trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
10 years from now some idiots going to use his WPM to prove he's a better all-rounder than Keith Miller
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Can Ashwin beat Murali's 800?
- Thread starter viriya
- Start date
I actually thought of this exact example. His raw numbers are way ahead of Miller's IMO if you don't account for home/away and quality of opposition.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well his numbers are way ahead of Gibbs too. Oh god, I hope Ashwin doesn't gain a cult following but Indian fans aren't the most logical.
This brings to mind an interesting topic: players who are flattered by their numbers.
I'm not sure how to compare him to Kapil, but I don't think he is flattered by his batting average. He's solid. Great technique. He's obviously heavily flattered by the bowling average. To what degree, I'm not sure, but add 20% for the sake of argument to his average and he still has allround stats like no offie I can think of.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
So Ashwin = Anderson's bowling + Pollock's batting?
Even if that is true, then we're worthless cricket-lovers if we forget about such a cricketer in 10-20 years
I personally think he's better in both disciplines, or at least he'll end up better in both disciplines (than Anderson and Pollock respectively) when he retires. I'd say he's probably Pollock's bowling+Imran's batting.
Last edited:
Not too sure how to assess the quality of Ashwins bowling. He hasn't played away enough in my mind to really tell. I don't think it's unreasonable to compare him to Anderson based on limited info though- bear in mind that he hasn't played against a single team who can handle spin. Not yet proven to be in Pollock's league.
As a bat, I think you are relying on him pulling in some big scores late career. He's 30 though. Should be about done improving.
History would forget Anderson's bowling plus Pollock's batting pretty quickly anyway. Pollock himself was mostly forgotten in this time, and he's way ahead as a bowler.
As a bat, I think you are relying on him pulling in some big scores late career. He's 30 though. Should be about done improving.
History would forget Anderson's bowling plus Pollock's batting pretty quickly anyway. Pollock himself was mostly forgotten in this time, and he's way ahead as a bowler.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Such statements are pointless (besides Ashwin has bowled to very successful players of spin and consistently troubled them - Sangakkara's struggle comes to mind, among many others).
I can say Shane Warne took a gazillion wickets against the English team of the 90s - which didn't know how to spell the word 'spin'. Whenever Warne played against the only team in his time that knew how to play spin (India) his bowling average went up to about 99999999999 and he started admitting to having nightmares.
Fair enough. And that's exactly what I said in my glamour and Hollywood comment. People don't remember great players - they remember star personalities. David Beckham is remembered way more than Lothar Matthaus. I have no doubt that Ashwin will be forgotten by general public - because general public lack intellect and depth.
Last edited:
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
When people think of Pollock's batting, they think "solid defense, great straight drive and pull, could have scored more runs if they were needed" and not more whereas his bowling was top-tier. Ashwin still has to reach that level. I'd rate him like Kumble but over a shorter period.
It's a matter of time before someone overtakes Anderson's tally and then he'd be largely forgotten like Dev, I agree.
No, not pointless. Ashwin has played disproportionately weak batting sides in his career, both generally (WI, Lanka in 2/3 series, Bangladesh) and sides who were weak against spin compared to pace (AUS, England, RSA). Anderson played stronger sides both in terms of choice of opponent (I think) and in terms of the strength of the era, as well as playing against teams that were stronger against pace than spin.
Not much need to bring Warne into it- we are comparing Anderson and Ashwin. FTR, I do think that the fact that he failed against the only good batting unit he played leaves a bit of an overlooked (but not conclusive) question mark.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Why can't I bring Warne into it? This thread isn't discussing Ashwin vs Anderson. Isn't Warne a great? He is. Forget about the other teams - the Bangladesh batting lineup Ashwin bowled to plays spin better than most batting lineups Warne bowled to. SL had some very good players of spin, and WI is better against spin than pace. SA had some greats against spin (Amla, AB and even Faf). England was way way better than in Warne's time.
Last edited:
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The whole point is that Ashwin's bowling stats flatter him, not about whether he's a good bowler or not. I was obviously exaggerating when I said what I did about the pitches.
If you can't agree then so be it. Feel free to think he's as good a bowler as Pollock.
If you can't agree then so be it. Feel free to think he's as good a bowler as Pollock.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Ok. Thanks for admitting that at least.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Ashwin and Warne are both spin bowlers. Also, Ashwin's average is closer to Warne's than to Anderson's. I'm not suggesting that Ashwin has already surpassed Anderson and deserves comparison with Warne or Pollock. I'm saying he may deserve comparison with Warne/Pollock when he finishes. There's a long way to go yet - even if not close to 800 wickets.