The ICC Super Series

[tooextracool]

No, SL weren't playing in those days.

even though i was referring to the pakistan team from 98?

 

[tooextracool]

No, the way he bowled on those flat pitches of that series didn't show that he can't bowl on flat pitches, just that in this case, he didn't.

or rather when he got typical english conditions he failed.

 

[Richard]

Oh, you mean like his brilliant, match-winning, back-to-the-wall centuries in Sri Lanka and India? Two in each tour with the team down, I might add? Yeah, he's a bully with inflated stats for sure.

Well he benefited from at least 1 dropped catch, in the Sri Lanka 2nd century.
But yes - he's played extremely well in the last 12 months.
Where are you getting this idea that I've said otherwise?
I'm simply saying even given these he's still played a much higher percentage of his career on flat pitches than Inzamam has.

 

[Richard]

Go on then, remove 50% of his test record and see if his average drops under 21.

It'd have to be selectively selected, of course. If you take his 48 (out of 81 - 59%) most successful Tests his average drops to 20.20.
Incredibly, Vaas has had 22 matches where he's taken either 0 or 1 wicket (in those he averages 174.08).
So, as you can see, Vaas at his best is clearly superior to the McGrath overall.
Incidentally, for the purpose of referance, the matches I included were:
v Zim in Zim 1994/95 at Harare [1270]
v Zim in Zim 1994/95 at Bulawayo [1271]
v NZ in NZ 1994/95 at Napier [1292]
v NZ in NZ 1994/95 at Dunedin [1293]
v Pak in Pak 1995/96 at Peshawar [1304]
v Pak in Pak 1995/96 at Faisalabad [1305]
v Pak in Pak 1995/96 at Sialkot [1306]
v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Adelaide [1324]
v Zim in SL 1996 at Colombo (RPS) [1333]
v Zim in SL 1996 at Colombo (SSC) [1334]
v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin [1358]
v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Hamilton [1359]
v Pak in SL 1996/97 at Colombo (SSC) [1367]
v Zim in SL 1997/98 at Colombo (SSC) [1395]
v SA in SA 1997/98 at Cape Town [1410]
v Aus in SL 1999 at Kandy [1459]
v Aus in SL 1999 at Colombo (SSC) [1461]
v Zim in Zim 1999/00 at Harare [1473]
v Zim in Zim 1999/00 at Harare [1474]
v Pak in Pak 1999/00 at Rawalpindi [1485]
v Pak in Pak 1999/00 at Peshawar [1487]
v SA in SL 2000 at Kandy [1505]
v SA in SL 2000 at Colombo (SSC) [1507]
v Eng in SL 2000/01 at Galle [1530]
v Eng in SL 2000/01 at Kandy [1532]
v Eng in SL 2000/01 at Colombo (SSC) [1537]
v Ind in SL 2001 at Kandy [1557]
v Ind in SL 2001 at Colombo (SSC) [1559]
v WI in SL 2001/02 at Galle [1567]
v WI in SL 2001/02 at Kandy [1570]
v WI in SL 2001/02 at Colombo (SSC) [1572]
v Zim in SL 2001/02 at Kandy [1583]
v Zim in SL 2001/02 at Galle [1585]
v Pak in Pak 2001/02 at Lahore [1592]
v SA in SA 2002/03 at Johannesburg [1624]
v SA in SA 2002/03 at Centurion [1626]
v NZ in SL 2003 at Kandy [1644]
v WI in WI 2003 at Kingston [1649]
v Eng in SL 2003/04 at Galle [1670]
v Eng in SL 2003/04 at Kandy [1672]
v Eng in SL 2003/04 at Colombo (SSC) [1675]
v Aus in SL 2003/04 at Kandy [1688]
v Aus in SL 2003/04 at Colombo (SSC) [1691]
v Zim in Zim 2004 at Bulawayo [1699]
v Aus in Aus 2004 at Darwin [1705]
v SA in SL 2004 at Galle [1709]
v SA in SL 2004 at Colombo (SSC) [1710]
v Pak in Pak 2004/05 at Karachi [1719]
Believe me now?

 

[Richard]

ok richard refresh my memory of some more challenging test innings that inzamam has scored other than his twin centuries in sri lanka last year when australia were on the ropes, his twin hundreds in india (especailly his 104 in chennai) and quite recently his 142 in the boxing day test when australia were in a bit of trouble.

Martyn's century at SSC was as good as meaningless, owing as it did to at least 2 dropped catches, it may have been 3.
Some Inzamam good innings: see here. Of course, not all of these qualify at all - the largest, for instance, was against an attack so woeful as to be unworthy of playing Tests.
But you'll see the large number, anyway.

 

[aussie]

It'd have to be selectively selected, of course. If you take his 48 (out of 81 - 59%) most successful Tests his average drops to 20.20.
Incredibly, Vaas has had 22 matches where he's taken either 0 or 1 wicket (in those he averages 174.08).
So, as you can see, Vaas at his best is clearly superior to the McGrath overall.
Incidentally, for the purpose of referance, the matches I included were:
v Zim in Zim 1994/95 at Harare [1270]
v Zim in Zim 1994/95 at Bulawayo [1271]
v NZ in NZ 1994/95 at Napier [1292]
v NZ in NZ 1994/95 at Dunedin [1293]
v Pak in Pak 1995/96 at Peshawar [1304]
v Pak in Pak 1995/96 at Faisalabad [1305]
v Pak in Pak 1995/96 at Sialkot [1306]
v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Adelaide [1324]
v Zim in SL 1996 at Colombo (RPS) [1333]
v Zim in SL 1996 at Colombo (SSC) [1334]
v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin [1358]
v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Hamilton [1359]
v Pak in SL 1996/97 at Colombo (SSC) [1367]
v Zim in SL 1997/98 at Colombo (SSC) [1395]
v SA in SA 1997/98 at Cape Town [1410]
v Aus in SL 1999 at Kandy [1459]
v Aus in SL 1999 at Colombo (SSC) [1461]
v Zim in Zim 1999/00 at Harare [1473]
v Zim in Zim 1999/00 at Harare [1474]
v Pak in Pak 1999/00 at Rawalpindi [1485]
v Pak in Pak 1999/00 at Peshawar [1487]
v SA in SL 2000 at Kandy [1505]
v SA in SL 2000 at Colombo (SSC) [1507]
v Eng in SL 2000/01 at Galle [1530]
v Eng in SL 2000/01 at Kandy [1532]
v Eng in SL 2000/01 at Colombo (SSC) [1537]
v Ind in SL 2001 at Kandy [1557]
v Ind in SL 2001 at Colombo (SSC) [1559]
v WI in SL 2001/02 at Galle [1567]
v WI in SL 2001/02 at Kandy [1570]
v WI in SL 2001/02 at Colombo (SSC) [1572]
v Zim in SL 2001/02 at Kandy [1583]
v Zim in SL 2001/02 at Galle [1585]
v Pak in Pak 2001/02 at Lahore [1592]
v SA in SA 2002/03 at Johannesburg [1624]
v SA in SA 2002/03 at Centurion [1626]
v NZ in SL 2003 at Kandy [1644]
v WI in WI 2003 at Kingston [1649]
v Eng in SL 2003/04 at Galle [1670]
v Eng in SL 2003/04 at Kandy [1672]
v Eng in SL 2003/04 at Colombo (SSC) [1675]
v Aus in SL 2003/04 at Kandy [1688]
v Aus in SL 2003/04 at Colombo (SSC) [1691]
v Zim in Zim 2004 at Bulawayo [1699]
v Aus in Aus 2004 at Darwin [1705]
v SA in SL 2004 at Galle [1709]
v SA in SL 2004 at Colombo (SSC) [1710]
v Pak in Pak 2004/05 at Karachi [1719]
Believe me now?

I dont really understand why u put upmthose facts but i cant see how vaas at his best could be superior to vaas at his best that is totally impossible. I'm pretty sure if u tell any well known cricket pundits around the world those facts that vaas at his best is superior to McGrath at his best eg (Richie benaud, Mark Nicholas, Ian Chappell) they would laugh at you

 

[Scallywag]

It'd have to be selectively selected, of course. If you take his 48 (out of 81 - 59%) most successful Tests his average drops to 20.20.
Incredibly, Vaas has had 22 matches where he's taken either 0 or 1 wicket (in those he averages 174.08).
So, as you can see, Vaas at his best is clearly superior to the McGrath overall.
Incidentally, for the purpose of referance, the matches I included were:
v Zim in Zim 1994/95 at Harare [1270]
v Zim in Zim 1994/95 at Bulawayo [1271]
v NZ in NZ 1994/95 at Napier [1292]
v NZ in NZ 1994/95 at Dunedin [1293]
v Pak in Pak 1995/96 at Peshawar [1304]
v Pak in Pak 1995/96 at Faisalabad [1305]
v Pak in Pak 1995/96 at Sialkot [1306]
v Aus in Aus 1995/96 at Adelaide [1324]
v Zim in SL 1996 at Colombo (RPS) [1333]
v Zim in SL 1996 at Colombo (SSC) [1334]
v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Dunedin [1358]
v NZ in NZ 1996/97 at Hamilton [1359]
v Pak in SL 1996/97 at Colombo (SSC) [1367]
v Zim in SL 1997/98 at Colombo (SSC) [1395]
v SA in SA 1997/98 at Cape Town [1410]
v Aus in SL 1999 at Kandy [1459]
v Aus in SL 1999 at Colombo (SSC) [1461]
v Zim in Zim 1999/00 at Harare [1473]
v Zim in Zim 1999/00 at Harare [1474]
v Pak in Pak 1999/00 at Rawalpindi [1485]
v Pak in Pak 1999/00 at Peshawar [1487]
v SA in SL 2000 at Kandy [1505]
v SA in SL 2000 at Colombo (SSC) [1507]
v Eng in SL 2000/01 at Galle [1530]
v Eng in SL 2000/01 at Kandy [1532]
v Eng in SL 2000/01 at Colombo (SSC) [1537]
v Ind in SL 2001 at Kandy [1557]
v Ind in SL 2001 at Colombo (SSC) [1559]
v WI in SL 2001/02 at Galle [1567]
v WI in SL 2001/02 at Kandy [1570]
v WI in SL 2001/02 at Colombo (SSC) [1572]
v Zim in SL 2001/02 at Kandy [1583]
v Zim in SL 2001/02 at Galle [1585]
v Pak in Pak 2001/02 at Lahore [1592]
v SA in SA 2002/03 at Johannesburg [1624]
v SA in SA 2002/03 at Centurion [1626]
v NZ in SL 2003 at Kandy [1644]
v WI in WI 2003 at Kingston [1649]
v Eng in SL 2003/04 at Galle [1670]
v Eng in SL 2003/04 at Kandy [1672]
v Eng in SL 2003/04 at Colombo (SSC) [1675]
v Aus in SL 2003/04 at Kandy [1688]
v Aus in SL 2003/04 at Colombo (SSC) [1691]
v Zim in Zim 2004 at Bulawayo [1699]
v Aus in Aus 2004 at Darwin [1705]
v SA in SL 2004 at Galle [1709]
v SA in SL 2004 at Colombo (SSC) [1710]
v Pak in Pak 2004/05 at Karachi [1719]
Believe me now?

I noticed you have included a lot of matches against Zimbabwe, is that how you select your best performances.

And not one game in India.

 

[Richard]

al the excuses, dont you get the point that the only reason why players like butcher performed against SA back then were because SA performed poorly. you can come up with as many excuses as you want, only a fool would say that england were remotely near as good as SA in 98.

So you think SA were poor in those last 2 Tests?
That was the one period pre-2001 where Butcher played like he could in Test-cricket. And for once England got almost all their best players playing like they could, Angus Fraser for instance bowling as well as at any time in his career.
And yes, England were too good for SA. Yes, SA didn't play perhaps quite as well as they could have done, and yes, they suffered from the Umpiring.
But nonetheless the side of those 2 Tests was unspeakably better than most around that time.

any team that falls to pieces when it matters most is clearly not good enough, especially considering that they were falling to pieces when they were playing in england.
and if they were worse than that australian team then maybe you should put that australian team amongst the best teams ever instead of some of the rubbish teams that you've put on there.

I've said they're next after the lot I named.

because a side does not consist of 3 players?
lets talk about how good players like matthew elliott, ricky ponting( back then), mark taylor, greg blewett, paul reiffel etc are compared to gillespie, ricky ponting(now), martyn, langer etc.

Because they all played Tests after 1999\2000, didn't they? Reiffel and Taylor had gone from Tests by then, Elliott too if you discount his one-off comeback; Gillespie played just 1 match in that season due to an horrific injury (and when he came back he wasn't exactly bad, either).
Ponting in 1999\2000-2000\01 wasn't as good as he was Headingley2001-SCG2003\04, of course not, but he was good enough to average 64.58 in the 15 games (pre-India tour).
And as for Blewett, yes, he was a weak link. I'd go so far as to say Langer and Clarke can both be weak links in the current side.

 

[Richard]

I dont really understand why u put upmthose facts but i cant see how vaas at his best could be superior to vaas at his best that is totally impossible. I'm pretty sure if u tell any well known cricket pundits around the world those facts that vaas at his best is superior to McGrath at his best eg (Richie benaud, Mark Nicholas, Ian Chappell) they would laugh at you

And I said that where?
I very carefully stated that Vaas at his best is superior to McGrath OVERALL.

 

[Richard]

I noticed you have included a lot of matches against Zimbabwe, is that how you select your best performances.

And not one game in India.

No, just a lot of his best performances happen to have been against Zimbabwe.
No, he's only played 3 games in India, and he was in a poor mood in the lot (4 wickets at 73).

 

[aussie]

aussie

And I said that where?
I very carefully stated that Vaas at his best is superior to McGrath OVERALL.

ok let me get this straight ur sayin that when vaas is on top form with the ball he is better than when mcgrath is on top form

 

[Richard]

by whom? which of those fantastic bowlers from WI and pakistan were good enough to bowl them?

Poor as Waqar has been post-1996, he can still bowl an inswinger at the right-hander. Even Sami can bowl them occasionally. As for Zahid I don't know, I've never seen him, and Edwards, poor as he is, can also bowl them.
And if they bowl enough (which they did) there are bound to be a few in there.

hoggard is definetly not poor, and at least hes capable of swinging the ball and being relatively accurate. which is definetly not what i can say about fidel edwards( who id be surprised if hes ever bowled more than 1 ball every over that wasnt too short let alone the accuracy) and mohammad sami.

Hoggard is better than Sami and Edwards, yes - he's not poor, no.
But nor is he extremely good - even when he gets wickets he usually goes for a few.
Even in his good period his ER is still 3.44-an-over - which is actually higher than his ER before that (3.33).

 

[Richard]

ok let me get this straight ur sayin that when vaas is on top form with the ball he is better than when mcgrath is on top form

No.
I'm saying Vaas on top form is better than McGrath overall.
Vaas on poor form is worse than just about anyone.

 

[Richard]

and yet you claim that that side was one of the best in the world .
and really only 2 players were past it- waqar and mushtaq.

Wasim, too.
And please read-up - I did not genuinely claim they were - it was a false claim, too see if I could pull the wool over some people's eyes, because I was looking for extra numbers.

 

[Richard]

whos relatively poor records against the 3 best bowling attacks obviously make him better.

Inzamam-Ul-Haq averages 63 against SL, 48 against Eng, 41 against Ind. His averages agaisnt Aus (dropped after the WACA match in which he was injured) and SA are the only remaining blemishes on his record and I hope he'll put them right as he appears to be doing his India one.

or rather you posted something without thinking, in the attempt to try and save face from another argument, and then took it back extremely quickly. not the first time you've done that.

No, normally I don't take it back.
You really think I didn't know Waqar, Wasim and Mushtaq were past it from about 1996?

 

[aussie]

aussie

No.
I'm saying Vaas on top form is better than McGrath overall.
Vaas on poor form is worse than just about anyone.

when u say overall what exactly do u mean

 

[Richard]

Why is it poor batting to fail to pick a change in length but not to pick a change in movement? A batsman who was playing Warne well would pick the one that goes straight on and not play for the turn. McGrath can get anyone (including Lara, Tendulkar etc... anyone) with his variations in length. He bowls an uncomfortable length which is difficult to play and gets the batsman in two minds about whether to go on the front or the back foot and induces a mistake. Another common tactic of his is when he gets batsmen to play away from their bodies by bowling a naggingly accurate line in the corridor just outside off-stump and moving the ball around in the air and off the wicket. If they leave every ball he bowls one on off stump, and then after they defend that he bowls one outside off moving away and they try and defend that and get an edge. I don't know how many times I've seen McGrath get this exact wicket, but it's alot.

If it moves away it's a good ball. I, however, haven't seen this on flat wickets (except Adelaide).
And the difference between a change in movement and length is very simple - you can pick length the second it comes out of the hand, movement is much later and almost impossible to adjust to if it goes the opposite way to the way you were expecting.

A flat pitch will not offer much in the way of lateral movement or turn, and as such bowlers have to use different strategies to get wickets. I have no idea what you are on about here. The whole point of talking about bowling on flat wickets is that there isn't much that bowlers can do in terms of moving it around, so they have to use alternative strategies - which often means beating the batsman with pace or subtle variations and inducing a poor stroke. Frustrating the batsman is also a common tactic on flat pitches, used by Warne and McGrath in particular to great effect. The very reason why McGrath is such a good player on flat wickets is that he doesn't rely on seaming the ball a mile or swinging it around a corner to get his wickets. He is accurate and can squeeze enough movement out of any pitch to get wickets, which is why he is the most successful bowler of his era.

No wicket can stop the bowler swinging (or drifting) the ball.
Equally, cutters will work on any pitch.
Equally, wristspin bowlers will turn the ball on any pitch.
On a flat pitch the only way for a seamer to bowl wicket-taking deliveries is to use cutters or swing.

Again, this is completely wrong. You do not determine the best bowler by how much they move the ball. By this standard the best spinner in the world is Macgill and the best pacer in the world is Vaas. You determine the best bowler by how often they get batsman out and how well they can handle changes in match situation and playing conditions. McGrath is a proven bowler in all conditions against all opposition, and he particularly thrives in comparison to other bowlers on pitches which do not offer significant amounts of lateral movement.

You determine the best bowlers as far as I'm concerned by how many wicket-taking deliveries they bowl and how consistent their accuracy is.
And there are many ways to bowl a wicket-taking delivery.
Getting a poor stroke is not one of them.

Further evidence that you haven't been watching them recently. During the Australian tour Shoaib struggled to break 150 at all, and I watched entire spells of his bowling where he failed to do so. Lee has recently bowled entire spells where every ball aside from the first 2 or 3 was above 150, and entire overs above 155 at the height of his spells. He's also broken 160 (100 mph) with consecutive balls in his last ODI.

Wow, because Shoaib was clearly as fit in Australia as he was when he was bowling in the mid-150s.
Mark my words, he'll be back to bowling there soon.
And I'd have to be sitting with fingers in ears and eyes shut to miss the stuff about Lee breaking 160ks.

 

[Richard]

when u say overall what exactly do u mean

McGrath in his entire career.

 

[Richard]

oh what rubbish, are you saying that if someone bowls 1 inswinger against someone whos susceptible against it hes bound to get him out? no at the most he might make him feel uncomfortable thats just about it.

No, it's not bound to get him out at all, but there's still a pretty decent chance of it doing so.

doubt it, i highly doubt the chances of edwards bowling one on target and getting to swing in on the same ball happening once every few overs.

Believe me, he has. He did it in WI when England toured, certainly, and did it enough in SA to suggest he'd trouble Smith if he played like he played against us.

 

[Richard]

as shown by pakistan who got humiliated by australia, zimbabwe and SA.

How many really good players were there in that team, then... (remembering Mushtaq, Wasim and Waqar weren't really that good any more)