The ICC Super Series

[Richard]

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

The post you quoted me from was referring to the West Indies team of 1957.

 

[Richard]

or rather when he got typical english conditions he failed.

When was that then?
How often during that series was a seaming wicket present?
First couple of sessions at Edgbaston - no other time.
And of course he didn't fail to swing the ball, he just did what he normally does when he bowls extremely poorly and bowled too wide.

 

[tooextracool]

Inzamam-Ul-Haq averages 63 against SL, 48 against Eng, 41 against Ind. ,

wow give him a medal, as opposed to martyn who averages over 40 against every country in the world, and over 50 against the better bowling sides too.

His averages agaisnt Aus (dropped after the WACA match in which he was injured)

not like it was anything brilliant before...

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.

how long will it take you to realise that while inzy hasnt proven himself against all countries, our friend martyn has?

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?

normally you dont?
so i guess the mahanam case, the katich and martyn not playing spin well and inzy being twice the player martyn is are all anomalies then?
and if you look carefully you might just realise that wasim akram was not really past his prime post 96, he still had some amazing series after that. waqar and mushtaq on the other hand barely deserved a place in the side.

 

[tooextracool]

When was that then?
How often during that series was a seaming wicket present?
First couple of sessions at Edgbaston - no other time.
And of course he didn't fail to swing the ball, he just did what he normally does when he bowls extremely poorly and bowled too wide.

we've been through this before, hes had seamer friendly conditions in england and hes had seamer friendly conditions in SA. and hes managed to fail miserably in both countries. thats just as prominent a weakness as anyone whos home oriented or seamer track bully.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

in other words, your attempt to try and save face. why not retrat all the dumb arguments that you've made then? which is pretty much everyone of your 13000 odd posts.

 

[tooextracool]

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

you were the who said that they were a good team, not me. and wasim was still a quality bowler. of course since you didnt watch any of it, you'd obviously know more than me.

 

[aussie]

aussie

McGrath in his entire career.

k got it now ur sayin that when vaas is in top form he is better than McGrath over his entire superb 107 test career. Gosh richard ha ha ha , i'm tellin for ur own good dont let ur comments come out of here, let us suffer dont let well know cricket pundits hear u they will laugh. Thats foolsih mate that could never be true, one instance i remember when vaas was in top form with the ball was in rhe 2003 world Cup, i cant see how those bowling performances whicj included a hatrick againts the woeful bangladesh could be better than glenn's whole suberb carrer which he has taken 30 wickets in a series twice 2 8 wickets hauls and so much more great bolwing performances.

Totally disagree

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You've proved yourself wrong with that Vaas selection...

His BEST 48 tests produce an average of 20.20, which is around 1 run lower than McGrath's total career average. This does not include one game in India and includes plenty against weak batting lineups.

Your argument is "Vaas on-form is better than McGrath is overall", which basically means you think that one bowler's selectively chosen best record is better than what another bowler has including all of his worst performances... by ONE RUN. This does not indicate any significant gap in class, as the difference between Vaas at his best and McGrath at both his best and his worst is next to nothing. By this standard, Vaas is better than every bowler since world war two excluding Frank Tyson, if average is your criteria. That is, until you consider applying the same standard to others and seeing if Vaas has a better record than McGrath when both at their best... or alternatively simply choosing a significant period of time which would include both good and bad performances from McGrath after he came of age as a bowler in the West Indies.

Take for example the signficant sample period between November 1998 (start of the 98/99 Ashes) and August 2001 (end of 2001 Ashes). During this time frame, McGrath played 35 tests and took no less than 180 wickets at an average of 18.73, with a strike rate of 46.73. This included not only two series against England, but also a tour of the West Indies, a tour of India, an unsuccessful tour of Sri Lanka, a one off match aaginst Zimbabwe, a home series against both India and Pakistan and a tour of New Zealand, meaning he played against all opposition aside from South Africa, and matches in places not conducive to seam bowling. This puts any sample you wish to find of Vaas to absolute shame, whether he was at his best or not.

 

[tooextracool]

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

so if you bowl 1 good inswinging ball in every 100 balls its highly likely to get a player out isnt it? thats just the stupidest theory ive ever heard. get over it, smith's just benefitted from playing poor bowlers.

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.

did you watch the series in SA? anything of it all? almost every commentator said that edwards bowled way too short throughout the tou, which is why he got hammered all over the park. yes the tests against england was the rare occasion where he actually bowled somewhat well and from what he followed it up with on the tour to england, i really wonder whether hes good enough to play intl cricket or not. you dont trouble even a tailender by bowling 1 in swinging ball on target after a dozen overs.

 

[aussie]

aussie

hey tec, just give up on richard he will stress u out mate

 

[aussie]

aussie

You've proved yourself wrong with that Vaas selection...

His BEST 48 tests produce an average of 20.20, which is around 1 run lower than McGrath's total career average. This does not include one game in India and includes plenty against weak batting lineups.

Your argument is "Vaas on-form is better than McGrath is overall", which basically means you think that one bowler's selectively chosen best record is better than what another bowler has including all of his worst performances... by ONE RUN. This does not indicate any significant gap in class, as the difference between Vaas at his best and McGrath at both his best and his worst is next to nothing. By this standard, Vaas is better than every bowler since world war two excluding Frank Tyson, if average is your criteria. That is, until you consider applying the same standard to others and seeing if Vaas has a better record than McGrath when both at their best... or alternatively simply choosing a significant period of time which would include both good and bad performances from McGrath after he came of age as a bowler in the West Indies.

Take for example the signficant sample period between November 1998 (start of the 98/99 Ashes) and August 2001 (end of 2001 Ashes). During this time frame, McGrath played 35 tests and took no less than 180 wickets at an average of 18.73, with a strike rate of 46.73. This included not only two series against England, but also a tour of the West Indies, a tour of India, an unsuccessful tour of Sri Lanka, a one off match aaginst Zimbabwe, a home series against both India and Pakistan and a tour of New Zealand, meaning he played against all opposition aside from South Africa, and matches in places not conducive to seam bowling. This puts any sample you wish to find of Vaas to absolute shame, whether he was at his best or not.

good post faaip, wonder what richard will say to this

 

[tooextracool]

Poor as Waqar has been post-1996, he can still bowl an inswinger at the right-hander.

and yet he got destroyed by every side in the world.

Even Sami can bowl them occasionally.

this is clearly a joke. if sami could bowl an over accurately without any short balls id be surprised. if sami ever managed to bowl 2 in swinging balls(or even 1 for that matter) on target, id be flabbergasted.

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.

so without watching the series you claim that they bowled them enough?
brilliant sherlock.

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).

your point is? as ive said about 100000000 times before, ER has barely any relation to accuracy, hoggard may go for runs, most probably because he either bowls it too full to try and swing it, rather than bowling too short or too wide. and when hes got the ball swinging hes been very effective, certainly enough to trouble poor players of swing like smith.

 

[tooextracool]

hey tec, just give up on richard he will stress u out mate

i really am considering that, i've wasted a lot of time coming up with more than enough facts for which any sane person would just give up and admit defeat. richard though will find someway to twist and turn them(usually his own comments) so that he can save face. theres no way to get to him really.

 

[aussie]

aussie

i really am considering that, i've wasted a lot of time coming up with more than enough facts for which any sane person would just give up and admit defeat. richard though will find someway to twist and turn them(usually his own comments) so that he can save face. theres no way to get to him really.

well mate just give up, maybe if we stop giving him facts againt his ludacris post he might stop

 

[marc71178]

As you should have noticed, I don't.

You rank that WI side of 56 ahead of them.

 

[marc71178]

Of course not - he's not Australian.

No, it's more to with bowling ability.

 

[Neil Pickup]

good post faaip, wonder what richard will say to this

I don't... all McGrath's wickets were lucky whilst Vaas' were deserved...

 

[marc71178]

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.

Do tyhe same for McGrath then.

 

[marc71178]

well mate just give up, maybe if we stop giving him facts againt his ludacris post he might stop

Past experience suggests he'll then deem that people have "seen the error of their ways" and agree with him.

 

[aussie]

aussie

I don't... all McGrath's wickets were lucky whilst Vaas' were deserved...

prove it