Battle of the Test Bowling

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hirwani.

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

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=859306&postcount=227

More times than you've voted for an Australian, I'd say.

 

[aussie]

This was Warne's first great bowling performance in test cricket & won a good game for Australia, but i'll give it to Hirwani slightly his performance was superb againts in the situation where India had to win to level the series.

 

[silentstriker]

9-3 Hirwani

L Klusener 8 for 64 SA Ind Kolkata 1996-97
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1996-97/RSA_IN_IND/RSA_IND_T2_27NOV-01DEC1996.html

vs.

Iqbal Qasim 7-49 vs Aus 1980
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1979-80/AUS_IN_PAK/AUS_PAK_T1_27FEB-02MAR1980.html

 

[Perm]

Lance Klusener

 

[alternative]

Klusner

 

[Matteh]

Klusener

 

[aussie]

Zulu

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Kluesener. Fair batting lineup he went through, and it seems like spinners dominated in Qasim's game, given Ray Bright's figures.

 

[silentstriker]

Zulu

I know you mean Kluesner in this case, but if I can't figure out who its for, it may not count.

 

[Sanz]

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.

It was a better batting lineup because of Dujon, Richards and Logie and because of the fact that Richardson was at his peak so was Haynes as opposed to what they were five years later. And I dont see how it is any more silly than you suggesting Viv was past his peak or that just because 4 of the batsmen were same, it was a similar batting lineup or your suggestions that since so many overs were bowled by spinners hence it must have been dust bowl or something. The fact is it wasn't really a great spinner friendly wicket as you were suggesting, Hirwani did actually bowl well and WI had no clue to his bowling.

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.

I am not suggesting that Warnie's bowling was crap but just that in this comparison Warnie doesn't stand a chance because the wickets he got were Simmons, Richardson, Artherton, Hooper, Williams, Bishop and Walsh whereas Hirwani got rid of Richardson , Logie, Richards, Dujon, Butts, Davis, Walsh and Patterson. So apart from getting better batsmen he also got 1 more wicket and hence it is a no-brainer for me.

 

[Sanz]

Klusener.

 

[Burpey]

Klusener

 

[Anil]

klusener

 

[oz_fan]

Klusener

 

[shaka]

Klusener

 

[Jono]

The Lance.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The fact is it wasn't really a great spinner friendly wicket as you were suggesting, Hirwani did actually bowl well and WI had no clue to his bowling.

If you read match reports about the performance, they all talk about the pitch being a 'dust bowl' and such. Obviously you remember it differently, but it's not as though I'm making it up. In fact, Hirwani's profile on cricinfo talks about his debut performance on a dustbowl against the West Indies, and how little he did afterwards. It doesn't mean that Hirwani didn't bowl well, but it's certainly something to take into account when comparing it to another bowling performance from a spinner.

And your logic for arguing that Richards wasn't past his best could also be applied to Richardson, who batted very well in that '92 series. Richards may well have had a good series, but he was certainly in decline by the late 80s and it's not quite the same as taking on Richards in the late 70s or early 80s.

 

[Sanz]

Hirwani's profile on cricinfo talks about his debut performance on a dustbowl against the West Indies, and how little he did afterwards.

Really ? You must be reading a different cricinfo profile then. Because neither does the cricinfo profile say that it was a dustbowl nor does it say thathe did little afterwords because in the next 3 tests he took 20 more wickets.

Narendra Hirwani's Test career started with a bang, and petered off into an endless series of muted whimpers. A legspinner in the classical mould, he took a record 16 wickets in his debut Test against West Indies in 1987-88, and followed that up with 20 more in his next three Tests. But it went relentlessly downhill from there. A string of overseas tours followed, and he was unable to repeat that success in unfamiliar conditions. The '90s saw fellow leggie Anil Kumble become India's most consistent strike bowler, and Hirwani couldn't regain a regular place in the side, despite a handful of half-chances. Without Kumble's control or Warne's variety, Hirwani played out his career in domestic cricket, and never looked like repeating his one short-lived flirtation with greatness.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/29299.html

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

My mistake. I got the profile mixed up with a cricinfo article which is linked in the profile. The description of the match which describes the pitch as a turner is from the 'Do not go gentle into that good night' article linked at the bottom of that page.

West Indies were the undisputed kings of cricket in the 1980s and thrashed every team with fearsome fast bowling and explosive batting. However, the West Indian juggernaut was jolted in its romp in the dustbowls of India in 1987-88.

and..

Batting first on a square turner, India, boosted by Kapil Dev's century, posted a reasonable score of 382. When West Indies batted, the bespectacled Hirwani completely bamboozled them with his classical legspin and made them dance to his tunes while taking 8 for 61, as the mighty West Indians crumbled to 184 all out, narrowly avoiding the follow-on. More was to follow after a meek Indian batting display in the second innings, when Hirwani repeated his first innings heroics with another 8-wicket haul as India won by 255 runs and snatched a series-levelling victory. This was Hirwani's moment in the sun as he single-handedly won the Test for India with 16 wickets on a fairy-tale debut, as David slayed Goliath.

 

[Sanz]

Duh !! Where does it say that Chennai pitch was a dust bowl ? It just gives a huge exaggeration by referring to Indian pitches during that as dustbowls of India, which is simply untrue. I watched each and every game of the series and the pitches were anything but dustbowls.

And if it was really a square turner how did the crappy Indian batting lineup set up a target for 400+ runs ? And hirwani's second innings bowling was more of WI gifting their wicket rather then him taking it. Almost every WI batsmen threw his wicket in the second inning, it had nothing to do with the pitch turning square which itwasn't anyway.