Rank your Top 20 Bowlers of the modern era

[Ikki]

Yes but how can you say which pressure is greater? Tbh the pressure on Tendulkar to perform every time (i.e. the weight of expectations) sounds quite similar to the pressure on the Aussies to perform every time.

Also it might well be argued that cricket is not easily the major sport in Australia (I think) or at least there are viewers of other sports but in India and Pakistan there is literally no other national sport that can compete with cricket therefore cricket in India-Pakistan-SL means a lot more to a greater proportion of the public than in England-Australia hence greater public scrutiny and pressure on the players.

As I mentioned in my post, it is a real threat (the Australian expectations). Don't perform, get terrible reactions and possibly/probably even dropped.

Cricket is no longer the main sport in Australia but I'd argue it is probably the worst scrutinised or least forgiving. Expectations were sky high when we were so good and even now they've changed little. Australians expect the team to get to #1, no ifs ands or buts. It's unreasonable (just how many sides are going to be as good as the one we had from 95-07?) but it's there.

that would explain why ponting's been playing badly for a couple of years at least, losing, and still in the team. seem to remember that talk of tendulkar retiring was pretty strident when he was out of form a few years back.

Ponting lost his captaincy and, TBF, he's on his last life. There have been plenty of calls about his place - especially after Katich being dropped.

 

[ankitj]

Perform or get your house stoned. How about that for pressure. Doesn't mean anything when rating players though.

 

[vcs]

I think Murali is a champion and he'll keep trying no matter what to win. But it's simply not the same pressure as what I described for a team like the one Australia were these past 2 decades - which is not just any #1 team, but one of the greatest sides of all time.

And this is a very real factor, it's not airy fairy; oh the millions of Australians won't love us anymore. It is: don't win and you may be dropped - you might not get a next series to make it up. That's a whole different world of pressure. The result may be huge for SL, but not getting it also isn't that big of a deal. Converse for Warne and co - expected to win, lose and there is hell to pay.

I understand what you are saying, but I wouldn't be arguing for Murali's position on these grounds. I'd argue that it is much more difficult to keep your standards high when everyone around you is so mediocre and that by being in a great side you're easily motivated to push yourself recognising the standards around you. But it also means that the guys who do stay in such a fantastic side for so long are very special.

The converse of your point also applies.. in a champion team, an established player has less scrutiny on his place because no one bats an eyelid when a proven guy is going through a form slump if the team is still getting good results (see Pietersen's recent ODI form, or Dravid's Test form), whereas there would be a lot more temptation to change things around if you are failing and the team is losing at the same time. He can take his time to get back into form, while the other players pick up the slack.

Anyway, I'm not too sure where all this is leading. I don't think there was any realistic pressure on Warne's place in the side as an individual at any point in his career (bar perhaps his injury years?).

 

[BlazeDragon]

Well done, straw man genius.

What is a Straw Man Argument?

I don't think you make weak arguments that can be easily defeated but thanks for the genius part though

 

[BlazeDragon]

Perform or get your house stoned. How about that for pressure. Doesn't mean anything when rating players though.

Be merely satisfactory and well will worship you and rate you higher than all time greats that are better than you. I guess that doesn't either than.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Yes but how can you say which pressure is greater? Tbh the pressure on Tendulkar to perform every time (i.e. the weight of expectations) sounds quite similar to the pressure on the Aussies to perform every time.

that would explain why ponting's been playing badly for a couple of years at least, losing, and still in the team. seem to remember that talk of tendulkar retiring was pretty strident when he was out of form a few years back.

Whenever Ponting does bad there are dozens of articles and hundreds of dozens of comments criticizing him saying he should retire, saying he is a waste of spot and even worse stuff. A good amount of Aussies are part of that Ponting bashing club as well.

Whenever Tendulkar does bad most Indians go "its okay, your the god of cricket, better luck next time and keep playing all you want."

And that's all it takes because most Indians = majority of cricket fans. His critics are just tiny little dots compared to his fanboys.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

And that's all it takes because most Indians = majority of cricket fans. His critics are just tiny little dots compared to his fanboys.

Is it just black or white? Either hell-bent critics or fanboys?

Surely, a fair percentage would be objective, rational cricket lovers (I refuse to use the term fans with a reason here) who can evaluate Ponting's or Tendulkar's shortcomings without giving a damn about either man's nationality.

I agree that the uneven number of supporters in some countries skews the general opinion sometimes. Most genuine cricket-lovers would agree with me that it's a shame indeed.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Is it just black or white? Either hell-bent critics or fanboys?

Surely, a fair percentage would be objective, rational cricket lovers (I refuse to use the term fans with a reason here) who can evaluate Ponting's or Tendulkar's shortcomings without giving a damn about either man's nationality.

I doubt that Ponting has time to determine which of his criticisms are national since there are so many. The same applies with Tendulkar and all his support.

I agree that the uneven number of supporters in some countries skews the general opinion sometimes. Most genuine cricket-lovers would agree with me that it's a shame indeed.

This is a true statement indeed but unfortunately cricket is a sport where rational fans are outnumbered. Not everything in cricket goes as smoothly as we see it on this forum. This is about the most friendliest cricket related environment I have seen so far.

 

[ankitj]

Be merely satisfactory and well will worship you and rate you higher than all time greats that are better than you. I guess that doesn't either than.

Do you read the posts and see the context before stroking away at the keyboard?

 

[G.I.Joe]

I think its cute that people outside the country pretend to know better than us the sort of scrutiny Tendulkar is under. Have internet, know all.

 

[smash84]

Also it might well be argued that cricket is not easily the major sport in Australia (I think) or at least there are viewers of other sports but in India and Pakistan there is literally no other national sport that can compete with cricket therefore cricket in India-Pakistan-SL means a lot more to a greater proportion of the public than in England-Australia hence greater public scrutiny and pressure on the players.

Whenever Ponting does bad there are dozens of articles and hundreds of dozens of comments criticizing him saying he should retire, saying he is a waste of spot and even worse stuff. A good amount of Aussies are part of that Ponting bashing club as well.

Whenever Tendulkar does bad most Indians go "its okay, your the god of cricket, better luck next time and keep playing all you want."

And that's all it takes because most Indians = majority of cricket fans. His critics are just tiny little dots compared to his fanboys.

You forgot to mention the main point in my argument please see above

 

[hang on]

Whenever Ponting does bad there are dozens of articles and hundreds of dozens of comments criticizing him saying he should retire, saying he is a waste of spot and even worse stuff. A good amount of Aussies are part of that Ponting bashing club as well.

Whenever Tendulkar does bad most Indians go "its okay, your the god of cricket, better luck next time and keep playing all you want."

And that's all it takes because most Indians = majority of cricket fans. His critics are just tiny little dots compared to his fanboys.

see, not being indian nor living in india, i really do not know the relative nature of the criticism as well as you obviously do. i have based it on whatever one gets from the media and talking to friends and it did seem like there was a massive level of questioning of his - tendulkar's place in the team during his slump years. my main point was to question ikki's assertion that iconic players in australia place are in danger (as consequence of underperformance) that much more than in india such that it can be actually used as a plus to argue their side of the equation. ponting's continued presence in the side seems to suggest otherwise.

 

[abmk]

I think its cute that people outside the country pretend to know better than us the sort of scrutiny Tendulkar is under. Have internet, know all.

LOL, he he, Ikki and BlazeDragon don't have a clue about how much of scrutiny Sachin was/is under

 

[hang on]

As I mentioned in my post, it is a real threat (the Australian expectations). Don't perform, get terrible reactions and possibly/probably even dropped.

Cricket is no longer the main sport in Australia but I'd argue it is probably the worst scrutinised or least forgiving. Expectations were sky high when we were so good and even now they've changed little. Australians expect the team to get to #1, no ifs ands or buts. It's unreasonable (just how many sides are going to be as good as the one we had from 95-07?) but it's there.



Ponting lost his captaincy and, TBF, he's on his last life. There have been plenty of calls about his place - especially after Katich being dropped.

fair enough, ikki. but, from what i read in the papers via the internet, there was one hell of a lot of questioning of tendulkar's place in the team circa 2006 when he could barely buy a run. ponting's been out of form for more than just a little while - a couple of years at least, holistically speaking - and hence it is not a case of a couple of bad series and u are on your uppers. the main thrust is such factors are intangibles and best not to be factored into calculations while rating a player's worth. where does one stop, after all? can one say that tendulkar seems, from all reports, to be an obsessive and perfectionist, and hence any failure would way on his psyche far more than someone who seems more relaxed....say a sehwag or a hayden?

a slight digression (and apologies if u have addressed this and i have missed it): what would qualify as more challenging? playing against better players or against traditional 'enemies'? would performances in the wooden spoon ashes of the mid 1980s count more than those in blackwash series? it could be argued that one was expected - by self and watchers - to get rolled against those west indians but playing against the old enemy and doing well means so much more given the traditional, historical and emotional appeal. but no sane person would argue that that is really the case, right? that is the reason why botham has a big question mark against his name.

 

[Ikki]

The converse of your point also applies.. in a champion team, an established player has less scrutiny on his place because no one bats an eyelid when a proven guy is going through a form slump if the team is still getting good results (see Pietersen's recent ODI form, or Dravid's Test form), whereas there would be a lot more temptation to change things around if you are failing and the team is losing at the same time. He can take his time to get back into form, while the other players pick up the slack.

Anyway, I'm not too sure where all this is leading. I don't think there was any realistic pressure on Warne's place in the side as an individual at any point in his career (bar perhaps his injury years?).

The first para just didn't happen, at least not for Australia. The irony is that you stick out worse in a team where everyone else is performing. Even in that team you had to perform or you'd be dropped. Maybe that had more to do with the depth Australia had than winning but it was a real threat nonetheless. I'd argue the exact opposite really. That if you are a great in a minnow team and you are no longer performing as a great but merely average (or, worse, as good as your teammates) then why would they drop you? If they had better players they wouldn't be relying on you in the first place.

Warne didn't perform badly for an extended period of time apart from his injury years.

I think the point is you can split it into two: team success and personal success. I don't think either for Murali were particularly threatening until his later years whereas both were for Warne very early. And this is not meant to be a point for or against these two, replace them with two others whose circumstances were similar.

 

[Ikki]

my main point was to question ikki's assertion that iconic players in australia place are in danger (as consequence of underperformance) that much more than in india such that it can be actually used as a plus to argue their side of the equation. ponting's continued presence in the side seems to suggest otherwise.

I don't think Ponting disproves what I've said, even if he does stick out as someone who hasn't retired/been dropped through bad form. Using him as a refutation of that point is misleading - he could be an exception. Although, I don't think he is. I think he is just fortunate Australia aren't still steam-rolling everyone and there isn't the same amount of depth as there was maybe a decade ago. He is under some huge pressure though - and I wonder if the axe hanging over his head is exacerbating his problem with form.

And my point was that if Ponting and Tendulkar equate - they both weren't dropped through bad form - then the Tendulkar "billion expectations" line is trite. It hasn't afforded him any more scrutiny than it suggests.

 

[Ikki]

fair enough, ikki. but, from what i read in the papers via the internet, there was one hell of a lot of questioning of tendulkar's place in the team circa 2006 when he could barely buy a run. ponting's been out of form for more than just a little while - a couple of years at least, holistically speaking - and hence it is not a case of a couple of bad series and u are on your uppers. the main thrust is such factors are intangibles and best not to be factored into calculations while rating a player's worth. where does one stop, after all? can one say that tendulkar seems, from all reports, to be an obsessive and perfectionist, and hence any failure would way on his psyche far more than someone who seems more relaxed....say a sehwag or a hayden?

I've answered the above in another thread, so I'll leave that. Although you make a new point in how every individual may take their roles (perfectionist v flair player) and I don't think that is possible to know. Gilchrist (who you'd probably compare to Hayden and Sehwag than Tendulkar) came out saying he felt entirely in fear of his place throughout his career - even though he seemed to take an incredible amount of risks which would bely that belief. It's a very good point, but no one apart from that player can possibly know.

What I am speaking of are certain things which are gaugeable or at least decipherable to a certain degree.

a slight digression (and apologies if u have addressed this and i have missed it): what would qualify as more challenging? playing against better players or against traditional 'enemies'? would performances in the wooden spoon ashes of the mid 1980s count more than those in blackwash series? it could be argued that one was expected - by self and watchers - to get rolled against those west indians but playing against the old enemy and doing well means so much more given the traditional, historical and emotional appeal. but no sane person would argue that that is really the case, right? that is the reason why botham has a big question mark against his name.

I take your point, but I am not sure it is relevant here. We are talking about two players who play the same team (not two different teams), although for one of those performers there is more pressure to perform against that team.

 

[hang on]

I've answered the above in another thread, so I'll leave that. Although you make a new point in how every individual may take their roles (perfectionist v flair player) and I don't think that is possible to know. Gilchrist (who you'd probably compare to Hayden and Sehwag than Tendulkar) came out saying he felt entirely in fear of his place throughout his career - even though he seemed to take an incredible amount of risks which would bely that belief. It's a very good point, but no one apart from that player can possibly know.

What I am speaking of are certain things which are gaugeable or at least decipherable to a certain degree.



I take your point, but I am not sure it is relevant here. We are talking about two players who play the same team (not two different teams), although for one of those performers there is more pressure to perform against that team.

how is it possible to gauge or decipher how much pressure there is on someone playing in the ashes as opposed to someone playing in a team gets very few tours away and has to, in a manner of speaking, almost justify it's raison d'etre every time they toured (ie referring to the england tour here since it is about the same team)? it can easily be argued that warne was playing for his place and country while murali was playing for his country's right to play and be 'allowed' to tour or be granted more matches. slightly hyperbolic, but i'm sure u can catch my drift. in my view, both are intangible. or rather, there is no way to say who had more pressure or found it more challenging. the only thing that is somewhat gaugable is the quality of opposition played.

 

[Ikki]

I think the fact that many of Warne's teammates were dropped so readily is more realistic than the chance that the ICC would take away SL's Test status. Losing series always brought a ****-storm; I think that was pretty gaugeable as well. After 05 people, like Lillee, were calling for Ponting's head as captain. I think it's fairly obvious they had less rope. I am not saying you can give it a numerical value and create a scale but it was pretty obvious how the selectors were going about things. Oh yeah, and there was also the fact that he'd already been dropped earlier in his career.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Do you read the posts and see the context before stroking away at the keyboard?

Yes and everything in your posts are trying very desperately to prove how you guys have it all hard. Unless you are reading stuff that are not there I don't see any of your posts that suggests otherwise.

LOL, he he, Ikki and BlazeDragon don't have a clue about how much of scrutiny Sachin was/is under

Sure I guess it only "seems" to us from other countries that he is the most popular figure in this sport. I'm pretty sure he is one of the most hated figures in India right?