Pathan has come of age!

[marc71178]

Fintoff bowled immensely well in SA, I don't see how he was flattered.

Because Richard made a decision on Flintoff's bowling, and refuses to accept he was wrong about it...

 

[Richard]

So of course, Flintoff himself couldn't possibly have known his body wasn't right, could he...

He could - he could also quite conceivably have been making excuses, because people wanted him to make excuses, and wanted to make excuses for him...

 

[Richard]

Because Richard made a decision on Flintoff's bowling, and refuses to accept he was wrong about it...

No, I never said "Flintoff can never bowl well", as that would have been stupid, and I would indeed have been wrong this summer when Flintoff did indeed bowl superbly after Lord's.
He didn't, however, bowl well in South Africa and I am right to continue to say he didn't rather than just bow to what everyone else says.

 

[GladiatrsInBlue]

Such as?
How many acclaimed great bowlers have struggled to swing the new-ball in the subcontinent having been able to swing it elsewhere?

.

Ever heard of D Lillee?? He happened to be the greatest pacer of all time, and he struggled so badly in Pak that he termed it as a grayeyard for fast bowler and avoided touring Pak on many occasions. There were other pacers too who have fared poorly in Subcontinet.

Yet there has been no improvement as of yet.

and after that, you write

Whether or not there has been an improvement since Pakistan we don't know

I let you figure that out!

We don't know how many of his wickets were obtained by throwing the ball, especially given that the rules have changed in his career.All we know is that sometimes his action has been suspect

Doesn't really matter as to exactly how many wickets did he chucked, we know that on numerous occasion he has been found blatantly chucking and hence he deserves to be called a chucker.

 

[Richard]

Ever heard of D Lillee?? He happened to be the greatest pacer of all time, and he struggled so badly in Pak that he termed it as a grayeyard for fast bowler and avoided touring Pak on many occasions. There were other pacers too who have fared poorly in Subcontinet.

Dennis Lillee, the greatest pacer of all-time! Sorry, you don't become the greatest seamer of all-time if you struggle as badly in the subcontinent as Lillee did. Malcolm Marshall was far better as far as I'm concerned.
Quite why Lillee fared so poorly in the subcontinent is anyone's guess - but it certainly wasn't because it's not possible to swing the ball there.

and after that, you write
I let you figure that out!

Fairly obviously the first one is the one to take notice of.
Yet what I obviously mean is I doubt there has been any improvement.

Doesn't really matter as to exactly how many wickets did he chucked, we know that on numerous occasion he has been found blatantly chucking and hence he deserves to be called a chucker.

Not if he sorts the problem for good, he doesn't.

 

[Swervy]

Dennis Lillee, the greatest pacer of all-time! Sorry, you don't become the greatest seamer of all-time if you struggle as badly in the subcontinent as Lillee did. Malcolm Marshall was far better as far as I'm concerned.
Quite why Lillee fared so poorly in the subcontinent is anyone's guess - but it certainly wasn't because it's not possible to swing the ball there.

This BS about Lillee struggling in the subcontinent..he only played 4 tests in Asia...how can anyone make judgements about him based on 4 tests..three of those in Pakistan in a series which quite obviously offered absolutley nothing to anyone other than the spinners...the first test in Pakistan in 1979, spinners dominated hugely..only Greg Chappell and Imran Khan were anyone other than spinners to take any wickets

In the second test 999 runs were scored for 12 wickets (and two of those were run outs)...Lillee then took 3 wickets in his only bowling innings in another high scoring game.

he then played one test in Sri lanka shortly after knee surgery and was past his best...so in fact , making judgements about his ability to play in Asia is based on 2 innings in extreme spinner friendly and more overwhelmingly batsman friendly conditions.

You may well be right about marshall being overall better , but again you laugh at someones opinion on a player completely dismissing it out of hand, when in fact, plenty of players have said Lillee was the best pacer they have ever seen, and in my opinion, was certainly in the top 5 I have ever seen.

Your attitude to other peoples views stinks quite frankly

 

[Tom Halsey]

This BS about Lillee struggling in the subcontinent..he only played 4 tests in Asia...how can anyone make judgements about him based on 4 tests..three of those in Pakistan in a series which quite obviously offered absolutley nothing to anyone other than the spinners...the first test in Pakistan in 1979, spinners dominated hugely..only Greg Chappell and Imran Khan were anyone other than spinners to take any wickets

In the second test 999 runs were scored for 12 wickets (and two of those were run outs)...Lillee then took 3 wickets in his only bowling innings in another high scoring game.

he then played one test in Sri lanka shortly after knee surgery and was past his best...so in fact , making judgements about his ability to play in Asia is based on 2 innings in extreme spinner friendly and more overwhelmingly batsman friendly conditions.

You may well be right about marshall being overall better , but again you laugh at someones opinion on a player completely dismissing it out of hand, when in fact, plenty of players have said Lillee was the best pacer they have ever seen, and in my opinion, was certainly in the top 5 I have ever seen.

Add to that the fact of the ridiculously biased umpires at that time - I'd be interested to find out how many LBWs were awarded to Australia and Pakistan respectively.

 

[Swervy]

Add to that the fact of the ridiculously biased umpires at that time - I'd be interested to find out how many LBWs were awarded to Australia and Pakistan respectively.

hehehe..11-1 in favoour of Pakistan

 

[Tom Halsey]

hehehe..11-1 in favoour of Pakistan

Lol. Thought as much.

 

[Richard]

This BS about Lillee struggling in the subcontinent..he only played 4 tests in Asia...how can anyone make judgements about him based on 4 tests..three of those in Pakistan in a series which quite obviously offered absolutley nothing to anyone other than the spinners...the first test in Pakistan in 1979, spinners dominated hugely..only Greg Chappell and Imran Khan were anyone other than spinners to take any wickets

In the second test 999 runs were scored for 12 wickets (and two of those were run outs)...Lillee then took 3 wickets in his only bowling innings in another high scoring game.

he then played one test in Sri lanka shortly after knee surgery and was past his best...so in fact , making judgements about his ability to play in Asia is based on 2 innings in extreme spinner friendly and more overwhelmingly batsman friendly conditions.

None of which changes the fact that outstanding seamers will prevail in all conditions.
Lillee underperformed - for whatever reasons.

You may well be right about marshall being overall better , but again you laugh at someones opinion on a player completely dismissing it out of hand, when in fact, plenty of players have said Lillee was the best pacer they have ever seen, and in my opinion, was certainly in the top 5 I have ever seen.

Your attitude to other peoples views stinks quite frankly

You can think that if you want - but for other people's opinions I'd not even be able to have one on Lillee... or anyone else before 1998, really.
To call Lillee better than Marshall is a joke IMO, even though he obviously is in the top 5 in the post-1930 era.

 

[Swervy]

None of which changes the fact that outstanding seamers will prevail in all conditions.
Lillee underperformed - for whatever reasons.

You can think that if you want - but for other people's opinions I'd not even be able to have one on Lillee... or anyone else before 1998, really.
To call Lillee better than Marshall is a joke IMO, even though he obviously is in the top 5 in the post-1930 era.

but the point is he hardly had a chance to do much in pakistan did he...I think it is safe to say that pretty much any pacer would have struggled that series...

as i say, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but to say Lillee was a better bowler than Marshall isnt a joke. The skill level differences between the two were negligible enough to allow people to have an opinion either way on that matter. My feeling is that Marshall was probably harder to play, but in terms of control Lillee was superior and was right up there with Hadlee. And Lillee probably was a very top echelon bowler for longer than marshall was..and Lillee rarely had the back up bowlers Marshall had to take the pressure of him. Without Thommo, Lillee as an express bowler didnt really have a consistant partner, or any other class bowlers to take up the slack when he came off. Lillee was expected to bowl longer spells etc

 

[Richard]

but the point is he hardly had a chance to do much in pakistan did he...I think it is safe to say that pretty much any pacer would have struggled that series...

I think it's safe to say that a truly outstanding bowler is capable of prevailing in any series in any conditions.
No, of course it doesn't say a great deal about Lillee that he didn't have success in that series - Jesus, any fool can have a bad series.
But my understanding is that he pulled-out of subsequent subcontinental series which IMO does say something about him - and certainly it meant he had no chance to right the wrongs.

as i say, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but to say Lillee was a better bowler than Marshall isnt a joke. The skill level differences between the two were negligible enough to allow people to have an opinion either way on that matter. My feeling is that Marshall was probably harder to play, but in terms of control Lillee was superior and was right up there with Hadlee. And Lillee probably was a very top echelon bowler for longer than marshall was..and Lillee rarely had the back up bowlers Marshall had to take the pressure of him. Without Thommo, Lillee as an express bowler didnt really have a consistant partner, or any other class bowlers to take up the slack when he came off. Lillee was expected to bowl longer spells etc

No, of course, Walker and Gilmour were indeed shoddy bowlers. IMO both weren't that much worse than Thomson, who is one of the more overrated bowlers in cricket.
Lillee's control certainly was no better than Marshall's IMO, though obviously he was much taller, so of course had more margin-for-error in length.
Yes, the attack Marshall played in was mostly better than Lillee's, but as I've said many times, there are advantages and disadvantages of both being part of strong attacks and weak ones, and as far as I'm concerned they pretty much even themselves out.

 

[tooextracool]

Nope, good bowlers can swing a ball in the right condition (ie with sufficient shine) anywhere (except possibly some places in West Indies) as long as they've got everything right.

rubbish pollock,hoggard, caddick etc all of whom are fine swing bowlers couldnt swing the ball an iota in australia. pollock didnt manage to swing the ball in india recently, hoggard didnt in SL and caddick didnt on the rare occasions he went to the subcontinent. hoggard barely swung a ball for all of the first 3 ashes tests, and no one else from either side swung a ball in any of the first 3 ashes test matches.

 

[GladiatrsInBlue]

Dennis Lillee, the greatest pacer of all-time! Sorry, you don't become the greatest seamer of all-time if you struggle as badly in the subcontinent as Lillee did. Malcolm Marshall was far better as far as I'm concerned.
Quite why Lillee fared so poorly in the subcontinent is anyone's guess - but it certainly wasn't because it's not possible to swing the ball there.

.

Lillee happens to be an all time great bowler, sorry but i found you laugh at it simply very stupid.

Lillee stuggled in Pak as the wickets had nothing for the fast bowler, no need for guesses here.

Fairly obviously the first one is the one to take notice of.Yet what I obviously mean is I doubt there has been any improvement

whatever

Not if he sorts the problem for good, he doesn't

there is a big "if" with it.

Frankly is nothing but hope against hope!

 

[tooextracool]

None of which changes the fact that outstanding seamers will prevail in all conditions..

absolutely no bowler can perform well when theres no help from the wicket or from the conditions. if theres no swing(conventional and reverse) and theres no movement or uneven bounce of the pitch then you havent got a hope of taking wickets. if anybody thinks that marshall or anyone else would have prevailed at antigua 2005 he'd be in an asylum.

 

[C_C]

rubbish pollock,hoggard, caddick etc all of whom are fine swing bowlers couldnt swing the ball an iota in australia. pollock didnt manage to swing the ball in india recently, hoggard didnt in SL and caddick didnt on the rare occasions he went to the subcontinent. hoggard barely swung a ball for all of the first 3 ashes tests, and no one else from either side swung a ball in any of the first 3 ashes test matches.

None of them qualify as a swing bowler.
Hoggard is mediocre, Caddick was a 'never was' and Pollock is a seamer, not a swinger - plus his main weapons used to be his unerring accuracy and his excellent bounce.

 

[C_C]

but the point is he hardly had a chance to do much in pakistan did he...I think it is safe to say that pretty much any pacer would have struggled that series...

as i say, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but to say Lillee was a better bowler than Marshall isnt a joke. The skill level differences between the two were negligible enough to allow people to have an opinion either way on that matter. My feeling is that Marshall was probably harder to play, but in terms of control Lillee was superior and was right up there with Hadlee. And Lillee probably was a very top echelon bowler for longer than marshall was..and Lillee rarely had the back up bowlers Marshall had to take the pressure of him. Without Thommo, Lillee as an express bowler didnt really have a consistant partner, or any other class bowlers to take up the slack when he came off. Lillee was expected to bowl longer spells etc

Control ?!
Lillee ? Lillee was a bit like Waqar and Akhtar - could produce brutal deliveries quite frequently but always lacked the control that was trademark of the great bowlers. Which is why he got clobbered quite often.
And no, Lillee isnt as good as Marshall - he has way too many holes in his resume. He sucked in Pakistan, never played in India, sucked in West Indies and sucked in Sri Lanka- he played 85% of his matches in England or Australia and as such, didnt face the challenge ( or declined the challenge- whichever way you want to look at it) to bowl in conditions that were less than ideal for pace bowlers.
He only had one good series vs the West Indies ( the best batting team of his era) and was mediocre against them overall.
He was a great bowler but bowlers like Marshall,Hadlee,Holding,Garner, Ambrose, McGrath, Akram etc. who conquered everybody and did well almost everywhere ( atleast, much more varied places than Lillee) easily rate ahead of Lillee.
Lillee is in my second tier of pace bowlers, alongside Waqar Younis,Statham,Walsh, etc.

Lillee is overhyped, simply because he came along at the right time with the 'macho' attitude.
The world had gone through a lull in pace bowling and apart from a fast-declining Wes Hall and a decent but no-great-shakes McKenzie, the world's pace bowling resources were laid bare.
Lillee came in and succeeded pretty well ( well- not greatly) and for 2-3 years before the rise of Roberts, was the only genuinely destructive speedster.
His 'macho' attitude endeared him to the public worldwide and a bit of a David Beckham of cricket ensured - a great bowler but one who's reputation is bloated up far more than it deserved on merit.
A bit similar would've been McGrath being on a Donald-Pollock-Akram-Waqar-esque decline around 2002-2003 and McGrath along with Pollock retiring as well and the world being fuelled by good seamers like Vaas, Gillespie and Akhtar for a few years before the next 'superb/great' bowler rose - that 'superb' bowler could've been Akhtar Mk-II but would get the billing of a 'once in a lifetime player' like Lillee did.

 

[Richard]

rubbish pollock,hoggard, caddick etc all of whom are fine swing bowlers couldnt swing the ball an iota in australia. pollock didnt manage to swing the ball in india recently, hoggard didnt in SL and caddick didnt on the rare occasions he went to the subcontinent. hoggard barely swung a ball for all of the first 3 ashes tests, and no one else from either side swung a ball in any of the first 3 ashes test matches.

Yes, and Hoggard's swing has gone missing many times in a whole variety of conditions. He's also got the ball to swing in clear air when it's been coming out right.
Sometimes, of course, you get balls that, for whatever reason, don't swing even when everything seems right.
If you think Caddick never swung it on the subcontinent, meanwhile, I suggest you rewatch Kandy and SSC 2000\01.

 

[Richard]

Lillee happens to be an all time great bowler, sorry but i found you laugh at it simply very stupid.

Lillee stuggled in Pak as the wickets had nothing for the fast bowler, no need for guesses here.

Nope, Lillee struggled in Pak because he didn't bowl at his best. It happens.
If he's an all-time great bowler (and he is) he won't struggle anywhere if he bowls as he can.
He's not, however, the best seamer there ever was.

 

[Richard]

absolutely no bowler can perform well when theres no help from the wicket or from the conditions. if theres no swing(conventional and reverse) and theres no movement or uneven bounce of the pitch then you havent got a hope of taking wickets.

Fairly obviously.
Point is it's almost invariable that there is some swing, as long as you look after the ball properly.

if anybody thinks that marshall or anyone else would have prevailed at antigua 2005 he'd be in an asylum.

If they had got the ball into the right condition he might have.