Viv vs Lara vs Smith: Who has the best series performances?

[OverratedSanity]

Nah we were lollapsing until Dighe lolled us out of it but that was a flat track and that 4th innings chase should have been a cakewalk. It was the 4th innings jitters + some good bowling and great fielding by Aussies that made it that close.

Chennai was ripping and turning by the end of that test. No way was it flat. Colin Miller was getting it to jump into the batsman's gloves from a length regularly.

 

[honestbharani]

It was the last session but you forget that Ramesh, Das and VVS had already made it look like a cakewalk well before that. I honestly think our lower order guys were just playing off the backfoot but I really dont think it was biting turn or anything, and whatever misbehaviour there was, was only really the last session.

 

[ankitj]

When Wisden did their 100 best bowling spells ranking around 2002, Harbhajan's 4 spells from last 2 tests featured in it. No one else has that kind of representation from a single series. One of things that makes a strong case for it being the greatest series bowling performance ever.

 

[subshakerz]

When Wisden did their 100 best bowling spells ranking around 2002, Harbhajan's 4 spells from last 2 tests featured in it. No one else has that kind of representation from a single series. One of things that makes a strong case for it being the greatest series bowling performance ever.

Once again, my hesitation is mainly that he performed in two matches only. When we talk about greatest series, usually you need such performances in three or more games.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Once again, my hesitation is mainly that he performed in two matches only. When we talk about greatest series, usually you need such performances in three or more games.

Yea but it won us the series

 

[subshakerz]

Yea but it won us the series

Theoretically you can do that with a single game too.

When I think greatest series, I think performances over the stretch of several games.

 

[anil1405]

Theoretically you can do that with a single game too.

When I think greatest series, I think performances over the stretch of several games.

He practically had only five innings to bowl at in that series and excelled in four.

32 wickets in a five test series itself sounds pretty good and to do that in five innings is outstanding.

 

[subshakerz]

He practically had only five innings to bowl at in that series and excelled in four.

32 wickets in a five test series itself sounds pretty good and to do that in five innings is outstanding.

Him getting spanked by Gilly in Mumbai was one of the reasons there was practically only five innings he bowled in.

Hadlee took a 9fer, two 6fers and two 5fers in six innings with a total of 33 wickets in his away series which is mind blowing. Imran a 8fer, two 6fers and a 5fer in the three tests matches Pakistan won in his series on roads (30 wickets in three games), also super impressive.

Anyways, point being Harbi's series isn't some unanimous no.1. At least debatable.

 

[anil1405]

Him getting spanked by Gilly in Mumbai was one of the reasons there was practically only five innings he bowled in.

To come back from that debacle and still pick 32 wickets in the series adds to the speciality of it.

I am not here to claim Bhajjis performance was the best by any bowler in a series but to highlight how silly your logic can sound at times.

 

[Godard]

For me it would be Lara 2001 vs SL. Given the conditions and form of the opposition bowlers this attack(Murali and Vaas) was as good as McGrath/Warne/Gillespie in WI(since conditions in SL were more conducive to spin especially, and Warne was out of form in FW 1999, while Vaas was in the form of his life in 2001 SL series). What the 1999 series has going for it is maybe that WI drew it on back of Lara’s efforts, but the 1999 WI team in terms of bowling especially was far better than the 2001 one vs SL in SL. Also Lara scored close to 700 runs in 3 matches, 42% of total team runs, back to back great performances in nearly all innings. Dominated the greatest home bowler of all time, in the bowler’s home conditions.

 

[subshakerz]

To come back from that debacle and still pick 32 wickets in the series adds to the speciality of it.

I am not here to claim Bhajjis performance was the best by any bowler in a series but to highlight how silly your logic can sound at times.

It's not silly to say that I prefer bowlers who don't have debacles in the course of the series that is supposed to be the greatest ever by a bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

For me it would be Lara 2001 vs SL. Given the conditions and form of the opposition bowlers this attack(Murali and Vaas) was as good as McGrath/Warne/Gillespie in WI(since conditions in SL were more conducive to spin especially, and Warne was out of form in FW 1999, while Vaas was in the form of his life in 2001 SL series). What the 1999 series has going for it is maybe that WI drew it on back of Lara’s efforts, but the 1999 WI team in terms of bowling especially was far better than the 2001 one vs SL in SL. Also Lara scored close to 700 runs in 3 matches, 42% of total team runs, back to back great performances in nearly all innings. Dominated the greatest home bowler of all time, in the bowler’s home conditions.

Don't think that is true really. It was a great series for me more due to runscoring output, but Murali had been decoded by several bats productively in that period, especially left handers, like Anwar, Thorpe and Fleming.

 

[anil1405]

It's not silly to say that I prefer bowlers who don't have debacles in the course of the series that is supposed to be the greatest ever by a bowler.

But it's pretty silly to ignore the fact that his performance came against a team at the back of a 15 test winning streak before the series began (something that happened just twice in history of cricket).

Imagine the form, the confidence with which Aus dismantled India in first test and then that turnaround.

For someone who looks at all minute details it's silly that you ignore the massive strength of the opposition and focus on one small negative point. The gap in strength of that Aus side was massive as compared to other top series bowling performances you mentioned.

 

[subshakerz]

But it's pretty silly to ignore the fact that his performance came against a team at the back of a 15 test winning streak before the series began (something that happened just twice in history of cricket).

Imagine the form, the confidence with which Aus dismantled India in first test and then that turnaround.

For someone who looks at all minute details it's silly that you ignore the massive strength of the opposition and focus on one small negative point. The gap in strength of that Aus side was massive as compared to other top series bowling performances you mentioned.

I don't ignore. Those are the best two back to back bowling performances in cricket history following a fail in the first test. I just think Hadlee and Imran's series definitely merit consideration so it is not a slam dunk. Is that unreasonable?

 

[Godard]

Don't think that is true really. It was a great series for me more due to runscoring output, but Murali had been decoded by several bats productively in that period, especially left handers.

What I know is Murali as per statistics is the most dangerous home bowler ever, and in that series was very destructive. So Murali at home=>McGrath in WI at their peaks. 2000-2002 was peak Murali(in addition to 2006), so him being decoded in that time doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Plus Vaas was also at peak form in 2001 series, whereas Warne was not in 1999 FW.

 

[anil1405]

I don't ignore. Those are the best two back to back bowling performances in cricket history following a fail in the first test. I just think Hadlee and Imran's series definitely merit consideration so it is not a slam dunk. Is that unreasonable?

He was India's best bowler in the first test too picking up four key wickets in first innings. Not his fault that batsmen failed to give him enough runs to play with in second innings.

So you writing off his performance in first test as a failure and then ignoring the massive difference in the teams that Bhajji faced as compared to Imran and Hadlee... and more importantly having this silly criteria that "but it was just two tests" does sound unreasonable and silly.

 

[subshakerz]

What I know is Murali as per statistics is the most dangerous home bowler ever, and in that series was very destructive. So Murali at home=>McGrath in WI at their peaks. 2000-2002 was peak Murali(in addition to 2006), so him being decoded in that time doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Plus Vaas was also at peak form in 2001 series, whereas Warne was not in 1999 FW.

Plenty of bats have done well against Murali, even during his peak in SL, not so many as McGrath. Check Anwar in 2000, Thorpe in 2002 and Fleming a year later of how left-handers decoded him.

And Gillespie and MacGill were also bowling well in that 99 series, don't think the attacks can be compared.

 

[subshakerz]

He was India's best bowler in the first test too picking up four key wickets in first innings. Not his fault that batsmen failed to give him enough runs to play with in second innings.

So you writing off his performance in first test as a failure and then ignoring the massive difference in the teams that Bhajji faced as compared to Imran and Hadlee... and more importantly having this silly criteria that "but it was just two tests" does sound unreasonable and silly.

I mentioned that he was threatening to run thru Australia but then Gilly clocked him majorly. It was a fail since at the end of the day he was dominated by the end of the innings and that cost India the game, along with poor batting.

 

[Godard]

Plenty of bats have done well against Murali, even during his peak in SL, not so many as McGrath. Check Anwar in 2000, Thorpe in 2002 and Fleming a year later of how left-handers decoded him.

And Gillespie and MacGill were also bowling well in that 99 series, don't think the attacks can be compared.

Vaas took 26 wickets in 3 tests, don’t think Gillespie or Macgill were as good as that.

 

[anil1405]

I mentioned that he was threatening to run thru Australia but then Gilly clocked him majorly. It was a fail since at the end of the day he was dominated by the end of the innings and that cost India the game, along with poor batting.

Got four middle order wickets including Gilly's at the end and Aus managed just 379 in that innings, not a 500+. If you call that a failure it makes my case strong that your point(s) are indeed silly.

Lara had what four failures in those eight innings in 1999 but his performance is being unanimously considered the best ever.

Whereas Bhajji performed exceptional in four of the six innings and you still question the performance with bizarre reasoning.