Test Cricket - Information

[Richard]

murali averaged a whole 37 the last time he played in england.

When, amazingly enough, he could barely move his shoulder without being in pain.

 

[Richard]

If that's what the man (who was actually around to watch it) says, then who are those who didn't see it to doubt him?

So... how does he know Warne and Murali would have struggled?

 

[Richard]

Like i said, put up or shut up.
Show me 4-5 Pakistani bowlers through the 80s who were superior to Qadir and active.
If you cannot, you have no case in stating that Qadir wasn't good enough to play for Pakistan overseas.

Why not? If I don't know specific cases, I still know that it's almost impossible for them to not exist.

That pattern was consistent with every spinner in the 80s.
And Qadir was by far the best of the lot in the whole planet.
His only competition in the 80s came from his own compatriot Iqbal Qasim and for a brief while from Dileep Doshi.

Exactly, because as so often the spinners were only good on turning pitches. That simply says that it's very unusual to get spinners who can bowl well consistently and on all surfaces.
So, instead of spinners, you pick seamers.

 

[tooextracool]

When, amazingly enough, he could barely move his shoulder without being in pain.

because you said so?
he bowled just as well as he always has, especially at edgbaston where he bowled that absolute beauty to butcher. but then again, only you can explain how someone who bowled 124 overs in 2 innings could barely move his shoulder.

 

[a massive zebra]

murali averaged a whole 37 the last time he played in england.

And Warne was dropped for an Ashes Test down under a few years back.

 

[tooextracool]

And Warne was dropped for an Ashes Test down under a few years back.

is everything about murali vs warne to you? because that has no relevance whatsoever to the argument at hand.
and which test was warne dropped for anyways?

 

[a massive zebra]

is everything about murali vs warne to you? because that has no relevance whatsoever to the argument at hand.

It clearly is relevant to the argument at hand. Richard questioned whether Murali or Warne had ever struggled against England, and you pointed out that Murali averaged 37 in England last time, so I thought it only proper to mention where Warne did not have things his own way.

 

[marc71178]

So... how does he know Warne and Murali would have struggled?

Because he'd seen Qadir do brilliant things (not unlike Murali and Warne) previously, then saw how ineffective he was on those wickets?

 

[C_C]

Why not? If I don't know specific cases, I still know that it's almost impossible for them to not exist.

You know very little and assume quiete a lot.
Often a nation is unable to put up six quality batsmen or 4 quality bowlers, etc etc.
Why did Qadir play ? because he was simply one of the top 4 bowlers in Pakistan in his era.
Prove it otherwise.
Else, accept it and move on.

 

[Richard]

because you said so?
he bowled just as well as he always has, especially at edgbaston where he bowled that absolute beauty to butcher. but then again, only you can explain how someone who bowled 124 overs in 2 innings could barely move his shoulder.

So you didn't notice how he winced in pain with almost every delivery? Come on! Everyone and his wife knew that Murali was badly injured and should categorically not have been on that tour. Yes, he still managed to bowl that sensational delivery at Edgbaston, but for the most part he was well below his best and it was reflected in his figures.

 

[Richard]

You know very little and assume quiete a lot.
Often a nation is unable to put up six quality batsmen or 4 quality bowlers, etc etc.
Why did Qadir play ? because he was simply one of the top 4 bowlers in Pakistan in his era.
Prove it otherwise.
Else, accept it and move on.

Prove it otherwise? Already done.
A bowler averaging 47 is NOT a top bowler of his era.

 

[Richard]

Because he'd seen Qadir do brilliant things (not unlike Murali and Warne) previously, then saw how ineffective he was on those wickets?

Funny how Warne and Murali have rarely if ever been ineffective against England without injury problems, and Qadir was ineffective many, many times away from home.

 

[Richard]

It clearly is relevant to the argument at hand. Richard questioned whether Murali or Warne had ever struggled against England, and you pointed out that Murali averaged 37 in England last time, so I thought it only proper to mention where Warne did not have things his own way.

I can only think you're referring to this match, because Warne has only ever had 5 really poor games against England out of 26, 2 of which were at Headingley, 2 which (bizzarely) were at The SCG, and 1 which was the match at Edgbaston. In all of these, it was just a one-off mishap, and he was effective for the rest of the series, bar one: Warne's only ever missed games against England through injury, and the 1998\99 game at The SCG was where he was just returing from a long lay-off, and bowled extremely poorly (which he often has when playing with MacGill).

 

[C_C]

Prove it otherwise? Already done.
A bowler averaging 47 is NOT a top bowler of his era.

If he is better than everybody else, he IS the top bowler of his era.
There is no doubt that Qadir was the BEST spinner for the 1980s. There were some who did better away from home but Qadir's home performances dwarved them.

Being the top bowler/bat of your era has very little to do with empirical quality and everything to do with relative quality.

Like i said, if you cant find 4 Pakistani bowlers superior to Qadir during Qadir's time, you have no business claiming that Qadir shouldn't have played overseas.
For someone who's started watching cricket in the late 90s, you sure do assume a lot.

Funny how Warne and Murali have rarely if ever been ineffective against England without injury problems, and Qadir was ineffective many, many times away from home.

While Qadir wasnt as good as Warne-Murali(Nobody apart from Gupte, O'Reiley and maybe Chandra comes anywhere close) he wasn't very far off.
You cannot compare across eras, because the nature of the pitch has changed a lot through the ages.
England was a square turner during Laker-Lock's days with the latter half of the test similar to Indian pitches. Through the 70s and 80s, it was at the pinnacle of its grassiness and anti-spinner approach. 90s were still anti-spinner but significantly less than the 80s.
Currently, it is the most pro-spin friendly it has ever been for the past 40-50 years.

 

[marc71178]

Funny how Warne and Murali have rarely if ever been ineffective against England without injury problems, and Qadir was ineffective many, many times away from home.

Funny how Swervy watched it and you didn't.

 

[Top_Cat]

What a surprise - the thread started off as an informal information session for a person new to the game who doesn't get to see anywhere near as much cricket as all of us yet it's now at the bickering stage from the usual suspects. When you guys are done with your peeing contest, you might want to bring the thread back on-topic...................

Ask yourselves this; if you went to a site about ice hockey, knowing nothing about it, asking about the rules and general information, would you really want to hear the usual crapola about who's better out of Gordie Howe, Wayne Gretsky, Jaromir Jagr, Mario Lemieux or Eric Lindros? And if you have no idea who I'm talking about, the point should be even MORE clear to you.

 

[C_C]

When you guys are done with your peeing contest, you might want to bring the thread back on-topic...................

Guilty as charged. I shall comment on the relevant questions about cricket in this thread from now on.

 

[Top_Cat]

 

[honestbharani]

I hope all this didn't drive away Stefano from here, and more importantly, from the game.

 

[Stefano]

Don't worry, honestbharani. Although some messages were obscure, I have understood lots of things.

Ask yourselves this; if you went to a site about ice hockey, knowing nothing about it, asking about the rules and general information, would you really want to hear the usual crapola about who's better out of Gordie Howe, Wayne Gretsky, Jaromir Jagr, Mario Lemieux or Eric Lindros? And if you have no idea who I'm talking about, the point should be even MORE clear to you.

Congratulations, Top_Cat. You are from Australia and you have a good ice hockey knowledge! That is great!