The ICC Super Series

[Richard]

dont quite understand richard, give me some details to that might back up that post cause again i disagree

I've already posted these details.

 

[marc71178]

The sole requirement of a good team is that a load of players who turned-out to be good played together.

No, that is a good collection of players.

A good team has to be successful or there is no team about it.

 

[Richard]

A team is a collection of players.
There is nothing more to it than that.
A team has to be successful to be a succesful team.
Nothing more.

 

[marc71178]

How is a team ever going to be ranked as one of the best if it never has success?

It cannot be rated as a great team if it never won a game against a supposedly inferior team.

 

[tooextracool]

Really?
Genuine question..

umm hence his poor average against quality opposition

Yes, I know, I meant post-'98, not post-'96 - post '98 he was by-and-large abysmal except for 2 outstanding games.

and i was referring to post 96, after which you quite conveniently shifted gear and started talking about post 98, simply because you realised you were wrong.

[/QUOTE]No-one can prove something with so many different variables.
I personally feel Inzamam is the better player - you seem to feel they're roughly equal.[/QUOTE]

no i dont, i seem to think that martyn is clearly superior. this twice the player as martyn is insulting to him.

 

[tooextracool]

I was talking about all 5 of Saqlian, Mushtaq, Shoaib, Waqar and Wasim - who AFAIK never played together.
They were, though, all in the Australia squad of 1999\2000.

so you were talking about a bowling attack that never existed, well done.

 

[tooextracool]

I'd say that's an exaggeration.
Sami and Edwards are poor, but they're not that poor, even KE Upashantha is surely better than that.

no its not an exaggeration, the reason that they are poor is because they dont bowl enough good delivieries. if they did, theyd have far more wickets to their name that what they do right now.

Rare things don't happen frequently...
A poor player of inswing - which you could be forgiven for thinking Smith is by watching Bicknell and Hoggard dismiss him from Headingley '03 to The Wanderers '04\05 - can be troubled by just a single delivery in the right area, even if he's faced the last 50 straight-on balls without trouble.

they can be troubled yes, but it doesnt mean they will get out to it. but 2-3 of those delivieries every 2 overs or so, and you'll have pocketed him in no time.

Any indication of when the next time Smith is likely to face some bowlers who can swing it back at him? Because I somehow doubt it'll happen in West Indies.

well he just did, against hoggard. and with the standard of bowling right now, one can only imagine that he'll get to face a few quality bowlers only when he plays australia.

 

[tooextracool]

You can get a player out with a mere handful if they're weak enough - see Mills against Hayden (and assume that blantly out dismissals were actually given out).

yes the odd time or so it will happen,good god hes not going to score in every game. if mills had bowled more it wouldnt have mattered whether or not the decision was given, because he would have got him out again anyways. and really if you look carefully, even edwards got smith out thrice in that series, 2 of which were for low scores

 

[Richard]

How is a team ever going to be ranked as one of the best if it never has success?

It cannot be rated as a great team if it never won a game against a supposedly inferior team.

Why not?
Why do results over such a short period of time (a single series) have an impact on how good the players were?

 

[Richard]

umm hence his poor average against quality opposition

People can have poor averages against quality teams for reasons other than technical failings, y'know.
Coincidence can be one of these reasons.

and i was referring to post 96, after which you quite conveniently shifted gear and started talking about post 98, simply because you realised you were wrong.

Yes, first I just used the common generalisations (almost all of which refer to 1996) then I finally looked at the actual facts and saw that 1998 was a more accurate date for both bowlers; and Mushtaq as well.

 

[Richard]

so you were talking about a bowling attack that never existed, well done.

I was talking about a squad, not an XI.

 

[Richard]

no its not an exaggeration, the reason that they are poor is because they dont bowl enough good delivieries. if they did, theyd have far more wickets to their name that what they do right now.

Yes, they would; yes, they're poor; but it doesn't mean they don't ever bowl any good deliveries.

they can be troubled yes, but it doesnt mean they will get out to it. but 2-3 of those delivieries every 2 overs or so, and you'll have pocketed him in no time.

Well, we'll see - given that it's only happened on 2 occasions with 2 bowlers (and 1 of those only amounted to 2 dismissals) I don't think that's gospel yet.

well he just did, against hoggard. and with the standard of bowling right now, one can only imagine that he'll get to face a few quality bowlers only when he plays australia.

Like McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz? Don't see them bowling big hooping inswingers that often. Yes, they can all bowl them, but McGrath and Kasprowicz's stock-balls both go the other way, and Gillespie has been far less of a swing-bowler in recent years.

 

[Swervy]

Why not?
Why do results over such a short period of time (a single series) have an impact on how good the players were?

because (if my memory serves me well), you specified the season of the team in question(WI 57)..whether or not it was a collection of good/great players is irrelevent, a team that loses a series 3-0 cannot be considered a great team, well certainly not one superior to the team (ie England) that beat them comprehensively....and the actual gap between the two teams was more than the 3-0 suggests, WI got creamed by an innings 3 times, missed out on losing very heavily at Nottingham by sneaking a draw (England had an hour to chase 121 to win, but only got to 60 odd with one wicket down).

There is no way that WI team could be considered a great TEAM...that team did have some (and only some) outstanding players

 

[Richard]

yes the odd time or so it will happen,good god hes not going to score in every game. if mills had bowled more it wouldnt have mattered whether or not the decision was given, because he would have got him out again anyways. and really if you look carefully, even edwards got smith out thrice in that series, 2 of which were for low scores

He did indeed - but at other times Smith scored runs.
Between September and February Mills bowled at Hayden 5 times in Tests and ODIs and got him lbw cheaply every single time (he only got the correct decision once, but that's irrelevant). If that's not proof enough, I don't know what is.

 

[Richard]

because (if my memory serves me well), you specified the season of the team in question(WI 57)..whether or not it was a collection of good/great players is irrelevent, a team that loses a series 3-0 cannot be considered a great team, well certainly not one superior to the team (ie England) that beat them comprehensively....and the actual gap between the two teams was more than the 3-0 suggests, WI got creamed by an innings 3 times, missed out on losing very heavily at Nottingham by sneaking a draw (England had an hour to chase 121 to win, but only got to 60 odd with one wicket down).

There is no way that WI team could be considered a great TEAM...that team did have some (and only some) outstanding players

What is a team?
In cricket, it's 11 players.
The better the players, the better the team.
But the best teams don't always win a series.

 

[Swervy]

What is a team?
In cricket, it's 11 players.
The better the players, the better the team.
But the best teams don't always win a series.

thats ok to say if its a close series, but 3-0 (and infact almost 4-0) is a drubbing..the only possible chance WI had of winning a game was in the first test, but even by the second innings of that match England had sussed out how to nulify the threat of Ramadhin with massive amounts of pad play....and despite that game being the closest WI came to winning a match, they almost lost that one as well ending on 70 odd for 7 .

The great teams dont always have to have great players bursting at the seams,great teams also need to know how to win

 

[Swervy]

and if you consider the results the WI's got around that time (say 2 years either side of 57), that furthers the arguement that they werent world beaters by any stretch of the imagination...of course in time, various players developed and new players came into the side to make it a great team, but that was further into the 60's

 

[marc71178]

Why not?

How is a team great if it doesn't win matches?

 

[marc71178]

What is a team?
In cricket, it's 11 players.
The better the players, the better the team.

No, the better that the 11 gel together as a unit, the better the team.

 

[tooextracool]

People can have poor averages against quality teams for reasons other than technical failings, y'know.
Coincidence can be one of these reasons.

err yes i know, when did i say that he failed for technical reasons?
my point is that martyn hasnt had the problem and to say that inzy is better would be ludicrous in itself, but to say that he is twice the player is an absolute insult.

Yes, first I just used the common generalisations (almost all of which refer to 1996) then I finally looked at the actual facts and saw that 1998 was a more accurate date for both bowlers; and Mushtaq as well.

well you got the waqar younis stat right, he was finished post 96, couldnt buy a wicket against teams other than the mediocre ones that toured pakistan.