The ICC Super Series

[Scallywag]

Saeed Anwar - better player of seam and swing than Hayden will ever be. Given that this is an opener's main priority that's what matters - not battering popguns on flat pitches.
.

Saeed Anwar 4052 runs @ 45

Mathew Hayden 5563 runs @ 54

Do you know how silly that looks Richard.

 

[Richard]

It looks even sillier to call Hayden a better batsman when you've watched the two of them bat against the moving ball at pace.
But of course, no, we couldn't possibly have someone being a better batsman than an Australian, could we?

 

[Scallywag]

It looks even sillier to call Hayden a better batsman when you've watched the two of them bat against the moving ball at pace.
But of course, no, we couldn't possibly have someone being a better batsman than an Australian, could we?

Yes Richard its my Australian bias that wont let me see that a batsman that averages 10 runs per innings less that another is so obviously a better batsman. And McGrath wouldent even get into the Pakistan 1999 team based on what you have posted.

 

[Scallywag]

And let me guess Richard Inzi is far better than Martyn even though Martyn averages more because Inzi makes up for it in the field.

 

[marc71178]

Inzamam-Ul-Haq - better than both Mark Waugh and Damien Martyn, probably put together.

Starts to lose credibility here.

Inzamam-Ul-Haq - better than both Mark Waugh and Damien Martyn, probably put together.

Wasim Akram - one of the modern-day greats. Better bowler than any of the Australian seamers and while not as good as the batsmen at batting, it comes out better.
Waqar Younis - better bowler than any of the Australian seamers.
Shoaib Akhtar - better bowler than any of the Australian seamers.

Mushtaq Ahmed - obviously not as good as Warne but one of a few in the game's history who's come remotely close.

Wasim Akram - one of the modern-day greats. Better bowler than any of the Australian seamers and while not as good as the batsmen at batting, it comes out better.
Waqar Younis - better bowler than any of the Australian seamers.
Shoaib Akhtar - better bowler than any of the Australian seamers.

Then it gets a bit worse.

Mushtaq Ahmed - obviously not as good as Warne but one of a few in the game's history who's come remotely close.

And finally it takes the biscuit.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Saeed Anwar - better player of seam and swing than Hayden will ever be. Given that this is an opener's main priority that's what matters - not battering popguns on flat pitches.
Wajutallah Wasti\some other poor opener - less good than Slater or Langer
Ponting\Langer - better than any other number-three
Inzamam-Ul-Haq - better than both Mark Waugh and Damien Martyn, probably put together.
Stephen Waugh - better than Youhana will ever, ever, ever, ever be.
Moin - good batsman, while obviously not as good as Gilchrist
Wasim Akram - one of the modern-day greats. Better bowler than any of the Australian seamers and while not as good as the batsmen at batting, it comes out better.
Waqar Younis - better bowler than any of the Australian seamers.
Shoaib Akhtar - better bowler than any of the Australian seamers.
Saqlain Mushtaq - exceptionally good bowler on a turning pitch, while obviously not as good as a seamer on a non-turner.
Mushtaq Ahmed - obviously not as good as Warne but one of a few in the game's history who's come remotely close.

You honestly believe this side is better than the current Australian team? Let's examine it, shall we? Firstly, this team has a fairly weak batsman in Moin Khan at number 6 - only 5 specialist batsmen, which makes them extremely vulnerable to quality bowling, particularly when you yourself admit that 3 of those 5 batsmen are inferior to their Australian counterpart. Saeed Anwar was renowned for being extremely unreliable when the pressure was on and would often fail when his team needed him the most. Both Hayden and Langer have put in countless definitive performances when the chips were down to help Australia out. Ponting is clearly superior to any number three Pakistan could offer, and Inzamam is at the absolute most on par with Damien Martyn, and in reality Martyn, particularly in recent times, is noticably better with fewer weaknesses in his game and more consistent all-round performances. The current 5/6 pair in the Australian team is fairly unproven, but certainly Clarke and Katich have more than enough quality to match the Youhana/Moin middle order in the Pakistan team you named. Gilchrist of course is a class act who is far better with the bat than Akram, and after that you are into the tail.

When you get to the bowlers, McGrath is unquestionably a vastly more reliable performer than either Wasim or Waqar, despite how brilliant the Pakistani pair could be. Keep in mind that Waqar was far past his best by 1999, and the second half of his career leaves him just a shadow of his former awesome self. Wasim was not at his best either, and it would be generous to call him an even match with McGrath. Gillespie now is certainly a better bowler than Waqar was in '99, and recent performances show that any of the Australian seamers is the equal or better of Shoaib Akhtar, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. You could say if you like that Saqlain Mushtaq and Mushtaq Ahmed give Pakistan a more devastating spin attack than Warne alone, but neither bowler is his equal as a single player and that alone does not make up for the five man batting lineup or the weaker pace attack.

And, I should add, we don't actually have to guess about what would happen if these teams met, because they did and it resulted in a 3-0 thrashing.

 

[Richard]

Yes Richard its my Australian bias that wont let me see that a batsman that averages 10 runs per innings less that another is so obviously a better batsman.

Averages are nothing without context, and any fool can see that Hayden has almost never conquered seaming conditions, whereas Anwar did.

And McGrath wouldent even get into the Pakistan 1999 team based on what you have posted.

He'd get in, of course, he would, but he's not as good as any of the three.

 

[Richard]

And let me guess Richard Inzi is far better than Martyn even though Martyn averages more because Inzi makes up for it in the field.

Inzi, too, has played in far more challenging conditions than Martyn (that's not to say Martyn can't play seam or turn, just that he hasn't had to anywhere near as much).
And if Martyn finishes his career with an Inzamam-esque average I'll eat my computer.

 

[Richard]

And finally it takes the biscuit.

Really?
So Mushtaq Ahmed was not a very, very capable bowler when in his prime (managed to average 27, just a bit more than Warne), now?

 

[Richard]

You honestly believe this side is better than the current Australian team? Let's examine it, shall we? Firstly, this team has a fairly weak batsman in Moin Khan at number 6 - only 5 specialist batsmen, which makes them extremely vulnerable to quality bowling, particularly when you yourself admit that 3 of those 5 batsmen are inferior to their Australian counterpart. Saeed Anwar was renowned for being extremely unreliable when the pressure was on and would often fail when his team needed him the most. Both Hayden and Langer have put in countless definitive performances when the chips were down to help Australia out. Ponting is clearly superior to any number three Pakistan could offer, and Inzamam is at the absolute most on par with Damien Martyn, and in reality Martyn, particularly in recent times, is noticably better with fewer weaknesses in his game and more consistent all-round performances. The current 5/6 pair in the Australian team is fairly unproven, but certainly Clarke and Katich have more than enough quality to match the Youhana/Moin middle order in the Pakistan team you named. Gilchrist of course is a class act who is far better with the bat than Akram, and after that you are into the tail.

When you get to the bowlers, McGrath is unquestionably a vastly more reliable performer than either Wasim or Waqar, despite how brilliant the Pakistani pair could be. Keep in mind that Waqar was far past his best by 1999, and the second half of his career leaves him just a shadow of his former awesome self. Wasim was not at his best either, and it would be generous to call him an even match with McGrath. Gillespie now is certainly a better bowler than Waqar was in '99, and recent performances show that any of the Australian seamers is the equal or better of Shoaib Akhtar, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. You could say if you like that Saqlain Mushtaq and Mushtaq Ahmed give Pakistan a more devastating spin attack than Warne alone, but neither bowler is his equal as a single player and that alone does not make up for the five man batting lineup or the weaker pace attack.

And, I should add, we don't actually have to guess about what would happen if these teams met, because they did and it resulted in a 3-0 thrashing.

As most of the Pakistanis were woeful - as they do have a tendency to be.
I believe that Pakistan's attack at their best would bowl-out Australia's batting for lower totals than the Australian bowling would bowl-out Pakistan's batsmen at their best - on any pitch.
We can't prove that, of course.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And if Martyn finishes his career with an Inzamam-esque average I'll eat my computer.

You better get your cutlery out then, because Martyn is in his mid 30s and coming towards the twilight of his career and currently has a better average than Inzamam, and on recent form it is rising.

 

[Scallywag]

He'd get in, of course, he would, but he's not as good as any of the three.

Let me get this straight you are saying Shoiab Akhtar is a better bowler than Glenn Mcgrath. Thats what you are actually saying.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

As most of the Pakistanis were woeful - as they do have a tendency to be.
I believe that Pakistan's attack at their best would bowl-out Australia's batting for lower totals than the Australian bowling would bowl-out Pakistan's batsmen at their best - on any pitch.
We can't prove that, of course.

You think Anwar, Inzamam, Youhana and two other random batsmen barely of test class would succeed against McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz/Lee and Warne? You realise Warne has an average of about 20 against Pakistan over his whole career and has the wood over every one of those batsmen, and McGrath just recently took 8 for 20 odd against a team involving a few of the same batsmen as the 1999 side?

And neither an over-the-hill Waqar or Shoaib are a significant threat to a batting lineup of Australia's quality. The teams, quite frankly, are not even in the same league. That Pakistan lineup in 1999 wasn't even in the top two in the world AT THE TIME, let alone in the top 10 of all time.

 

[tooextracool]

Pakistan 1999 (if they'd been anyone but Pakistanis they'd have broken all records)
South Africa 1998\99
That's about all I can do off the top of my head.

you really have no clue about what you are talking about do you?
talent alone does not make one side better than another, performance does, and neither of those sides performed remotely near as well as australia both at the time and now.

 

[Richard]

You better get your cutlery out then, because Martyn is in his mid 30s and coming towards the twilight of his career and currently has a better average than Inzamam, and on recent form it is rising.

And of course that means it's soon due to go down.
As has been the pattern of his career.

 

[tooextracool]

Load of rubbish.
If a team of champions plays to their potential they'll flatten any team of mediocre players who get on well with each other.
That was the problem with Pakistan of 1999 - they had so many fantastic players, but they fluctuated so often.

such a fantastic team that lost to zimbabwe.

 

[Richard]

you really have no clue about what you are talking about do you?
talent alone does not make one side better than another, performance does, and neither of those sides performed remotely near as well as australia both at the time and now.

Pakistan didn't, because Pakistan never perform, so they'll never be all-time-great sides.
South Africa, however, decimated just about all they came across between 1998\99 and 2000\01.

 

[Richard]

such a fantastic team that lost to zimbabwe.

Exactly.
That's how poor Pakistan can be.
Not like Zimbabwe were a shoddy side, of course.

 

[Richard]

Let me get this straight you are saying Shoiab Akhtar is a better bowler than Glenn Mcgrath. Thats what you are actually saying.

I'm saying that he - and Wasim, and Waqar - were\are capable of bowling wicket-taking deliveries on flat pitches.
Something I've hardly ever seen McGrath do.
On a seamer, of course, McGrath is the better bowler.

 

[Richard]

You think Anwar, Inzamam, Youhana and two other random batsmen barely of test class would succeed against McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz/Lee and Warne? You realise Warne has an average of about 20 against Pakistan over his whole career and has the wood over every one of those batsmen, and McGrath just recently took 8 for 20 odd against a team involving a few of the same batsmen as the 1999 side?

McGrath can take 8 for 20 against anyone on a helpful track - especially as woeful a line-up as the current Pakistanis (which featured just 1 of the lot I named - injured)
Yes, Warne has done best against Pakistan - you think Mushtaq couldn't have done well enough to back-up the Pakistani seamers in return?

And neither an over-the-hill Waqar or Shoaib are a significant threat to a batting lineup of Australia's quality. The teams, quite frankly, are not even in the same league. That Pakistan lineup in 1999 wasn't even in the top two in the world AT THE TIME, let alone in the top 10 of all time.

No, that's because South Africa were so good.