Cook Vs the WI quartet of the 80s

[TumTum]

The Warne example. Warne was taking wickets without a googly and Asif was taking it without the bouncer.

Also what you say regarding Asif might actually be true of all medium fast bowlers (Watto being an exception). Medium fast bowlers are not supposed to be digging it in short. The ball just sits up for them and is ready to be hit.

So Asif doesn't need the bouncer so it is not really a weakness. I hope you get my point now.

Your point is using the false assumption that Asif is just as good on flat pitches.

 

[smash84]

Your point is using the false assumption that Asif is just as good on flat pitches.

Your argument is based on the false premise that flat pitches are bad for all bowlers but especially for Asif???

Would you mind telling us if Asif has a unicorn horn stuck up his ass or something that he is more ineffective on flatter pitches than other medium fast bowlers????

 

[TumTum]

Your argument is based on the false premise that flat pitches are bad for all bowlers but especially for Asif???

Yeah because other bowlers have the ability to mix up their lengths. Simple.

 

[smash84]

Yeah because other bowlers have the ability to mix up their lengths. Simple.

So? That is like saying that Warne < Mushtaq Ahmed because Mushy had a googly

 

[TumTum]

Oh dear, no it isn't, they are completely different.

Is there a pitch or circumstance where googly is more important than others? NO. It is just helpful in general having it. And it doesn't affect Warne a great deal because he has other plans that work.

But Asif becomes mediocre when the pitch flattens out, he has no where to go, he can't do anything else to get wickets in an effective way, do you get it?

 

[smash84]

Oh dear, no it isn't, they are completely different.

Is there a pitch or circumstance where googly is more important than others? NO. It is just helpful in general having it. And it doesn't affect Warne a great deal because he has other plans that work.

But Asif becomes mediocre when the pitch flattens out, he has no where to go, he can't do anything else to get wickets in an effective way, do you get it?

NO I DON"T GET IT.

We just agreed that the only thing that short bowling adds to Asif's bowling is variety and he has a fantastic record even without it. I don't quite see how you can say he cannot take wickets on flat wickets without bowling short????

Warne can get wickets because he has other plans but Asif doesn't. I find it a ridiculous proposition really.

 

[TumTum]

Yeah true that he has a fantastic record. But that just reinforces my point, he is so great on green wickets that it makes up for his ineptness on flat ones.

Going back to what started this discussion, there are pitches where the Aussie attack would be better then the Pakistani one.

 

[smash84]

Yeah true that he has a fantastic record. But that just reinforces my point, he is so great on green wickets that it makes up for his ineptness on flat ones.

Going back to what started this discussion, there are pitches where the Aussie attack would be better then the Pakistani one.

No it does not reinforce your point in any way. for e.g. which flat pitches are you talking about???

Regarding your original point. Yes only in Aus. Probably not even in SA but it is still debatable. Asif's record in SA is just bloody awesome. In fact he would have been much better in Aus too than his record suggests. The fielding in that series in Aus is one of the worst displays of fielding ever. So many catches went down and not just to Khatmal. Asif did bowl well in the series.

 

[TumTum]

No it does not reinforce your point in any way. for e.g. which flat pitches are you talking about???

Regarding your original point. Yes only in Aus. Probably not even in SA but it is still debatable. Asif's record in SA is just bloody awesome. In fact he would have been much better in Aus too than his record suggests. The fielding in that series in Aus is one of the worst displays of fielding ever. So many catches went down and not just to Khatmal. Asif did bowl well in the series.

Flat pitch doesn't refer to one country or even one match. I got this impression more by just watching and combining segments in matches he's been involved in.

You are talking about Asif like its a 1v1 comparison. There are 2 more you know. For the overall attack my point stands. But it doesn't mean for example that the Aussie attack is always best in OZ, if we played on the SCG green top then I would take Pak. It purely depends on the pitch.

 

[smash84]

Flat pitch doesn't refer to one country or even one match. I got this impression more by just watching and combining segments in matches he's been involved in.

.

You are talking about Asif like its a 1v1 comparison. There are 2 more you know. For the overall attack my point stands. But it doesn't mean for example that the Aussie attack is always best in OZ, if we played on the SCG green top then I would take Pak. It purely depends on the pitch.

No. Frankly speaking the Aussie attack is really quite ordinary now.

The difference is that Pakistan batting is complete **** which makes the team look ordinary and the bowlers are always under pressure. The Aussie batting on the other hand is quite good. Otherwise Pak bowling > Aus bowling. Sorry I meant it was better when Amir and Asif were in the squad. Not now

 

[Austerlitz]

I agree completely that pak bowling [before cheats got their due] was slightly superior.

Amir is obviously the next big thing.
Asif is a genuine swing bowler ,add riaz and gul.

The only truly potential match winner the aussie attack has is mitchell johnson.

he is the only bowler in the aussie line up that has the ability to single handedly run through a quality top order.Even then he is pretty inconsistent and often erratic...but in his day he can be very deadly.
Bollinger hilfenhaus are good support bowlers who can chip in with a couple here and there but certainly not 5 wkt haul material.

Whereas the pak side clearly had 2 such bowlers in asif and amer.Gul in odis.

 

[smash84]

I agree completely that pak bowling [before cheats got their due] was slightly superior.

Amir is obviously the next big thing.
Asif is a genuine swing bowler ,add riaz and gul.

The only truly potential match winner the aussie attack has is mitchell johnson.

he is the only bowler in the aussie line up that has the ability to single handedly run through a quality top order.Even then he is pretty inconsistent and often erratic...but in his day he can be very deadly.
Bollinger hilfenhaus are good support bowlers who can chip in with a couple here and there but certainly not 5 wkt haul material.

Whereas the pak side clearly had 2 such bowlers in asif and amer.Gul in odis.

This

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Wahab has the potential to be equal to Mitchell if not better.

 

[GIMH]

I believe that is what we call damning with faint praise

 

[TumTum]

I agree completely that pak bowling [before cheats got their due] was slightly superior.

Amir is obviously the next big thing.
Asif is a genuine swing bowler ,add riaz and gul.

The only truly potential match winner the aussie attack has is mitchell johnson.

he is the only bowler in the aussie line up that has the ability to single handedly run through a quality top order.Even then he is pretty inconsistent and often erratic...but in his day he can be very deadly.
Bollinger hilfenhaus are good support bowlers who can chip in with a couple here and there but certainly not 5 wkt haul material.

Whereas the pak side clearly had 2 such bowlers in asif and amer.Gul in odis.

That isn't true because Harris and Bollinger are more than capable of bowling a match winning spell.

Even if we say you are right about that, the quality of the overall attack and in which conditions they would most likely succeed in does not purely depend how many bowlers you have that can take a big bag of wickets.

It doesn't matter how many different arguments you guys put up (even if they are correct), the original point that there would be conditions where the Aussie attack is better always stands.

 

[TumTum]

No. Frankly speaking the Aussie attack is really quite ordinary now.

You are using a hypothetical Pakistani attack and comparing it with the most recent form of the Aussie bowlers?

 

[silentstriker]

Cook said that the WI quartet bowled in the mid-80s!

In fact, during the 1975-76 series, Holding hit 97mph, and Thomson was up there too. But, as Holding points out in his book, 'No Holding Back', it's not how fast you bowl, but how you mix it up, and he learnt to do that after that series.

Yea..I highly doubt that.

Without debating over the accuracy of methodologies back in those days, this is not very surprising really.

From the footages of Holding's bowling, it's pretty clear that he bowled in the 90s regularly. I won't be surprised if he touched 95-97 at some point.

How could you possibly judge that from footage?

It's all guesswork without speedguns really

Well, unless he somehow bowled 15kphs slower in the fastest bowler competition (along with everyone else), I highly doubt that Holding hit 97mph.

 

[silentstriker]

Err, not to say that Holding and co. wouldn't dominate Cook and other opening batsmen now...but I highly doubt the 97mph figure.

 

[subshakerz]

The point is the Pakistani attack still has many weaknesses:
- Asif struggles when the pitch is flat, can't bowl short, treated like a medium pacer really
- Amir is still young, lacks experience
- Gul has yet to prove himself at Test level, personally I think he has a really ugly action

If you are comparing them to Harris, Bollinger, and Johnson, the Pakistanis are still a superior attack.

-Asif was probably along with Steyn the best new-ball bowler in the world. Yes, he was not as effective when the wicket is flat, but as Ian Chappell pointed out, unlike Johnson, he still is tight and doesn't bowl a load of rubbish. He is unlikely to be ripped apart even if the wicket has nothing in it.

-Aamer by the end of the England series was arguably one of the best bowlers in the world as well and certainly the most talented. He did not have much experience yet had as much as skill as bowlers who had played cricket for years. In fact, what was so impressive about him was how mature he was for one so young.

-Umar Gul obviously is not as good as the other two, but to say he is not test class is a joke. He did well in England and bowled Pakistan to victory against NZ recently. Hoe does his job as far as a third seamer goes.

Compare this to Australia. Johnson is erratic and doesn't deliver when the pitch is unsupportive. Bollinger hasn't done much against batting lineups outside of NZ, Pakistan and WI. Harris has just a handful of tests. Commentators by the end of the Aus-Pak series last year were in agreement that the Pak trio had outbowled their counterparts. If fielding was the same on both sides, this wouldn't be a debate. I can't imagine Asif, Aamer and Gul with Australia's fielding unit doing as poor a job as the Aussie pacers did in the Ashes. Why are Johnson, Harris and Bollinger constantly dropped if they are so good?

 

[Spark]

Bollinger and Harris get injured - not dropped.