Australia (1995-2007) Vs. West Indies (1974-1986)?

[Slifer]

If you think this discussion I am having with subshakerz is about Lee being as good as Garner or Holding, you haven't been reading it properly.

It was about the inaccuracy of using a stat against one opponent to predict how a bowler would do against an all-time great side. If Lee is being penalised for striking at ~62 against S.Africa, so should McGrath. If it's so important, then Holding is out of luck - he didn't even play against Pakistan. And IIRC none of the WIndies played a batting line-up consisting the strength of something like India's.

Personally, I say let's keep it simple; let's just use their base stat. I could appreciate the distinction subshakerz brings if Lee was uniformly bad against all but his performances against minnows bumps his SR up; but that isn't the case - ironically, it's the opposite; Lee's SR is lower without them.



And yet, neither batting line-up compares to something like Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman.

I think I already showed that this is patently a lie. Walsh and Ambrose both faced great Indian, Ozzie and very very good RSA attacks. Both had varying degrees of success against these lineups as well.

 

[smash84]

Lillee falls short of Khan (Zaheer) in the SC

btw I do wonder though why Imran's stats from WSC are never talked about? Maybe he played very few matches (5) but he had excellent wpm ratio, best average and SR IIRC

 

[BlazeDragon]

You say this after arguing that we can't read stats.

Me and Ikki both provided stats on lots of occupations. You don't seem like you are reading them at all.

Still waiting to see some of the people who rate Warne, Hadlee and Mcgrath (preferably non Australian jounalists), who rate all of them ahead of Marshall.

Well what exact do you mean by "people" because there should be plenty of people who rate all 3 of them higher.

If you mean famous people, there should also be plenty of people who also rate all 3 of them (Warne in particular) as the greatest bowler. Unless I'm imagining all these "x rate greatest y the greatest" articles that I have seen.

 

[BlazeDragon]

*sigh* this thread has become boring. All this arguing over strike rates in tests is quite dull. Noone considers Davidson a bad bowler for his strike rate of 62. In fact, most would place him in or near the all time Australian XI.

Well people ain't got much to question Warne's wicket taking ability and effectively better it is than most people so some people are looking for pretty much anything they could find to use against him against him.

 

[BlazeDragon]

WTH?? Bowling averages and batting averages obviously will have to be adjusted at differing amounts,. If ur gonna tack on what 2 to 3 runs to the WI bowling averages, u have to tack on something like 4 or 5 runs to the batting. Doing that all of a sudden WI have 3 batsmen averagin over 50, and several of their batsmen just below (similar to Oz). Try again.

And why exactly would the batting average be going up so much? It was the 80's not the 60's.

 

[kyear2]

Well what exact do you mean by "people" because there should be plenty of people who rate all 3 of them higher.

If you mean famous people, there should also be plenty of people who also rate all 3 of them (Warne in particular) as the greatest bowler. Unless I'm imagining all these "x rate greatest y the greatest" articles that I have seen.

Kindly post some.

Just because you were born in or support a country that doest automatically make every player from that country the greatest ever.
Ikki's all time team has in what, 7 Australians? Againts that mindset no amount of logic will ever make a difference. Blazedragon argues that Warne is not as good as Mcgrath but better than EVERY other fast bowler, without one giving any kind of emperical evidence, and ignores every argument he cant dispute.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Kindly post some.

Just because you were born in or support a country that doest automatically make every player from that country the greatest ever.
Ikki's all time team has in what, 7 Australians? Againts that mindset no amount of logic will ever make a difference. Blazedragon argues that Warne is not as good as Mcgrath but better than EVERY other fast bowler, without one giving any kind of emperical evidence, and ignores every argument he cant dispute.

The Big Question: Is Shane Warne the greatest cricketer in the history of the game? - Cricket, Sport - The Independent


Got it off pretty the much first page of google. If you would be so kind enough to do web searching a little you should have no trouble finding a lot of these.

Kindly tell us what argument have you made exactly? Because from what it seems like your not even very effective at using google. Also, what argument did I back out of? Show me please.

As for Ikki, he seems to be a pretty big stats fan. If his squad has 7 Australians I'm pretty sure they all have pretty impressive stats. Just because he is Australian he should ignore some of the stats of other Australians because there are too many? And your lecturing us about mindset.

Just because you were born in or support a country that doest automatically make every player from that country the greatest ever.

On your location its says WI and guess what you are arguing for WI bowlers being the greatest. Huh. Look in the mirror before accusing others of something.

 

[kyear2]

One fast bowler who actually warrants the accolades, not everyone who ever played for the team.

Did you even read the article, it preactically repeats what I said about Lillee, he was a showman and it was partly because of the drama and excitement he brought to the game. Warne is in my all time team, because he is the best spinner, but not the best bowler. Bowling is about taking wickets as often and as cheaply as possible. Pure and simple.

I can use google btw, no need to be condesending. But try greatest bowler of all time, not greatest bowler, shane warne.

Its obvious that you dont respect the opions of most of the people on this forum, but we voted for a top five cricketers of all time, Marshall was number 3 on that list. We also voted for an all time team, with only five players receiving over 90 points out of a possible 100, Bradman, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall and Hobbs were those players. I am not alone.

Dont know if you even took the time to read the articles that I posted, or dont you respect their opions either.

My All time team btw, to prove I am not xenophobic
Hutton, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Khan, Marshall, Warne, Mcgrath.
lets see yours.

 

[BlazeDragon]

One fast bowler who actually warrants the accolades, not everyone who ever played for the team.

Did you even read the article, it preactically repeats what I said about Lillee, he was a showman and it was partly because of the drama and excitement he brought to the game. Warne is in my all time team, because he is the best spinner, but not the best bowler. Bowling is about taking wickets as often and as cheaply as possible. Pure and simple.

I can use google btw, no need to be condesending. But try greatest bowler of all time, not greatest bowler, shane warne.

I don't think I ever mentioned Lillie in my debate. What does he have to do with this anyways?

Yes I read the article. Did you? The author himself said "maybe" about him not just being the greatest bowler of all time but the greatest cricketer of all time. He also gives examples of others who do as well.

 

[kyear2]

I read yours, did u read mine ? Or does his opinion not matter either.

If any bowler of the modern era can be statistically compared to Bradman, it has to be Marshall, only bowler with over 200 wickets with a strike rate under 48 and Average under 21. He along with Syd Barnes are the only ones who can lay claim to the title of the Bradman of bowlers, fast or otherwise.
There are no holes in his resume, no country where he was not successful or condition which defeated him. He was the complete fast bowler. No one can lay claim to having dominated him or even being at ease againts him. He was the most feared and respected and I dare say, imho The Best Ever.


But this will be my last post on the matter. Every thing I have to say was said in my last two posts, and really we can agree to respectably disagree,

 

[GotSpin]

IMO a Bradman of bowlers would need to average a lot lower than 20.

That's not an attack on MM in the slightest, but an average of 20 is still comparable to other bowlers while Bradman is light years above

 

[BlazeDragon]

I read yours, did u read mine ? Or does his opinion not matter either.

If any bowler of the modern era can be statistically compared to Bradman, it has to be Marshall, only bowler with over 200 wickets with a strike rate under 48 and Average under 21. He along with Syd Barnes are the only ones who can lay claim to the title of the Bradman of bowlers, fast or otherwise.
There are no holes in his resume, no country where he was not successful or condition which defeated him. He was the complete fast bowler. No one can lay claim to having dominated him or even being at ease againts him. He was the most feared and respected and I dare say, imho The Best Ever.


But this will be my last post on the matter. Every thing I have to say was said in my last two posts, and really we can agree to respectably disagree,

Yes I read yours and I don't think you are realizing all that just your opinion and that you can't prove that

I don't think Marshall could be compared to Bradman in any ways. Bradman still comes out WAY ahead of all other batsman even if you do adjust the era. I have already made the post about how Mcgrath comes out better than Marshall if you adjust to the era. Marshall is great not arguing that but saying he is the Bradman of bowlers is just pushing it.

Yes we do have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[subshakerz]

Why aren't we talking about Australia's performance against the only 4-man pace attack they faced, back in the Ashes 2005? Is that not relevant? They clearly struggled.

I believe one of the best points made by another poster is that Australian batsmen (with the exception of Steve Waugh and perhaps Langer) are used to front foot constant assault and trying to score 3.5-4 runs an over. Is this a winning strategy against the WI pacemen? An important question then is whether the Aussies will be able to adjust from the attack mode.

 

[kyear2]

Of all the things I said all you will comment on is the Bradman reference. Let me clarify, not saying he was as good as Bradman, by Bradman of Bowlers just saying that he is statistically the best, not by as wide a margin as Bradman, but just the best. Champions would be great in any era, and I dont subscribe to adjusting based on era, competition perhaps, but not era.

 

[stephen]

IMO a Bradman of bowlers would need to average a lot lower than 20.

That's not an attack on MM in the slightest, but an average of 20 is still comparable to other bowlers while Bradman is light years above

AWTA. Saying that someone is the "Bradman" of something is saying that they are 4.5 standard deviations above the mean. It's saying that they were so good that there is no question that they were the greatest ever. It's saying that there's really no debate at all at their skill level compared to everyone else. It would be like a single scientist figuring out the Grand Unified Theory, curing Aids, inventing faster than light travel and discovering a renewable technology that was more economical than coal fired power.

Calling someone the "Bradman" of something is done far too often and actually demeans just how utterly brilliant he actually was.

Come back to me when a bowler is averaging 10 in an era of batsmen averaging 40+.

 

[Spark]

For what it's worth, a 5std-dev anomaly in some fields of physics is taken as instant confirmation of a major discovery - on its own.

 

[Slifer]

I just dont get this whole adjustment for era theory when comparing MM and Mcgrath. If we r goin to adjust MM stats for era, in a sense that would imply that he wouldnt be able to cope with 00 conditions. I really dont get how some on here can come to such conclusions when the guy already proved that he was universally great. Theres no possible way to know if he'd do better or worst based on era. For once lets use common sense, if MM were playing in the exact same Oz team as Mcgrath, I really dont see how his stats would be affected. Im still wondering what team Blaze and co think he would struggle against, since he obviously didnt struggle against ne team of his time. And b4 that ludicrous "he didnt face ne great batting lineups" argument is brought up again, his contemporaries Amby and Walsh squared off against great Oz, Indian and very good RSA attacks and had varying degrees of success. Neither bowler were considered a match for MM.

 

[Ikki]

True. But the time that they ran into this line-up they did lose, also won once, and drew twice? But the bowling attack was quite ordinary too when they lost in 2001. Newbie Zaheer and Harbhajan and the likes of Venkatesh Prasad, Bahutule and Venkatapthy Raju. Also I remember Tendy bowling a bit in that 2001 series. The bowling attack was as bad as the batting was good. The Aussies sure don't gain any points losing to this attack.

But we're not talking about their bowling, at all.

I think I already showed that this is patently a lie. Walsh and Ambrose both faced great Indian, Ozzie and very very good RSA attacks. Both had varying degrees of success against these lineups as well.

What lie? I think you were told before: Walsh and Ambrose are not in this sample - it only goes to 1986. Unless you want to take 2 years of Walsh's career in this period and build an argument on that and remove one of the other WIndies bowlers for him.

That actually proves my point. Take a look at the panel one day.
Additionally Marshall made the final XI for both named squads, and Mcgrath and Hadlee neither.

I just love how people use stats when it is conveniant for them. Warne is statistically behind a bowler of his era, but they all still say he is ahead, and when Murali's stats are disected, one has to agree, but not by miles. But how can people look at Lillee's stats there are no justification for his lofty position. There is no way to break it down to show he is better than MM, other than bravado. Sobers at the end of his career, with Lillee at his peak, destroyed him. Of all the bowlers who enhanced their reputations during WSC, he wasnt one, while Viv and Barry and G. Chappell all proved their class.
With batsmen, stats can never tell the true story, with bowlers its another story, you either take wickets at a low SR and Avg or you dont. Lillee had extremely helpful pitches, trusting captains and GREAT slip and close in fielders, yet he still falls short of Marshall, and even Mcgrath, Ambrose, Khan and Hadlee.
Please explain to the slow.

There were no squads picked UIMM, just a list of players and Warne, Lillee and Hadlee all were rated ahead of Marshall in that list. It was picked in 2000 and McGrath was not established as a great by then so it's guesswork to assume he'd be rated higher. It could also be said that Warne would be rated even higher because of his accomplishments post 2000.

I am not sure what you mean by "lofty" position. Just because there is little in stats to separate players, doesn't mean there won't be differences between them. Sure, Lillee is about 10 places higher than Marshall, for example, but it doesn't mean there is a huge difference between them. Nor should these discussions be termed in those words. These are all-time greats and there is little to separate them. But Lillee only better because of "bravado"? Cop-out.

As for your claim; who says Lillee falls short of any of those bowlers? Based on what? That's like saying Kallis is better than Richards (because I know which stats you'd love to bring up, and yes those are made arguable by other stats.)

 

[Slifer]

But we're not talking about their bowling, at all.



What lie? I think you were told before: Walsh and Ambrose are not in this sample - it only goes to 1986. Unless you want to take 2 years of Walsh's career in this period and build an argument on that and remove one of the other WIndies bowlers for him.

There were no squads picked UIMM, just a list of players and Warne, Lillee and Hadlee all were rated ahead of Marshall in that list. It was picked in 2000 and McGrath was not established as a great by then so it's guesswork to assume he'd be rated higher. It could also be said that Warne would be rated even higher because of his accomplishments post 2000.

I am not sure what you mean by "lofty" position. Just because there is little in stats to separate players, doesn't mean there won't be differences between them. Sure, Lillee is about 10 places higher than Marshall, for example, but it doesn't mean there is a huge difference between them. Nor should these discussions be termed in those words. These are all-time greats and there is little to separate them.

As for your claim; who says Lillee falls short of any of those bowlers? Based on what? That's like saying Kallis is better than Richards (because I know which stats you'd love to bring up, and yes those are made arguable by other stats.)

I think u will find in ur original statement u said WI bowlers never faced great battin lineups u never specified which WI bowlers u meant. And I think I already mentioned y I think that 86 cut off date was ridiculous to begin with. Either way, I think even u can surmise that most experts think MM is Walsh and AMby's daddy therefore its logical to conclude that if both those bowlers could achieve what they did vs Oz and co, then MM would and could match their achievements and even exceed them (since he is considered there superior by most).

 

[Ikki]

I thought it was a given I was referring to the bowlers that would be relevant to the exercise.

I agree with your logic; it is not controversial to assume that MM would do as well as they would. However, you don't have to sell that to me; you have to sell that to subshakerz. Once you start looking at singular records against certain countries - without there being an overarching point or trend - then you are asking for this kind of retort. If Lee is slow against SA; what is McGrath then? If Lee does did not strike fast against India; Holding didn't even face Pakistan.