The ICC Super Series

[Richard]

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

No, I'm telling you why you think what you think, because it's extremely obvious.

Incidentally - Marc, there's no need to make your predictable comment, but I won't be surprised if you've already made it by the time you read this.

 

[marc71178]

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

Oh sorry so I got the year wrong by 1.

What I didn't get wrong is the fact that the side you rate as better than the current Aussies drew 2 and lost 3 of the 5 games they played...

 

[marc71178]

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

Even though he's such a lucky bowler?

 

[tooextracool]

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.

so the entire series in england, SL, india and NZ were all on flat pitches werent they?

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

and the times that he did, he was averaging in the mid 30s.

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).

sherlock you just said that akram was past it post 96, so i guess all of this is all magic?
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

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.

so the entire series in england, SL, india and NZ were all on flat pitches werent they?

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

and the times that he did, he was averaging in the mid 30s.

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 if they're not proven it automatically makes them bad players of spin doesnt it?

and Inzamam being twice the player Martyn is was an exaggeration.

because theres so much proof that inzy is a better player than martyn, let alone twice the player. you cant exaggerate on something when you cant even prove that someone is better.

 

[tooextracool]

Wasim was no longer a particularly good bowler in 1999\2000..

even though the team that you were talking abt ie: akram, waqar, mushtaq and akhtar only played together once and that was in 98 against SA?

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.

and all this time you've been saying that they were losing not because they had poor players but because they underperformed.

 

[tooextracool]

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

its possible yes just like its possible to get any player out with a rubbish ball.
and no you didnt say 1/100, but considering that thats only what sami and edwards are capable off i only assumed it.

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.

and as ive already said, getting 1 delivery in the right area is not good enough and its not the point at all. he had to get the 1 delivery in the right area and get it to swing perfectly, something that he very rarely did on the tour. and rare instances dont get too many players out, unless you bowl them frequently

 

[tooextracool]

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

thats exacly my point, you cant get players out if you dont bowl enough. hoggard and bicknell can both clearly bowl enough, when the conditions suit them.

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

read above.

.

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..

because ive said that have i? have you learnt to read?
ive said
a)that the inswinger needs to be on target
b) it needs to be bowled frequently enough, not once every 10 overs.

.

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.

and hittable balls are in his case balls that are well pitched up, which in conditions conducive for seam and swing become good balls and trouble the likes of smith.

 

[Richard]

Oh sorry so I got the year wrong by 1.

What I didn't get wrong is the fact that the side you rate as better than the current Aussies drew 2 and lost 3 of the 5 games they played...

Because you can't judge a side on 5 results.

 

[Richard]

Even though he's such a lucky bowler?

Even though.
And I hardly see what the fact that he's "lucky" has to do with anything.

 

[Richard]

so the entire series in england, SL, india and NZ were all on flat pitches werent they?

No, they weren't - I didn't once say that Martyn had never faced challenging conditions, just that he hadn't as much as Inzamam.

and the times that he did, he was averaging in the mid 30s.

Really?
Genuine question.

sherlock you just said that akram was past it post 96, so i guess all of this is all magic?
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

Yes, I know, I meant post-'98, not post-'96 - post '98 he was by-and-large abysmal except for 2 outstanding games.

so the entire series in england, SL, india and NZ were all on flat pitches werent they?

Already answered that one...

and if they're not proven it automatically makes them bad players of spin doesnt it?

No, it doesn't - but if they're proven poor players of spin (which those 2 were - ask anyone who saw them early in their careers) then it's a different matter.

because theres so much proof that inzy is a better player than martyn, let alone twice the player. you cant exaggerate on something when you cant even prove that someone is better.

No-one can prove something with so many different variables.
I personally feel Inzamam is the better player - you seem to feel they're roughly equal.

 

[Richard]

even though the team that you were talking abt ie: akram, waqar, mushtaq and akhtar only played together once and that was in 98 against SA?

I was talking about all 5 of Saqlian, Mushtaq, Shoaib, Waqar and Wasim - who AFAIK never played together.
They were, though, all in the Australia squad of 1999\2000.

and all this time you've been saying that they were losing not because they had poor players but because they underperformed.

Against Zimbabwe, yes. Even though they were pretty poor, they should still have beaten Zimbabwe.
But in 1999\2000, Australia were clearly the better side.

 

[Richard]

its possible yes just like its possible to get any player out with a rubbish ball.
and no you didnt say 1/100, but considering that thats only what sami and edwards are capable off i only assumed it.

I'd say that's an exaggeration.
Sami and Edwards are poor, but they're not that poor, even KE Upashantha is surely better than that.

and as ive already said, getting 1 delivery in the right area is not good enough and its not the point at all. he had to get the 1 delivery in the right area and get it to swing perfectly, something that he very rarely did on the tour. and rare instances dont get too many players out, unless you bowl them frequently

Rare things don't happen frequently...
A poor player of inswing - which you could be forgiven for thinking Smith is by watching Bicknell and Hoggard dismiss him from Headingley '03 to The Wanderers '04\05 - can be troubled by just a single delivery in the right area, even if he's faced the last 50 straight-on balls without trouble.
Any indication of when the next time Smith is likely to face some bowlers who can swing it back at him? Because I somehow doubt it'll happen in West Indies.

 

[Richard]

thats exacly my point, you cant get players out if you dont bowl enough. hoggard and bicknell can both clearly bowl enough, when the conditions suit them.

You can get a player out with a mere handful if they're weak enough - see Mills against Hayden (and assume that blantly out dismissals were actually given out)

because ive said that have i? have you learnt to read?
ive said
a)that the inswinger needs to be on target

And fairly obviously when I said what I said I meant on-target inswingers.

b) it needs to be bowled frequently enough, not once every 10 overs.

Read top paragraph.

 

[marc71178]

Because you can't judge a side on 5 results.

You've named the side of a specific year as better than the current Australian's.

In that year they played 5 games, for 2 draws and 3 losses.

So what exactly do we judge them on seeing as they failed completely as a team?

 

[Richard]

Because they had good players, and failing in a single series doesn't change that.

 

[aussie]

aussie

the good Vaas is better than the one-person McGrath.[/QUOTE]

dont quite understand richard, give me some details to that might back up that post cause again i disagree

 

[aussie]

aussie

it seems that richard and marc have posted quite frequently thay McGrath somehow is a lucky bowler, gosh i haven't heard such crap in while, i just want any one of u to tell me how u came up with that scintillating hypothesis on McGrath

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

it seems that richard and marc have posted quite frequently thay McGrath somehow is a lucky bowler, gosh i haven't heard such crap in while, i just want any one of u to tell me how u came up with that scintillating hypothesis on McGrath

As far as I know, Marc doesn't think such drivel. It's limited solely to Richard.

 

[marc71178]

Because they had good players, and failing in a single series doesn't change that.

If it's the only time they played together and they failed, that does not make them one of the best TEAMS ever.

 

[Richard]

Why not?
The sole requirement of a good team is that a load of players who turned-out to be good played together.