The ICC Super Series

[tooextracool]

Yes, they would; yes, they're poor; but it doesn't mean they don't ever bowl any good deliveries.

when did i say that they dont bowl any good deliveries? my point is that a few good deliveries dont get players out, and thats shown in their averages.

Well, we'll see - given that it's only happened on 2 occasions with 2 bowlers (and 1 of those only amounted to 2 dismissals) I don't think that's gospel yet..

and the fact that hes really never done much against quality opposition.

Like McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz? Don't see them bowling big hooping inswingers that often. Yes, they can all bowl them, but McGrath and Kasprowicz's stock-balls both go the other way, and Gillespie has been far less of a swing-bowler in recent years.

they're all still good bowlers, which is more than enough to test smith. and mcgrath can swing the ball both ways.

 

[Richard]

and if you consider the results the WI's got around that time (say 2 years either side of 57), that furthers the arguement that they werent world beaters by any stretch of the imagination...of course in time, various players developed and new players came into the side to make it a great team, but that was further into the 60's

No, there weren't that many great players together outside '57; that year was the only time you had Goddard, the three Ws, Sobers, Kanhai, Gibbs, Ramadhin and Valentine.

 

[Richard]

thats ok to say if its a close series, but 3-0 (and infact almost 4-0) is a drubbing..the only possible chance WI had of winning a game was in the first test, but even by the second innings of that match England had sussed out how to nulify the threat of Ramadhin with massive amounts of pad play....and despite that game being the closest WI came to winning a match, they almost lost that one as well ending on 70 odd for 7 .

The great teams dont always have to have great players bursting at the seams,great teams also need to know how to win

And generally if they play for any length of time they will win, lots.

 

[Richard]

How is a team great if it doesn't win matches?

Because it has good players.

 

[Richard]

No, the better that the 11 gel together as a unit, the better the team.

No, because that'd mean the quality of the 11 doesn't matter.
And it does - in fact it's all that matters.

 

[Richard]

err yes i know, when did i say that he failed for technical reasons?
my point is that martyn hasnt had the problem and to say that inzy is better would be ludicrous in itself, but to say that he is twice the player is an absolute insult.

So that Inzamam has had slight problems against SA and Aus cannot neccesarily mean that he's inferior to Martyn - he might just have been unlucky.

well you got the waqar younis stat right, he was finished post 96, couldnt buy a wicket against teams other than the mediocre ones that toured pakistan.

Between summer '96 and '98\99 he took 5 wickets at 23.35.
Against South Africa, at 23.90; against West Indies, at 27.85; against New Zealand, at 14.80; and against Zimbabwe, at 23.37.
Yes, his performances against the weak were better than against the strong; that's to be expected.
Yet his performances against the strong were still pretty darn good.

 

[Richard]

when did i say that they dont bowl any good deliveries? my point is that a few good deliveries dont get players out, and thats shown in their averages.

Any good delivery can get a player who's weak against that delivery out, however many poor deliveries the bowler bowls in the meantime to other batsmen (ie that's reflected in their averages).

and the fact that hes really never done much against quality opposition.

Which has amounted to most sides he's played, because bowling standards are so low ATM.

they're all still good bowlers, which is more than enough to test smith. and mcgrath can swing the ball both ways.

There's only one aspect of good bowling that'll test Smith, inswingers. Even though they all can swing the ball both ways, they've got to do it first.

 

[Swervy]

No, there weren't that many great players together outside '57; that year was the only time you had Goddard, the three Ws, Sobers, Kanhai, Gibbs, Ramadhin and Valentine.

and they were completely outclassed by a vastly superior England team!!!

 

[Swervy]

Because it has good players.

rubbish...
a great team is considered great because of victories

 

[Swervy]

No, because that'd mean the quality of the 11 doesn't matter.
And it does - in fact it's all that matters.

no..all that matters is if the team wins...nothing else

 

[marc71178]

Because it has good players.

So that is a great team how?

 

[marc71178]

No, because that'd mean the quality of the 11 doesn't matter.
And it does - in fact it's all that matters.

It matters more than results?

I don't think so.

This so called great side didn't win a test out of 5, and lost 3 of them.

But you're saying it doesn't matter because they were good players?

 

[Richard]

and they were completely outclassed by a vastly superior England team!!!

No, they just on this particular occasion didn't play anywhere near how they could and were beaten by a very fine England side.

 

[Richard]

rubbish...
a great team is considered great because of victories

Yep, and that's so wrong it's untrue.
Otherwise Surrey of the 1950s would be the best team ever...
A team is great because the players in make it great.

 

[Richard]

no..all that matters is if the team wins...nothing else

Really?
Why does anyone bother watching cricket at all, then... why not just read the result line in the paper...

 

[Richard]

So that is a great team how?

Because it has plenty of fantastic players.

 

[Richard]

It matters more than results?

I don't think so.

This so called great side didn't win a test out of 5, and lost 3 of them.

But you're saying it doesn't matter because they were good players?

No, it doesn't matter, because such a small number of results can be misleading.
Would you say Australia of 2000\01 were poor because they lost 2 Tests out of 3?

 

[marc71178]

No, it doesn't matter, because such a small number of results can be misleading.
Would you say Australia of 2000\01 were poor because they lost 2 Tests out of 3?

No, because that is cutting 1 small portion out of a long period of success.

You've named a side that was only together in that form for 5 games of which they lost 3 and drew 2.

They may have been good players, but they were not a good team.

 

[Richard]

No, because that is cutting 1 small portion out of a long period of success.

You've named a side that was only together in that form for 5 games of which they lost 3 and drew 2.

Exactly, and as demonstrated by the Australa example, a single series can be very misleading.
It doesn't matter whether it's cutting things out or not - because if that West Indies team had played more together it'd have had success to cut the 1957 series out of.

They may have been good players, but they were not a good team.

If they had good players they were a good team - simple as.

 

[marc71178]

No, because there is a clear difference between a group of good players and a good team.

NZ have been one of the better sides in recent times as a time, but as individuals there isn't really a lot about them.