Ravichandran Ashwin vs Jim Laker

[subshakerz]

To be honest, there is no serious argument for Laker that doesn't work for Ashwin. Hard to say Laker prospered in English conditions when they were far from the Broaderson and Woakes greentops now. A serious belief of Laker involves questionable motives.

Isn't the converse also true, no argument for Ashwin that doesnt work for Laker? Except maybe output.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Isn't the converse also true, no argument for Ashwin that doesnt work for Laker? Except maybe output.

So vote for him then(output).

 

[subshakerz]

So vote for him then(output).

No fifer in SENA.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

No fifer in SENA.

Laker had plenty of greentops at home and still Ashwin is the more destructive bowler at home. Laker has a fifer apiece outside home in Aus where he barely played 4 games, and in WI where he was mediocre. In SA he was horrid. Ashwin easily better since Laker barely has anything to show away from home, apart from 4 games in Australia. And Ashwin is more destructive at home easily, great anywhere else in the SC, decent in England and had a valuable tour of Aus last time. Plus he is amazing in WI too(although against a weak side). Ashwin easily for his home exploits only

 

[subshakerz]

Laker had plenty of greentops at home and still Ashwin is the more destructive bowler at home. Laker has a fifer apiece outside home in Aus where he barely played 4 games, and in WI where he was mediocre. In SA he was horrid. Ashwin easily better since Laker barely has anything to show away from home, apart from 4 games in Australia. And Ashwin is more destructive at home easily, great anywhere else in the SC, decent in England and had a valuable tour of Aus last time. Plus he is amazing in WI too(although against a weak side). Ashwin easily for his home exploits only

What makes you think Laker was worse at home?

I see two spinners.

One spinner was lethal in his particular conditions and ranged from okay to good outside.

The other spinner was lethal in his particular conditions and ranged from poor to okay outside.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

What makes you think Laker was worse at home?

I see two spinners.

One spinner was lethal in his particular conditions and ranged from okay to good outside.

The other spinner was lethal in his particular conditions and ranged from poor to okay outside.

Ashwin has a much better WPM at home and has performed against a bigger range of opponents. And Laker has greentops and occasional stickies at home. Also Laker barely has played matches in Australia, the only place he was good outside home. I would easily take Ashwin’s 2021 series in Aus over that. Laker was bad in both WI and SA. And you can’t completely disregard Ashwin being decent in Eng and superb in WI.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

WI and SC not same conditions, and even within SC you don’t have completely identical conditions. If Laker had an additional country like India or so where he had good figures, you could make a case.

 

[subshakerz]

Ashwin has a much better WPM at home and has performed against a bigger range of opponents. And Laker has greentops and occasional stickies at home. Also Laker barely has played matches in Australia, the only place he was good outside home. I would easily take Ashwin’s 2021 series in Aus over that. Laker was bad in both WI and SA. And you can’t completely disregard Ashwin being decent in Eng and superb in WI.

Laker has a better home average though. And an SR of 54 was insane for his time. Plus an ATG series there in 56.

You cant just cherrpick Ashwin's best series in Aus and ignore the two crap series, anymore than we ignore Ponting's earlier failures in India. Overall Ashwin was bad in Aus. He was worse in SA. England he was ok, roughly same as Laker in SA. Laker was good in Aus and okay in WI. And this is despite Ashwin having many more opportunities to succeed that Laker.

 

[subshakerz]

WI and SC not same conditions, and even within SC you don’t have completely identical conditions. If Laker had an additional country like India or so where he had good figures, you could make a case.

Ashwin's range of countries and opponents works against him. He succeeded only in SC conditions or against WI, and failed everywhere else despite many tours.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Ashwin's range of countries and opponents works against him. He succeeded only in SC conditions or against WI, and failed everywhere else despite many tours.

Laker wasn't even choosen for most tours because they feel he would fail..... And Laker wasn't really as good as Ashwin at home who made India a fortress. Ashwin was slightly ahead in WI (accounting for opposition), Laker slightly ahead in Australia and both horribly inept in SA. Ashwin on the other hand was more than decent in England and great in SL.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Laker has a better home average though. And an SR of 54 was insane for his time. Plus an ATG series there in 56.

You cant just cherrpick Ashwin's best series in Aus and ignore the two crap series, anymore than we ignore Ponting's earlier failures in India. Overall Ashwin was bad in Aus. He was worse in SA. England he was ok, roughly same as Laker in SA. Laker was good in Aus and okay in WI. And this is despite Ashwin having many more opportunities to succeed that Laker.

Considering the pitches in Aus, Ashwin was decent there, purely for the fact he was a valuable cog in India’s most important series win away ever. Laker barely played matches in Aus(below the 5 match limit), and was bad in WI and SA. And despite Laker’s average Ashwin has a far greater WPM despite facing much better competition in form of Jadeja and the pacers at home. And you yourself mentioned how out of the world was Ashwin’s SR at home . Ashwin is better at home. Laker barely has adequate showings outside

 

[Xix2565]

Isn't the converse also true, no argument for Ashwin that doesnt work for Laker? Except maybe output.

Not really because Ashwin has played more teams and been tested more than Laker. Output of course is far superior anyway.

 

[subshakerz]

Not really because Ashwin has played more teams and been tested more than Laker. Output of course is far superior anyway.

He failed more tests so it doesnt help.

Considering the pitches in Aus, Ashwin was decent there, purely for the fact he was a valuable cog in India’s most important series win away ever. Laker barely played matches in Aus(below the 5 match limit), and was bad in WI and SA. And despite Laker’s average Ashwin has a far greater WPM despite facing much better competition in form of Jadeja and the pacers at home. And you yourself mentioned how out of the world was Ashwin’s SR at home . Ashwin is better at home. Laker barely has adequate showings outside

We are going to have to disagree on Aus, a bowling average of 40 is a batting average in the 20s, inadmissable.

We have to lower our usual match limits somewhat to account for less tests of the time.

He wasnt outright bad in WI and SA, just okay. Laker's SR given the era is comparable with Ashwin, so its better average vs WPM, roughly equal.

So both great at home, Laker better away.

Laker wasn't even choosen for most tours because they feel he would fail..... And Laker wasn't really as good as Ashwin at home who made India a fortress. Ashwin was slightly ahead in WI (accounting for opposition), Laker slightly ahead in Australia and both horribly inept in SA. Ashwin on the other hand was more than decent in England and great in SL.

Ashwin was also dropped for tours. Ashwin faced a LOL batting lineup compared to what Laker did. Ashwin is faar worse in SA, he was useless there despite three tours. Ashwin in England = Laker in SA.

Overall Ashwin is a spin track bully who would trade all his home tenfers for a single fifer in SENA. But we already know that.

 

[Xix2565]

He failed more tests so it doesnt help.

Not as much as you want to lie about, and certainly not enough to put him below Laker who got saved from such scenarios due to selection and lack of competition.

 

[capt_Luffy]

He failed more tests so it doesnt help.


We are going to have to disagree on Aus, a bowling average of 40 is a batting average in the 20s, inadmissable.

We have to lower our usual match limits somewhat to account for less tests of the time.

He wasnt outright bad in WI and SA, just okay. Laker's SR given the era is comparable with Ashwin, so its better average vs WPM, roughly equal.

So both great at home, Laker better away.


Ashwin was also dropped for tours. Ashwin faced a LOL batting lineup compared to what Laker did. Ashwin is faar worse in SA, he was useless there despite three tours. Ashwin in England = Laker in SA.

Overall Ashwin is a spin track bully who would trade all his home tenfers for a single fifer in SENA. But we already know that.

He was outright horrible in SA with context. And judging spinners 1 O 1 with average is a horrible process, especially in less helpful places. Kumble is the best touring spinner in Australia, he averages 34 there.

Ashwin is faaar from far worse in SA. By context, I will take Ashwin's record there over Laker's. If you think Ashwin in England=Laker in SA, you're just going purely by averages. And definitely Ashwin didn't played much weaker batting lineups, that just falls. If you're talking about WI, then the reverse is truer for SA.

Laker is a bigger spin track bully, who rallished in wet pitches.

 

[Xix2565]

Laker is as much of a spin track merchant, only he's English not Indian. Not sure why you want to act like that matters a lot though... Questions to be asked for sure.

 

[subshakerz]

Not as much as you want to lie about, and certainly not enough to put him below Laker who got saved from such scenarios due to selection and lack of competition.

I'm sorry, have we entered a dimension where averaging 40 with the ball somewhere is suddenly good?

 

[Xix2565]

I'm sorry, have we entered a dimension where averaging 40 with the ball somewhere is suddenly good?

Have we entered a dimension where lying and misunderstanding records is suddenly good also?

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

He failed more tests so it doesnt help.


We are going to have to disagree on Aus, a bowling average of 40 is a batting average in the 20s, inadmissable.

We have to lower our usual match limits somewhat to account for less tests of the time.

He wasnt outright bad in WI and SA, just okay. Laker's SR given the era is comparable with Ashwin, so its better average vs WPM, roughly equal.

So both great at home, Laker better away.


Ashwin was also dropped for tours. Ashwin faced a LOL batting lineup compared to what Laker did. Ashwin is faar worse in SA, he was useless there despite three tours. Ashwin in England = Laker in SA.

Overall Ashwin is a spin track bully who would trade all his home tenfers for a single fifer in SENA. But we already know that.

Laker isn’t better away cause his only good record away is Australia which is below 5 matches and it’s not like he set the world on fire to consider it seriously. He was bad in SA and WI. Ashwin was good in WI outside home and it’s not like conditions are uniformly identical in the SC. Further Ashwin is decent in England, and he is better at home cause of his insane WPM despite competition, performance against a broader range of oppositions, and insane SR for a spinner. Laker’s away record is in inconsequential.

 

[Xix2565]

OG pitch doctoring merchants should be marked down for shamelessly bullying far weaker opposition compared to the modern sides.