The Records and Milestones thread

[OverratedSanity]

Isn't it more pertinent to point out that Warney basically was never all that good when bowling at quality players of spin? I don't see any reason to not think that the likes of Greenidge, Haynes, Lloyd and Richards were not that.

He had some success against Dravid and sanga but yeah, apart from that, yeah, most of the great players of spin of the era ate him alive.

 

[vcs]

Or were they only considered great players of spin because they got on top of Warne?

 

[honestbharani]

not when you had Murali, Kumble, Saqlain and others running around, no.

 

[stephen]

This simply isn't true. India had 2(Kapil was ATG just like Sunil),Pakistan had 3(Imran,Wasim and Miandad).Australia had Border,Chappell and Lillee.

Chappell and Lillee both retired fairly early on during the Windies period of dominance, which is why I was ignoring them. While Australia had them (basically until WSC) Australia were competitive with the Windies.

India's problem in that era was that aside from the two guys you mentioned they were mostly terrible.

And Pakistan were the side which pushed the WI the hardest. From memory they had the second highest win/ loss ratio of the 80s.

The reason I brought all of this up is because there seems to be an almost religious- like worshipping on the West Indies during their era of dominance, like they were unbeatable. They weren't. They drew a lot of games and even a number of series in that period.

 

[Slifer]

Chappell and Lillee both retired fairly early on during the Windies period of dominance, which is why I was ignoring them. While Australia had them (basically until WSC) Australia were competitive with the Windies.

India's problem in that era was that aside from the two guys you mentioned they were mostly terrible.

And Pakistan were the side which pushed the WI the hardest. From memory they had the second highest win/ loss ratio of the 80s.

The reason I brought all of this up is because there seems to be an almost religious- like worshipping on the West Indies during their era of dominance, like they were unbeatable. They weren't. They drew a lot of games and even a number of series in that period.

They lost tests not series, so yeah they were literally unbeatable series wise. And India were not terrible, they also had Armanath and Dilip who were both very good batsmen. As a matter of fact, imo none of the teams of that era were woeful or minnow-esque on the level of a Zimbabwe or an early Bangladesh. Australia and England were poor but imo they were probably equivalent to WI post Ambrose retirement.

 

[mr_mister]

Or were they only considered great players of spin because they got on top of Warne?

This. Unless we consider 90% of the batsman Warnie faced terrible players of spin because he left a lot looking very silly

 

[honestbharani]

This. Unless we consider 90% of the batsman Warnie faced terrible players of spin because he left a lot looking very silly

I remember Mohammed Rafique smashing him around in BD's first test against Aus. And honestly, England were pretty meme-worthy level poor against spin and some of the RSA batsmen too. I think his success against Pakistan is perhaps his best against a team who can be considered non-minnows against spin.

Also, I think it is totally fair to consider Richards Lloyd Greenidge Haynes Kallicharan as batsmen better than 90% of the blokes Warne bowled at.

 

[ankitj]

Posts about ATG XI contest should be in another thread I guess...

 

[vcs]

Younis Khan, Mohammed Yousuf, Kallis, Cullinan, Graeme Smith, Strauss, Thorpe etc. were far from bad players of spin and had success against some other good spinners but rarely did well against Australia. Now I'm not going to look up how many times Warne individually got them out etc. but I'm guessing he played a part.

No doubt Warne sucked in India and got taken apart by peak Lara in that '99 series but it doesn't follow that he only bullied weak players of spin. You don't take 700 wickets at 25 doing just that.

 

[mr_mister]

Also I think it's odd HB considers those 5 guys better than 90% of the batsman Warne faced. Surely other than Viv the rest can't be considered on some higher tier than many, many players who averaged 42-47(ie the range of Haynes to Lloyd) in the period Warne bowled in

If they were so good surely they should have all averaged over 50 considering most of the best bowlers of their era were on their team

 

[jimmy101]

Those 5 blokes HB named are pretty much all ATGs, or at the least ATVGs. Sensible logic from HB imo.

 

[mr_mister]

The guys in vcs post were all ATVG too, not to mention countless more

 

[GoodAreasShane]

I'm a fairly biased Australian fan, but HB really has a point. The West Indies teams of that era were definitely something special

 

[mr_mister]

I'm a fairly biased Australian fan, but HB really has a point. The West Indies teams of that era were definitely something special

The bowlers yes. The batting was not of the '48 invincbles or '01 Australian class imo. Gomes and Logie played a bunch of tests in their middle order averaging less than 40

We can't pretend Haynes record as an opener was any better than like, 5-6 Australian openers of the past 25 years

 

[jimmy101]

Bit beside the point innit? HB never mentioned Gomes & Logie, did he?

And sure, there are some Aussie openers out there from the past 25 years that were better than Haynes. But it's still besides the point HB was making.

 

[mr_mister]

I mean the Gomes-Logie point was in response to GAS. But also I think it's a sign their overall batting ability was a rung below the great Australian sides if they had staple specialist bats averaging under 40 (wasn't what started this debate who would win out of their ATG sides)

And if the point hb is making is solely that those 5 blokes were better than 90% of the bats Warne faced from '93-07 I think it's pretty easily disproven.

I can name 20 non Aussie bats from that big era that are easily in their class, minus viv and arguably greenidge

 

[jimmy101]

I can name 20 non Aussie bats from that big era that are easily in their class, minus viv and arguably greenidge

I believe that's possible also. But it still doesn't disprove HB's assertion that those blokes are still better than 90% of the total batsman Warne bowled to.

 

[mr_mister]

Okay well I'd accept something like 70% but 90 seems a bit stiff. Keep in mind he played 3 tests total against Bangas and Zimbabwe

 

[jimmy101]

Yeah I think in the vicinity of 70 - 90% is realistic.

 

[h_hurricane]

For what its worth, Lloyd and Kallicharan were truly great players of spin, not just ATVG. They were probably better than Viv as well in that respect.