Battle of the Test Bowling

[alternative]

Imran Khan

 

[TT Boy]

Imran Khan.

 

[Jono]

Imran. Did he clean bowl Gavaskar whilst well set in that match?

 

[aussie]

The legendary Imran.

 

[oz_fan]

Imran Khan

 

[silentstriker]

Its a massacre. Imran wins it 10-0

Hirwani 8-61 vs West Indies, Madras January 1988
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1987-88/WI_IN_IND/WI_IND_T4_11-15JAN1988.html

vs.


Shane Warne, 7/52 vs West Indies, MCG 1992
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1992-93/WI_IN_AUS/WI_AUS_T2_26-30DEC1992.html

 

[oz_fan]

Hirwani

 

[Dasa]

Hirwani.

 

[Anil]

hirwani

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Warne for me. Given the massive number of overs bowled by spinners in this game and Hirwani's complete ineffectiveness over the rest of his career, you'd have to imagine he got a fair amount of help from the surface (backed up by match reports, incidentally). Also, given the result in Adelaide, this Warne spell was one run from clinching the world championship for Australia. Opposition was fairly similar for both sides, and both spells were matchwinners, so the main issue becomes the helpfulness of the surface and the impact of the performance.

 

[Sanz]

Hirwani very easily. He was bowling to a better batting lineup. I watched the game, pitch wasn't as bad as it is made out to be. Full credits to Hirwani for bowling so well.

 

[cameeel]

Warne

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hirwani very easily. He was bowling to a better batting lineup.

Certainly not by enough to have any bearing on the debate. The batting lineup was exactly the same in four spots, the difference being that Warne faced Lara and Arthurton in place of Richards and Logie. Given that Richards was past his best by 88 and Lara had just made 277 in the previous test (and is probably a better player of spin than Richards anyway), I don't see that as being a clear win for Hirwani at all.

 

[Sanz]

Certainly not by enough to have any bearing on the debate. The batting lineup was exactly the same in four spots, the difference being that Warne faced Lara and Arthurton in place of Richards and Logie. Given that Richards was past his best by 88 and Lara had just made 277 in the previous test (and is probably a better player of spin than Richards anyway), I don't see that as being a clear win for Hirwani at all.

Richards wasn't past his best.I watched the series and I remember him smashing us all over park @ Delhi and then @ Rajkot (ODI). Even in this inning when Hirwani was virtulally unplayable, Viv was scoringe very fluently (Something I would compare to Tendulkar's Inning vs Australia @ Mumbai).

In fact it was Warne who was bowling to Hayens, Richardson who were past their best. And I agree BLC was in smoking form, but Warnie didn't get his wicket.

Hirwani got - Richardson, Richards, Hooper, Logie, Dujon + 3 Tailenders
Warnie got - Simmons, Richardson, Arthurton, Hooper + 3 tailenders (Sorry I counted David Williams as a tailender because he batted like one)

Seems like a No-brainer to me.

 

[Perm]

Hirwani

 

[a massive zebra]

Hirwani.

I'm struggling to find an instance where Faaip has voted against an Australian.

 

[shaka]

Hirwani, usually I would go for Warne , but the sheer number of wickets and the quality of the batting has affected my decision.

The number of stumpings in that 2nd innings must be a record

 

[alternative]

Hirwani

 

[marc71178]

Hirwani.

I'm struggling to find an instance where Faaip has voted against an Australian.

Probably about as often as you've ever posted in favour of Warne.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Richards wasn't past his best.I watched the series and I remember him smashing us all over park @ Delhi and then @ Rajkot (ODI). Even in this inning when Hirwani was virtulally unplayable, Viv was scoringe very fluently (Something I would compare to Tendulkar's Inning vs Australia @ Mumbai).

In fact it was Warne who was bowling to Hayens, Richardson who were past their best. And I agree BLC was in smoking form, but Warnie didn't get his wicket.

Hirwani got - Richardson, Richards, Hooper, Logie, Dujon + 3 Tailenders
Warnie got - Simmons, Richardson, Arthurton, Hooper + 3 tailenders (Sorry I counted David Williams as a tailender because he batted like one)

Seems like a No-brainer to me.

Dismissing better batsmen isn't really the same as bowling to a better batting lineup, is it? The fact is, the batting lineups were more or less the same. It may be that individual batsmen were in better form in one series as opposed to the other, but it's rather silly to say "I vote Hirwani because he faced a better batting lineup" when four of the batsmen were the same, and the performances were 4 years apart. Similarly, I can't see at all how this is a "no brainer". Both were great performances that are quite famous in their own right - Warne for making a name for himself as a bowler for the first time, giving Australia a 1-0 lead in a series against the West Indies, and the ball he dismissed Richardson with, and Hirwani for his amazing debut. In other words, there's fair arguments for both sides, which means it's not a no brainer.