The ICC Super Series

[Richard]

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.

And Inzy's career has involved far more matches on pitches that helped the bowlers, whereas most of Martyn's good games have been on flat pitches.

not like it was anything brilliant before...

No, but it was 37.28, no, not fantastic, but above mediocre.

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

I've realised it since I looked.
I do think Inzy has faced tougher bowling-attacks than Martyn in general, though.

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.

Mushtaq certainly didn't deserve his - post-1997\98 he took 30 wickets at 63.23.
Waqar likewise: up to 1999, 275 wickets at 21.56; 1999 onwards (with Bangladesh games removed), 80 wickets at 33.45.
Wasim: up to 1998\99, 22.68; 1999\2000 onwards, 36 wickets at 33.47 (including just 2 good games, vs WI at St.John's and vs SL at SSC).
Startling, in fact, how similar Wasim and Waqar were.
Mahanama was hasty; I was quite right to say Martyn and Katich were not good players of spin and had not proven they'd improved; and Inzamam being twice the player Martyn is was an exaggeration.

 

[Richard]

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.

So like to explain a good reason as to why he supposedly can't bowl well in seaming conditions?
No, it's just he's failed in a handful of Tests (not anywhere near as many in SA-99\00 and Eng '02 as you've always pretended) on seaming pitches, presumably because he's bowled too wide.
And not because he can't swing and seam the ball.

 

[Richard]

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.

No, I could easily have saved face by saying the original number was an exaggeration, which it was.

 

[Richard]

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.

Wasim was no longer a particularly good bowler in 1999\2000.
And no, there weren't many good players in that team.
And that's why they got beaten by Australia and SA; they got beaten by Zim because they played execrably poorly.

 

[Richard]

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

Vaas has produced many, many more good performances than that meaningless Bangladesh hat-trick.

 

[Richard]

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.

Thing is, Vaas is a bowler who is very, very obviously a double-personality bowler.
Hence the good Vaas is the one you use for one thing, the poor Vaas for another.
McGrath, on the other hand, tends to be rather more consistent.
And my argument has never been that the poor Vaas is better than the one-person McGrath; it's that the good Vaas is better than the one-person McGrath.

 

[Swervy]

Thing is, Vaas is a bowler who is very, very obviously a double-personality bowler.
Hence the good Vaas is the one you use for one thing, the poor Vaas for another.
McGrath, on the other hand, tends to be rather more consistent.
And my argument has never been that the poor Vaas is better than the one-person McGrath; it's that the good Vaas is better than the one-person McGrath.

heheheh...top and bottom of it all though is Mcgrath is a better bowler than Vaas..there is no 'poor Vaas' or Good vaas'..there is Vaas

 

[Richard]

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.

If it's a good inswinger, it's perfectly possible.
But I didn't say 1 in 100, did I?

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.

You do if it's a good swinging ball - it's just that 1 wicket in 12 overs (especially with Edwards' economy-rate) isn't good enough.
Yes, he bowled far too many short balls in South Africa, but he didn't bowl so many that he never got a single delivery in the right area.

 

[Richard]

heheheh...top and bottom of it all though is Mcgrath is a better bowler than Vaas..there is no 'poor Vaas' or Good vaas'..there is Vaas

There quite clearly is and you'd have to be extremely blind (or extremely "I will not use stats" to not notice that)

 

[Richard]

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

Yes, because he didn't bowl enough.
Not because he didn't bowl any.

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.

So he's never bowled a single swinging delivery on target?
All poor bowlers still bowl decent deliveries.

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

Yes, you don't need to watch something to know that inswingers will be bowled - no series goes by without a single inswinger being bowled, that's an absurd thing to suggest.

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.

Yes, and Bicknell did the same.
Hoggard's economy-rate doesn't say that he sprays it the way truly "inaccurate" bowlers do, but it does say that he bowls hittable balls quite often.

 

[Richard]

You rank that WI side of 56 ahead of them.

No, I rate the one of '57 ahead of them. In '56 Gibbs still hadn't started.
Point being?

 

[Richard]

No, it's more to with bowling ability.

And you think he'd be so dismissive if I was talking about Pollock?

 

[Richard]

Do tyhe same for McGrath then.

Why?
Why bother dividing McGrath's into good and bad games? His don't have a very clear split between exceptional and abysmal.

 

[Richard]

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

Where have I suggested people have seen the error of their ways?

 

[Swervy]

There quite clearly is and you'd have to be extremely blind (or extremely "I will not use stats" to not notice that)

Instead of saying 'one person McGrath' (or whatever ridiculous thing you said) or poor Vaas and good Vaas as if they are two totally different people, just say McGrath is better overall, more consistant etc etc.(Do we hear the commentators say 'and in comes Good Vaas, the best bowler in the world'..or see the Sri Lankan bowling figures as Poor Vaas 15-0-80-0,Murali blah blah)...or maybe Poor vaas and Good Vaas actually play in the same game (bowlers do have good and bad spells in the same game...this obviously wouldnt be fair as SL would then be playing with 12 men

Each week, you appear to surpass yourself in oddball ideas..this takes this weeks biscuit

 

[Richard]

Find me where I've said that Vaas is a better bowler than McGrath?
I've simply said that Vaas when he bowls as well as he can is better than McGrath, because he can take wickets in the low 20s by bowling wicket-taking balls instead of getting poor strokes.
Poor Vaas and Good Vaas certainly don't often play in the same game - as you'd know having watched him many times exceptionally closely (as I have - him being one of my favourite players).
No, of course commentators don't say "here comes Good Vaas" etc. because of course they don't know how well he's bowling before he bowls... but if you think commentators don't pick-up on the fact that "he's looked dangerous this match" or "he's not looked very threatening this match" then you've clearly missed something.

 

[Richard]

Each week, you appear to surpass yourself in oddball ideas

Only because of most-recent-is-best-remembered-syndrome.
If you'd found-out about my ideas in reverse order, I don't have the slightest doubt that the ones which you currently think are the least odd would have instead been the most odd.

 

[Swervy]

Only because of most-recent-is-best-remembered-syndrome.
If you'd found-out about my ideas in reverse order, I don't have the slightest doubt that the ones which you currently think are the least odd would have instead been the most odd.

nope..i genuinely think your 'ideas' are unrivalling and going stranger right before our eyes

 

[Richard]

I know, but I can assure you the truth is otherwise.

 

[Swervy]

I know, but I can assure you the truth is otherwise.

so now you are telling me what I think...ok