• 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.

How much did slip cordons affect McGrath's and Wasim's records?

Sunil1z

Sunil1z

International Regular
subshakerz said:
Nobody is arguing here for Akram being better than McGrath. But the inherent bias against those pacers who may not have had the best support to succeed.
Click to expand...
Akram is rated as top 10 pacer by 90% of people. How high do you want him to be rated ?
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
capt_Luffy said:
Will you please drop the straw man?? Please tell me an ATG team, just one; which had the Khan, Hadlee and Procter together??? There is only of them, none played for any ATG team. Can you show me a team where an ATG team where a batsman gets in due to his bowling. But I can still give you two teams, one which was the best of it's time, the best pre WWI; and the other which didn't play due to apartheid.

England 1902:

Archie Maclaren*
C B Fry
K S Ranjitsinhji
Johnny Tyldesly
Stanley Jackson
Gilbert Jessop
George Hirst
Dick Lilley+
Bill Lockwood
Len Braud
Wilfred Rhodes

Have arguments to be England's best team of all time; all 11 players have multiple FC centuries, I mean, Rhodes is batting at 11 here.


South Africa mid 70s:

Barry Richards
Jimmy Cook
Peter Kirsten
Graeme Pollock
Eddie Barlow*
Clive Rice
Denis Lindsay+
Mike Procter
Alan Kourie
Garth Le Roux
Vincent van der Bijl
Click to expand...

This argument was over from the first paragraph. Pre WW 1 & didn't play.

Procter played 7 tests and didn't score a 50, far less a hundred.

I hate arguing this because I do think that every part of the game is impactful and important. You'll just take it to ridiculous extremes. To the point where even your no. 11 needs to be able to bat. Good thing Australia didn't do that to McGrath, Windies to Walsh or SL to Murali.

I'm not saying you can't win with good bowling all rounders, I'm saying you can be successful without them.

You need, as subz calls them, useful tailenders who can at least hold up an end or score some runs where required, once they are your best bowlers of course
But great teams have won though selecting the best bowlers to bowl out the opposition, batsmen who score and hold catches.

Lloyd didn't put out the call for bowlers who could bat, he wanted quick intimidating fast bowlers and counter attacking batsmen. He had brilliant guys in death row and an athletic keeper who could hold a bat. That's what he got from the Aussie's and got passed back down to the Aussies then to the Saffers.

Not saying it's the only way, but it worked.

I really would like to know where the bat deep phenomenon really started, because it wasn't on the field.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
I mentioned. He is no. 10 on CW, so a few places higher over Lillee and Trueman and maybe Ambrose.
Click to expand...
He wasn't better than Ambrose, come on man.

The same England and Australia teams that Ambrose destroyed, he was moderate to poor against.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
kyear2 said:
This argument was over from the first paragraph. Pre WW 1 & didn't play.

Procter played 7 tests and didn't score a 50, far less a hundred.

I hate arguing this because I do think that every part of the game is impactful and important. You'll just take it to ridiculous extremes. To the point where even your no. 11 needs to be able to bat. Good thing Australia didn't do that to McGrath, Windies to Walsh or SL to Murali.

I'm not saying you can't win with good bowling all rounders, I'm saying you can be successful without them.

You need, as subz calls them, useful tailenders who can at least hold up an end or score some runs where required, once they are your best bowlers of course
But great teams have won though selecting the best bowlers to bowl out the opposition, batsmen who score and hold catches.

Lloyd didn't put out the call for bowlers who could bat, he wanted quick intimidating fast bowlers and counter attacking batsmen. He had brilliant guys in death row and an athletic keeper who could hold a bat. That's what he got from the Aussie's and got passed back down to the Aussies then to the Saffers.

Not saying it's the only way, but it worked.

I really would like to know where the bat deep phenomenon really started, because it wasn't on the field.
Click to expand...
It really started on field. The Aussie team of Invincibles often had batsmen like Johnson at 10. And again, enough strawmans; no one is asking SL to drop Murali for Illingworth, but Warne. And so now Procter wasn't an allrounder..... And again, you asked for whether one existed, you ignoring Pre WWI, the very era where keepers could not hold a bat, is somewhat just shifting goalposts.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
He wasn't better than Ambrose, come on man.

The same England and Australia teams that Ambrose destroyed, he was moderate to poor against.
Click to expand...
Well it's more debatable if we assume Wasim's record took a hit cas of slips, but I would still favor Ambrose too.

You would agree that him vs Lillee and Trueman would become more clearcut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top