*Official* Australia in decline thread

[Richard]

Re: Re: Re: Thommo: Australia will grovel

What happens when Pollock retires?

Why on Earth is that significant? Pollock won't be retiring for at least 5 years unless he suffers some mishap. Honestly, you're talking about a 30-year-old as if he was 34 or 35!

 

[Richard]

Just because Thommo bowled quick, doesn't mean that he is quick between the ears.

Still... he's a pretty good commentator. He can't be completely stupid, unlike some people tell us Brad Williams is.

 

[JohnnyA]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Thommo: Australia will grovel

Why on Earth is that significant? Pollock won't be retiring for at least 5 years unless he suffers some mishap. Honestly, you're talking about a 30-year-old as if he was 34 or 35!

He's a 30 year old bowling like a 35 year old verteran. His velocity has dropped 5-6 mph on average in 4 years. He's still the best all rounder in world cricket, but he's past his peak. He's not the bowler he was. He's bowling like a willey verteran (which he is), not a player in his peak (which his age incorrectly suggests).

Don't judge him by his age, judge him by the sheer amount of overs he has under his belt. He'll be around for a while, and he will continue to be effective. But he's not the force he once was ... especially when in tandem with Allan Donald.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thommo: Australia will grovel

is what I was referring to.

Yes. And? I didn't say Peterson is a pile of crap who couldn't buy a wicket with a king's ransom. I said that he's not very penetrative. Very few finger spinners are. He's an excellent fielder and has potential I believe.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Re: Re: Re: Thommo: Australia will grovel

South Africa are on the down side. What happens when Pollock retires? Ntini is ordinary ... nothing else to speak off.

Well, Ntini was distinctily better than ordinary today!

 

[marc71178]

Some West Indies players in the '50s and '60s:
John Goddard, Jeffrey Stollmeyer, Frank Worrell, Everton Weeks (IMO the second-best batsman ever produced by The Caribbean), Clyde Walcott, Sir Garfield, Lance Gibbs, Wesley Winfield Hall, Sonny Ramadhin, Charles Griffith, Alfred Valentine.
Almost all of them played together for a short time; IMO there was only one side better than that in the game's history:

In the 50's they won 18 and lost 17 with 13 draws
In the 60's they won 18 and lost 13 with 17 draws and a tie.

Not the most impressive of records, and certainly not that of a dominant side in that period.

 

[Richard]

Nope, I was aware of that. England beat them 3-0 in 1957.
Just goes to show you can't judge a side by it's results!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Nope, I was aware of that. England beat them 3-0 in 1957.
Just goes to show you can't judge a side by it's results!

Then what do we judge the on?
I think that what you should say is, rather than you thing that WI side was the second best team of all-time, that WI side was potentially good enough to be called the second best in the game's history.

 

[Richard]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thommo: Australia will grovel

He's a 30 year old bowling like a 35 year old verteran. His velocity has dropped 5-6 mph on average in 4 years. He's still the best all rounder in world cricket, but he's past his peak. He's not the bowler he was. He's bowling like a willey verteran (which he is), not a player in his peak (which his age incorrectly suggests).

Don't judge him by his age, judge him by the sheer amount of overs he has under his belt. He'll be around for a while, and he will continue to be effective. But he's not the force he once was ... especially when in tandem with Allan Donald.

Allan Donald and Shaun Pollock were something rather different.
The notion that Pollock's speed has dropped 5 or 6 mph in the last 4 years is totally untrue. As he has been constantly at pains to point-out, Pollock had one Test-series really where he was a genuine fast bowler - against England in 1995\96. Since an injury he was always fast-medium, and still is. Perhaps his speed is 2 or 3 mph slower than 4 years ago, but the main thing is, his average hasn't exactly changed. In 1998, I can tell you, he was averaging out at 83-4 mph. Now he's a fraction closer to 80, but still not below it. And in the recent match he was regularly into the 130s.
I don't, personally, believe Pollock is any worse a bowler now than in 1998 or 2001, or any time in between. You just needed to see him bowling at Trent Bridge last summer to see that - he couldn't have bettered that at any time in his career.

 

[marc71178]

Nope, I was aware of that. England beat them 3-0 in 1957.
Just goes to show you can't judge a side by it's results!

So does that mean that England 57 is the only side ahead of them in your opinion then?

 

[Richard]

Then what do we judge the on?
I think that what you should say is, rather than you thing that WI side was the second best team of all-time, that WI side was potentially good enough to be called the second best in the game's history.

Yes, maybe; what I'm basically trying to say is, this side was filled with players whose averages and reputations suggest that a team composed of them could have been the second-best of all-time.

 

[luckyeddie]

Nope, I was aware of that. England beat them 3-0 in 1957.
Just goes to show you can't judge a side by it's results!

Cricket is not a game of make-believe - cricket sides can only be realistically judged on results against other sides of that era (which is why all bets are always off when it comes to 'all-time' sides).

What would you judge them on - the quality of speech made by the captain when picking up the loser's cheque?

 

[JohnnyA]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thommo: Australia will grovel

Allan Donald and Shaun Pollock were something rather different.
The notion that Pollock's speed has dropped 5 or 6 mph in the last 4 years is totally untrue. As he has been constantly at pains to point-out, Pollock had one Test-series really where he was a genuine fast bowler - against England in 1995\96. Since an injury he was always fast-medium, and still is. Perhaps his speed is 2 or 3 mph slower than 4 years ago, but the main thing is, his average hasn't exactly changed. In 1998, I can tell you, he was averaging out at 83-4 mph. Now he's a fraction closer to 80, but still not below it. And in the recent match he was regularly into the 130s.
I don't, personally, believe Pollock is any worse a bowler now than in 1998 or 2001, or any time in between. You just needed to see him bowling at Trent Bridge last summer to see that - he couldn't have bettered that at any time in his career.

He was averaging abot 78 mph during the summer if you care to remember. And he looked very hittable at times. He used to have a "fastball" ... now it's all cutters. Basically, he's lost his fastball. Remember that deadly bouncer he used to bowl ... from nowhere ... he was a head clocking machine.

He's basically an incredibly accurate cutter and seamer (when the ball is new). He's been overbowled by SA for years.

The cutter is the reason he made it to the top of the world rankings. It's the most important ball a fast bowler can learn IMHO ... especially a tall fast bowler. You need it on good pitches (e.g. test match pitches) in order to keep the pressure on. That's why McG and Poll are the worlds top bowlers ... because they both have a devastating cutter. This is why Pollock is still a very effective bowler.

HOWEVER, he's lost the variety that came with that mid 80's fastball, and devastating bouncer. Why? Because he's been bowled into the ground ... TAKE NOTE ENGLAND

Pollock is a Ferrari with lots of miles on the clock. he can't reach the top speeds anymore, but will still get you from A to B in relative luxury.

 

[Richard]

Cricket is not a game of make-believe - cricket sides can only be realistically judged on results against other sides of that era (which is why all bets are always off when it comes to 'all-time' sides).

What would you judge them on - the quality of speech made by the captain when picking up the loser's cheque?

Confound you, eddie - another logical (I trust the duck had no part here) set of reasons why my ideas are unrealistic.:rolleyes:
Yes, fair enough I can't make any realistic judgement that WI of 1957 were better than England. Simply, like I did in, for instance, 2003, say that South Africa were a far better side than England. In my judgement. And others will always be able to say "but England got a draw". Which is quite true; South Africa and England played equally in that series (if you ask me the tosses at Headingley and Trent Bridge equalled each other out).
Potential, as I said in another thread recently, is unavoidably a MOO and one person's judgement of potential means little in the grand scheme of things.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, fair enough I can't make any realistic judgement that WI of 1957 were better than England.

So why did you say they're one of the best sides of all time then?

 

[Richard]

Because I believe with that team contained better players than any team ever, bar one.

 

[marc71178]

Because I believe with that team contained better players than any team ever, bar one.

Such great players that they had only just a 50% win to loss record.

 

[Richard]

So you think these players represent mediocrity, then?:
Goddard, Stollmeyer, Worrell, Weekes, Walcott, Sobers, Gibbs, Ramadhin, Hall, Valentine, Griffiths.
Because personally I still think this is a phenominal collection of players, whether they only managed a 50:50 win:loss ratio or not.

 

[Craig]

Valentine and Ramadhin were very good bowlers. Their careers were probably shortened because Gooddard over-bowled them IMO.

 

[Richard]

And they still had Gibbs to follow them, who was handled much better by Worrell, Sobers and Kanhai.