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

[Slifer]

TBH I didnt really follow ur exchange with Subs so I cant really comment.

 

[smash84]

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

I think you missed my point. What I was saying is that while you say that the WI never ran into such a strong batting line-up so they were not challenged as much. What I am saying is that the WI also never faced such a weak attack and lost. So while you are willing to give India the points for fielding such a great batting unit which might explain India losing. So does that mean that you take a huge number of points off the Aus batting line-up because they could not cope with a minnow-esqu bowling attack? It can't work both ways.

Besides as PEWS says that it was not the job of the WI quartet to pick up WI against the Indian line-up just like it was not the job of Bradman to make runs against The WI quartet or the indian spin quartet or against the reverse swing of the 2Ws. They did the job better against the best batting line-up of their era.

 

[smash84]

If Lee does did not strike fast against India; Holding didn't even face Pakistan.

If Holding did not face Pakistan it is open to speculation only and nothing can be said for sure. It doesn't go against him. It is like saying that the older era batsmen played against only 2 teams and didn't have to face reverse swing so we might as well tax them

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Glad somebody pointed it out.

 

[smash84]

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

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Please don't misrepresent my argument. Lee is slow against every country except Sri Lanka (2 tests) , WI and NZ (yeah, 57 is below par IMO). So why will he suddenly pick up wickets quickly against WI? I dont care if you say he was sick against India in 08, he himself claimed to be fit and he passed the fitness test, he still chose to play so it counts. And I'm not picking just one country from his record like you are doing with McGrath and SA & Garner and Pakistan.

This whole sidetrack was in response to your comment that Lee will pick up wickets as quickly as McGrath, which is a tall claim given his records.

 

[The Sean]

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.

No disgrace to get taken apart by Sobers, it happened to just about everyone at some point. TBF, Lillee got Sobers cheaply a couple of times in that series too. And Lillee was as close to the start of his career as Sobers was to the end of his at the time.

Lillee certainly did enhance his reputation in WSC, he's pretty universally acknowledged as the outstanding bowler of the WSC era.

And I'd be interested to know why stats don't tell the whole story for batsmen, but do for bowlers?

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

I think, as you say, it's because he only played a handful of matches. Perhaps also because he played for RoW rather than Australia or WI. But Imran generally does get solid credit for his performances in WSC, and is acknowledged as one of the leading bowlers of the competition.

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

How does he need a whole article just to say "no"?

 

[smash84]

I think, as you say, it's because he only played a handful of matches. Perhaps also because he played for RoW rather than Australia or WI. But Imran generally does get solid credit for his performances in WSC, and is acknowledged as one of the leading bowlers of the competition.

What you say does make sense

How does he need a whole article just to say "no"?

haha....well said

 

[Ikki]

If Holding did not face Pakistan it is open to speculation only and nothing can be said for sure. It doesn't go against him. It is like saying that the older era batsmen played against only 2 teams and didn't have to face reverse swing so we might as well tax them

Your point is irrelevant, for I am not using that logic to say that Holding is a bad bowler or that he is unknown against quality batting. But if you are punishing Lee for striking at 62 against SA, for example, then you have to punish Holding for never facing the strongest attack of his time. I propose we not try to make too many generalisations - which is why I stick to their base SRs for this exercise. It can't ever be precise and it is all open to speculation. But let's not punish one and not the other for the sake of our bias'.

Great players themselves perform badly against some ordinary teams and awesome against great ones. Yet if we use the former performance we may think they couldn't bowl well against quality opposition and if we use the latter we're assuming they'll always flatten any par opposition. Lee himself strikes at 57 against a team whose batting line-up is amongst the greatest of all time; that in itself should mean he'll do reasonably well against the WIndies line-up. And I am compelled to reiterate, Lee was striking at 47.5 against this team before his last series where he was bowling sick.

I think you missed my point. What I was saying is that while you say that the WI never ran into such a strong batting line-up so they were not challenged as much. What I am saying is that the WI also never faced such a weak attack and lost. So while you are willing to give India the points for fielding such a great batting unit which might explain India losing. So does that mean that you take a huge number of points off the Aus batting line-up because they could not cope with a minnow-esqu bowling attack? It can't work both ways.

Besides as PEWS says that it was not the job of the WI quartet to pick up WI against the Indian line-up just like it was not the job of Bradman to make runs against The WI quartet or the indian spin quartet or against the reverse swing of the 2Ws. They did the job better against the best batting line-up of their era.

Irrelevant. You've seemed to miss the context of the discussion. It has nothing to do with winning or losing; but SRs in this case.

Please don't misrepresent my argument. Lee is slow against every country except Sri Lanka (2 tests) , WI and NZ (yeah, 57 is below par IMO). So why will he suddenly pick up wickets quickly against WI? I dont care if you say he was sick against India in 08, he himself claimed to be fit and he passed the fitness test, he still chose to play so it counts. And I'm not picking just one country from his record like you are doing with McGrath and SA & Garner and Pakistan.

This whole sidetrack was in response to your comment that Lee will pick up wickets as quickly as McGrath, which is a tall claim given his records.

But you're factually wrong. He is not slow against any opponents bar Pak, Bang and Zim.

Even 62 against SA is not slow. 57 is fast - especially considering that line-up and the tracks he has been bowling in, without the slow over rates to cover for him.

You can bang on as much as you like about Lee, at least be consistent and also say that Holding, therefore, cannot be presumed to strike at his career SR and make the further point that none of the WIndies bowlers in this period bowled at anything like the Indian line-up, let alone the Australian line-up, and their career SRs are also misleading.

If you want to make that comment at least be fair. I wonder what you'd say about Imran Khan who besides minnows SL only struck "fast" against WI.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Depends which poll you are referring to. IIRC The Sean had a top 50 which was very like what ESPN and Wisden did and Warne was #4, again the highest bowler with Marshall at #9, and CW rates him much higher than most places I've seen online.

Ikki's all time team has in what, 7 Australians? Againts that mindset no amount of logic will ever make a difference.

And? Which player does not deserve a spot: Bradman, Chappell, Gilchrist, Miller, Warne, McGrath and Lillee. You, yourself have 4 of them. I have Lillee, who is generally regarded as the best pace bowler ever. Miller who, at least, is dead even with Imran and Chappell who can compare to any batsman not named Bradman.

See, it's too easy to point to supposed prejudice, but not actually take to argue why none of those players deserve their spots. Separately, none of those picks are controversial in an all-time XI. But because of their being 7 of them, there must be something wrong with it.

 

[smash84]

Your point is irrelevant, for I am not using that logic to say that Holding is a bad bowler or that he is unknown against quality batting. But if you are punishing Lee for striking at 62 against SA, for example, then you have to punish Holding for never facing the strongest attack of his time. I propose we not try to make too many generalisations - which is why I stick to their base SRs for this exercise. It can't ever be precise and it is all open to speculation. But let's not punish one and not the other for the sake of our bias'.

I am sorry but the part in bold does not make sense to me. Can you please elaborate on this a it more because I really don't see how Holding should be penalized against a team he never played against? If the series records are anything to go by he probably should have done better because the contests between WI and Pakistan were usually low scoring because of the strength of the bowling attacks.

And I am compelled to reiterate, Lee was striking at 47.5 against this team before his last series where he was bowling sick.

This is not an excuse really. Why did he show up for selection if he was sick? There have been other instances where players were injured or sick and did very well too. Marshall played a brilliant innings with a broken arm and then took a lot of wickets too IIRC. There are other instances too of other players. So while we don't need give extra credit for those, this deserves even less attention

But you're factually wrong. He is not slow against any opponents bar Pak, Bang and Zim.

You're factually wrong too. Lee was quite pedestrian against England too.

 

[Ikki]

I am sorry but the part in bold does not make sense to me. Can you please elaborate on this a it more because I really don't see how Holding should be penalized against a team he never played against? If the series records are anything to go by he probably should have done better because the contests between WI and Pakistan were usually low scoring because of the strength of the bowling attacks.

Subshakerz is saying that because Lee struck at 62 against SA for example, that is indicative of how he'd do against a top side. Holding, by contrast, didn't even play the top side of his era. That should, on that logic, put more doubt on Holding than it does for Lee. If one wants to be fair; this logic should go all round. And not just to Holding, but the rest of the WIndies line-up for this period, who, let's be honest, had a merry old time with the quality of batting around this time.

If we can't assume that Lee would do well against the WIndies, considering how well he did against India, then we can't just assume that Holding would have struck fast either. He didn't against NZ, for example, who you would expect he'd have a far easier time with.

Of course, let it be known, I am playing the devil's advocate here in some way. I think Holding is a quality bowler who would have struck fast. But if you're going to hammer Lee for this, let's be consistent.

This is not an excuse really. Why did he show up for selection if he was sick? There have been other instances where players were injured or sick and did very well too. Marshall played a brilliant innings with a broken arm and then took a lot of wickets too IIRC. There are other instances too of other players. So while we don't need give extra credit for those, this deserves even less attention

Australia were doing miserably, so were the pacers and Lee had been selected but got ill on tour. It was obvious he was unfit; everything from his run-up to his consistency. It was the first series after his emergence as a true spearhead that he had bowled that way.

And even if that does not provide as a mitigating factor; an SR of 57 against that attack is not poor by any means.

You're factually wrong too. Lee was quite pedestrian against England too.

Lee strikes at 63 against England. That is not pedestrian. Maybe you need to take a closer look at global trends amongst bowlers, year by year, decade by decade, to grasp what is fast, very fast, slow or pedestrian.

Suggesting Lee was pedestrian against England is to suggest Imran was pedestrian against half the teams he faced - Australia, England and New Zealand.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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.

Just because they struggled once means they always struggled all the time? What kind of logic is that? Just because Ireland knocked out Pakistan of the world cup means they will always be able to do it?

Its not like Australia are perfect they will struggle once in a while just like everybody else.

Glad somebody pointed it out.

One could easily say you are only arguing for WI to make Imran Khan's Pakistan look tougher so please don't go there.

 

[BlazeDragon]

How does he need a whole article just to say "no"?

How does who need a whole article just to say no? The author? He doesn't really say yes or no. He says maybe.

 

[smash84]

Australia were doing miserably, so were the pacers and Lee had been selected but got ill on tour. It was obvious he was unfit; everything from his run-up to his consistency. It was the first series after his emergence as a true spearhead that he had bowled that way.

And even if that does not provide as a mitigating factor; an SR of 57 against that attack is not poor by any means.

I don't find 57 to be poor tbh.

Suggesting Lee was pedestrian against England is to suggest Imran was pedestrian against half the teams he faced - Australia, England and New Zealand.

By pedestrian I meant that he not only did not have a great SR but he also had a terrible average. It doesn't really matter much if you are striking every 18 deliveries if your average is 102. Imran averages sub 25 against England IIRC. In fact Imran is one of the handful of bowlers (not even Marshall has this distinction, nor McGrath) who has a sub 30 average against every opposition that he faced, and in every country that he played. So despite the fact that he may not have struck quickly at least he was not leaking runs.

Lee on the other hand leaks a shade under 41 runs per wicket against England and at that average a good SR is pretty much useless. I hope I am able to clarify what I meant by pedestrian.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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.

Amborse only played till 2000 and Walsh till 2001. Tracks only got flatter afterwords. Check the scorecards.

Never said Marshall would "struggle" I just said that his average would go down if you adjust. Btw, Ambrose is considered to be at the same level as Marshall. I have even seen people that rate Ambrose higher.

 

[Ikki]

I don't find 57 to be poor tbh.

It's, funnily enough, being called "below par". Believe it or not. Also, he is being called a "slow" striker of wickets by subshakerz. Which is ridiculous. He's only slow, or poor, against 3: Bang, Zim and Pak.

By pedestrian I meant that he not only did not have a great SR but he also had a terrible average. It doesn't really matter much if you are striking every 18 deliveries if your average is 102. Imran averages sub 25 against England IIRC. In fact Imran is one of the handful of bowlers (not even Marshall has this distinction, nor McGrath) who has a sub 30 average against every opposition that he faced, and in every country that he played. So despite the fact that he may not have struck quickly at least he was not leaking runs.

Lee on the other hand leaks a shade under 41 runs per wicket against England and at that average a good SR is pretty much useless. I hope I am able to clarify what I meant by pedestrian.

That's fine and true. But we have been talking about SRs. So in that sense, Lee has not been pedestrian. There is very little to suggest Lee would strike slowly; he usually ranges between fast and very fast. Almost always expensive, though.

 

[akilana]

Amborse only played till 2000 and Walsh till 2001. Tracks only got flatter afterwords. Check the scorecards.

Never said Marshall would "struggle" I just said that his average would go down if you adjust. Btw, Ambrose is considered to be at the same level as Marshall. I have even seen people that rate Ambrose higher.

Would you adjust averages for the Aussies batsmen?

 

[BlazeDragon]

Would you adjust averages for the Aussies batsmen?

Topic discussed to death already. Go ahead adjust them they would still be a lot better than the majority of WI batsman.

 

[akilana]