Alec Stewart - Toughest career opponents XI

[archie mac]

Wasim Akram always ends up in these teams doesn't he? And always over Waqar or McGrath. Probably the only instance of prevailing CW opinion that differs from the pros every time.

Personally have WA in front of both

 

[uvelocity]

love calling my best mate zipperhead

 

[MW1304]

Classic "playing to the Indian audience" by the newspaper.. Stewart says Lara is the best batsman he has played against bar none but the headline reads - Sachin amongst Stewart's toughest opponents.

The BBC adore Sachin. The only time you'll see a non England-related headline on the front page of their website is when something of any significance has happened to Sachin.

 

[the big bambino]

Yep. I think it's my favourite movie ever.

Its up there alright. Can't go wrong with Clint.

 

[Teja.]

The BBC adore Sachin. The only time you'll see a non England-related headline on the front page of their website is when something of any significance has happened to Sachin.

Nah's It's not a random bias, It obviously has to be a playing to the Indian gallery conspiracy as hb will tell you.

 

[Coronis]

You don't even know Barnes FFS!

How do you know what it would have been like to face him? Most people are in debate as to what type of bowler he was, which makes it even more difficult to make a decision on him.

Based on what I have read, and his stats. I haven't seen much, if any footage of Akram bowling either. So I guess I'm not allowed an opinion of him either.

So this is Stewart's XI:

1. Gordon Greenidge (West Indies)
2. Matthew Hayden (Australia)
3. Brian Lara (West Indies)
4. Sachin Tendulkar (India)
5. Jacques Kallis (South Africa)
6. Steve Waugh (captain, Australia)
7. Adam Gilchrist (Australia, wicketkeeper)
8. Wasim Akram (Pakistan)
9. Shane Warne (Australia)
10. Malcolm Marshall (West Indies)
11. Curtly Ambrose (West Indies)


Hypothetically, I'd like to see how they go against this (they all played against Stewart as well):

Anwar
Sehwag
Ponting
Dravid
Sangakkara
Border (capt)
Flower (wk)
Pollock
Hadlee
Waqar
Murali

Who would win?

This 2nd side is arguably a stronger batting line-up (with Pollock and Hadlee at 8 & 9), but Stewart's side has more bowling variety with a left-armer in Wasim, plus having Kallis as the 5th bowler. I picked Waqar instead of McGrath to add pace to the attack (McGrath is a taller Pollock/Hadlee who can't bat.)

Would much rather have McGrath over Pollock. Kallis and Gilchrist really give his team an edge though.

 

[the big bambino]

You don't even know Barnes FFS!

How do you know what it would have been like to face him? Most people are in debate as to what type of bowler he was, which makes it even more difficult to make a decision on him.

Put that down as another way to bias against older cricketers. Apparently it reflects on their skill that they didn't have the "movin picture shows" back in the day.

Whatever next.

 

[honestbharani]

Nah's It's not a random bias, It obviously has to be a playing to the Indian gallery conspiracy as hb will tell you.

Nah, it makes sense to sense your audience and play to them.. It is just funny, that's all.. But of course, every word I utter is anti-Sachin as Teja would tell u..

 

[Bahnz]

I'm a bit stunned at the under rating of Akram tbh. Frankly he was heaps better than Waqar. That's not disparaging the latter but tells you how good Akram was. The big difference is that Waqar was predictable. The 2 deliveries Akram bowled at Lamb and Lewis (from memory) to win the wc (again from memory) perfectly represent his skill. You just didn't know what was coming next. Except you knew it was going to be good.

I once saw Akram make a dunce out of Greenidge. No other bowler did that. Yes he could be lazy but at his best Akram is the last bowler you'd want to face.

Really disagree with this. Akram was definitely a more skillful bowler than Waqar, in that he could swing the ball both ways. But Waqar was definitely a yard faster, and was no less accurate. You only have to look at his wicket taking feats in the early years of his career to see how much of a nightmare bowler he was. When Pakistan toured NZ in 92/93 and 93/94, Waqar was definitely the one whom I feared the most as an NZ fan (although Wasim caused us plenty of pain as well).

Nowadays, I'd probably rate Wasim slightly above Waqar, because of his greater longevity (he was still carving through opposition batting lineups in the late 90's, by which stage Waqar was pretty much spent). But it's a lot closer than you make out. Both bowlers were terrific (although had different operating styles). Both made my childhood as an NZ cricket fan miserable. Both went on a few years too long. I know statistics aren't everything, but you only have to look at their records in the 1990's to see how difficult it is to split the two.

Wasim 60 matches, 272 wickets @ 21.73 and a sr of 49.1
Average v Australia of 30.27

Waqar 56 matches, 273 wickets @ 21.71 SR of 43.4
Average v Australia of 34.37

 

[the big bambino]

Fair enough. I favour Akram on his unpredictability. I think Waqar's eventual demise was down to sides working out his reverse trick.

Where did you get Akram's ave v Aus? I have him down for 13 tests all in the 90s and averaging 25.76.

 

[Bahnz]

Hmmm, must be a mistake in my summary somewhere. Ah, just spotted that I missed out his first two tests v Australia where he took 17 wickets at 14.6 apiece. Ah well

I'm not sure it was so much batsmen "working out" Waqar's reverse swing as it was Waqar lacking the extreme pace in his later years to make it an effective tactic.

 

[the big bambino]

I remember watching those tests in 1990. Akram was at his best in those 2 games. Aust won the series though (woohoo!)

Akram did better against Oz while Waqar was a menace for Kiwi. That can part way explain why we're split on which one of the 2 is the better bowler.

 

[Bahnz]

Agreed.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Based on what I have read, and his stats. I haven't seen much, if any footage of Akram bowling either. So I guess I'm not allowed an opinion of him either.

Both completely different types of bowlers. Barnes was a spinner, whereas Akram was a quick.

And so stats tell you that Akram is the one you would rather face.

And big baby, I was not being biased against Barnes. After reading about him from SJS's account on him I was in awe of the way he bowled.

 

[the big bambino]

Big baby

 

[Coronis]

Both completely different types of bowlers. Barnes was a spinner, whereas Akram was a quick.

And so stats tell you that Akram is the one you would rather face.

And big baby, I was not being biased against Barnes. After reading about him from SJS's account on him I was in awe of the way he bowled.

Big baby? Really?

If you had actually read about Barnes you would know he wasn't just a spinner, he also bowled fast-medium pace, when the occasion called for it. In my opinion, from what I've read, heard, and seen (from limited footage) I'd say both were extremely dangerous due to their variations, but, Barnes had more variation, was statisically far superior, and was considered by pretty much everybody who played with or against him the greatest bowler of them all and so yes, I'd rather face Akram.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Big baby? Really?

If you had actually read about Barnes you would know he wasn't just a spinner, he also bowled fast-medium pace, when the occasion called for it. In my opinion, from what I've read, heard, and seen (from limited footage) I'd say both were extremely dangerous due to their variations, but, Barnes had more variation, was statisically far superior, and was considered by pretty much everybody who played with or against him the greatest bowler of them all and so yes, I'd rather face Akram.

His name is big baby (bambino in Italian is baby).

But so did people who played with or against Marshall, Akram, Lillee, etc.

 

[Coronis]

His name is big baby (bambino in Italian is baby).

But so did people who played with or against Marshall, Akram, Lillee, etc.

Sorry, I thought you were calling me a baby

No, everybody who played with/against Barnes considered him to be the best. Really I think you just don't want to compare players from different eras.. but hey, thats your opinion that you can't compare them.

 

[kyear2]

I think that Barnes record againts an overmatched South African team massively inflates his numbers , while againts Australia his numbers were merely very good. For me his record againts Australia would be more indicative of his abilities than his numbers vs S.A.

That being said, I also find Wasim to be over rated and not the best of his era, while Barnes certainly was.

 

[Coronis]

I think that Barnes record againts an overmatched South African team massively inflates his numbers , while againts Australia his numbers were merely very good. For me his record againts Australia would be more indicative of his abilities than his numbers vs S.A.

That being said, I also find Wasim to be over rated and not the best of his era, while Barnes certainly was.

Actually, South Africa was pretty strong at the time. Herb Taylor actually scored 508 runs in that series @ 50.80. Not too shabby. iirc they also had Faulkner, Nourse. By 1913-14 they weren't the minnows they formerly were.