rightly so. But why don't people make allowances like they do for Indian bowlers? THAT is a double standard. Nothing I have said has been because I personally have never detracted from Indian batsmen.

Wait what?


People don't laugh at Indian bowlers?

And I don't know who doesn't, but if there is a couple points between a batsmen, I certainly take into huge account where they played. Of course. Most people do.


Re: Cook,

Hey I haven't hidden the fact that I rate Cook very very highly. I've said it since he debuted.


We're not talking about Zaheer averaging 28 in India and that being better than Anderson's 22 in England. We're talking about a fast bowler doing as well or better in India than his counterpart in England. If that's not worth more to you, well that's up to you. I rate batsmen higher if they bat in Durban and get a century compared to a flat Chennai.

If you want to be give some mythical pass to bowlers because they do better on fast bowler's graveyards because it happens to be in the same geography as they're born - well that's up to you and I'll leave it with saying that Zaheer sucked in those same pitches until he learned to become Test class in England. If anything, pitches in England are his "home".

 

[Jarquis]

Even if you break series' into smaller parts, which I think is unfair, There is a clear statistical difference in quality in Zaheer's performance against Oz and SA even if you disregard the fact that Zaheer's bowling in ridiculously flat pitches.

As to the Name one bowler thing, It's pretty ridiculous to suggest that the pitches Jimmeh had to bowl on in Oz were harder to bowl on than the pitches Zaheer had to bowl on against Oz. There are a few bowlers who have performed close to how Anderson have performed and one who has outperformed him. Zaheer averaged 10+ runs lower than anyone who played the 2 games.

Yeah, Jimmeh should definitely suffer for being part of a better attack

 

[smash84]

I knew you'd say that!

Look, I'm not going to discuss it any further, as I said. Ill leave you a final thought, though. People often laugh at England because we haven't had a 50 plus batsman in years. And rightly so. But why don't people make allowances like they do for Indian bowlers? THAT is a double standard. Nothing I have said has been because I personally have never detracted from Indian batsmen.

And England have rarely had a below 25 bowler in the last 50 years too. Trueman was one of them I think. Any others????

 

[GIMH]

The quote from EWS in Uppercut's signature I think basically applies. That's how I see it.

And people laugh at Indian bowlers because they're crap - it's mainly you who does it

 

[silentstriker]

The quote from EWS in Uppercut's signature I think basically applies. That's how I see it.

And people laugh at Indian bowlers because they're crap - it's mainly you who does it

And rightly so, but when they're not, I say that too.

Other people, for some reason, think that averaging 21 in India as a fast bowler is about the same as averaging 21 in England. That is as ludicrous as claiming that getting a triple in that Test in Chennai is the same as if he had gotten a triple this past Test in Durban. it's completely illogical and smacks of total unfairness.

 

[silentstriker]

Looking at an example, if you are averaging 22 when teams are being bundled out for 220, it's nice. When you average 22 when 500+ scores are common, I will never ever understand why that doesn't get more credit.

 

[silentstriker]

^

I am not claiming england produces 220 pitches, I am simply saying conditions matter in rating of player's innings and stats.

 

[Blaze 18]

Yeah I don't find it a pretty convincing argument that there is no such thing as bowling well on flat pitches. Why then are there much higher average scores on sub-continental pitches than in other areas???? Why then do great bowlers like Dennis Lillee refuse to visit the SC after a few tests??? Imran is damn right when he says that fast bowling in the SC is a tough job. It is back breaking work and becomes much tougher when you bend your back and the ball barely rises above waist heght.

Exactly.

 

[Blaze 18]

Just to clarify, I am not calling James Anderson a "green wicket bully" (I saw that term being used somewhere on this site) or whatever. I think Zaheer and Anderson are both very much comparable as bowlers. I rate Zaheer very slightly ahead (feel free to count for bias). All I want to point out is, Zaheer does generally have harder conditions to deal with and that should be acknowledged. Just because he was born and brought up in those conditions doesn't make it any easier.

 

[Uppercut]

Zaheer is about half the bowler Anderson is because he's round about as good when he plays and is fit roughly half the time.

 

[Prince EWS]

Zaheer is about half the bowler Anderson is because he's round about as good when he plays and is fit roughly half the time.

I've said this so many times, but no-one ever replies. There are no logical arguments against it. You can call Zaheer a better bowler if you like but there's no team in the world that would benefit more from Zaheer than Anderson, because Anderson's actually available for every game.

 

[smash84]

I've said this so many times, but no-one ever replies. There are no logical arguments against it. You can call Zaheer a better bowler if you like but there's no team in the world that would benefit more from Zaheer than Anderson, because Anderson's actually available for every game.

That is a valid point. Zaheer is having real fitness problems. He is beginning to remind me of Shoaib Akhtar's fitness problems (well that is the extreme case but he seems to have the potential to get into that league). But skill wise I am not sure I would rate Jimmy higher than Zak.

 

[vic_orthdox]

There's a difference between being quality in your own conditions, and ridiculously good. In recent times, Zaheer has been much closer to being ridiculously good in his own conditions, that being "quality". I think that some in this thread are writing that off.

If a team I picked went over to India and averaged 28-30, I'd probably bite that off. Zaheer averages 21 since the beginning of 2007.

 

[Uppercut]

I just don't get how you can exclude fitness altogether, bowling well as often as Zak does is just so much easier than bowling well as often as Jimmeh does. Look at the prolonged spell he bowled first up on Boxing Day at the MCG, playing his fourth test in the space of a month having also just flown across the world and back to see his first son born. You can't just arbitrarily decide not take that kind of thing into account, finding an action that you can repeat for long periods of time without breaking down is too big a part of top-class fast bowling to pretend differences in fitness don't exist.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I've said this so many times, but no-one ever replies. There are no logical arguments against it. You can call Zaheer a better bowler if you like but there's no team in the world that would benefit more from Zaheer than Anderson, because Anderson's actually available for every game.

Thats about as close an admission in favour of longevity as you're going to get from PEWS, folks.

 

[vcs]

This is such a boring debate. Zaheer and Anderson are very close and have barely had one year of sustained, top-quality numbers. What's the point of comparing them right now?

 

[silentstriker]

There's a difference between being quality in your own conditions, and ridiculously good. In recent times, Zaheer has been much closer to being ridiculously good in his own conditions, that being "quality". I think that some in this thread are writing that off.

If a team I picked went over to India and averaged 28-30, I'd probably bite that off. Zaheer averages 21 since the beginning of 2007.

Yea, exactly.