The ICC Super Series

[FaaipDeOiad]

whats ignorance is that mate r u saying that neither mcgrath, gillespie, lee, kaspowicz, warne, macgill dont get anyone out because of good deliveries. You cant be serious and cricket its a batsman game if u didn't know and if a bowler wants to get u ought he has to force the batsman to play the bad stroke.

But what u said about the australian bowlers is total rubbish

I was being sarcastic and presenting Richard's views as my own.

 

[aussie]

aussie

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?

so ur saying that anwar plays the moving ball at pace better than hayden well while anwar was playing i cant remember too many opposistion bowlers tha moved the ball at pace. For example:

India - srinath, prasad they dont move the ball at any pace
sril lanka - vaas, wickramasinghe, zoysa of course not
west indies - ambrose, walsh, bishop anwar never toured the caribbean so he never face ambrose and walsh at their prime while in his only series againts them in pakistan in 97 they were old stagers

england - fraser, gough, mullaly, caddick, headly no no no
nz- allot, nash, cairns dont think so
i dont need to mention the rest

while hayden only has akhtar and bond to content with and even though shoaib got him this season his record againts them is good even in shane bonds first series in 2001 he still scored two centuries

so u saying that saeed is better than hayden againts the pacy moving ball is bogus to me

 

[aussie]

aussie

I was being sarcastic and presenting Richard's views as my own.

ohhhhhhh well dont do that again

 

[aussie]

aussie

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

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

mate ur really funny the seaming conditons in world cricket are in new zealand and england prdominantly while thier r a few that show up around the world. Hayden has made test match and i stess on it test match runs in england and new zealand. He scored a hundred in the oval test in 2001 while he had 282 runs in the 3 test tour to nz in 2000 with a best of 122 in hamilton, i dont remember saeed scoring too many runs in seaming conditions in `` test matches ``. Predominatly sub-continental batsman dont score runs when the ball is moving a round so unless u show me facts totally disagree with u

 

[tooextracool]

mate ur really funny the seaming conditons in world cricket are in new zealand and england prdominantly while thier r a few that show up around the world. Hayden has made test match and i stess on it test match runs in england and new zealand. He scored a hundred in the oval test in 2001 while he had 282 runs in the 3 test tour to nz in 2000 with a best of 122 in hamilton, i dont remember saeed scoring too many runs in seaming conditions in `` test matches ``. Predominatly sub-continental batsman dont score runs when the ball is moving a round so unless u show me facts totally disagree with u

could there be more inaccurate information in this post?

 

[aussie]

aussie

and finally from richard u made three delightful points:

- Matryn average would go down has the years come

- the pakistani bowlers pf wasim, waqar and shoaib on a good day can bowl out australia's batsmen for less then what australia's bowlers can do to pakistans batsmen

- and you dont see mcgrath producing wikcet taking deliveries on flat pitches

Firstly u must not have been wayching martyn list the sri lankan tour and throughout 2004 (Hye that rhymed). He has developed substantially into a more reliable and mature batsman and he is the aussie middle order rock look at his hundreds when australia were in periless postions in galle and kandy agiants sri lanka and his big innings in chennai. U must note that he hails from perth and those performance highlight what a mature and top class batsman he has become and due to that he average is bound to keep going up once he continues like that.

Secondly that wasim and his mates could do that what i wrote above which u siad. I totally disagree because firstly all of australia's bowlers averages againts pakistan r better than thier career averages and if u remember in sharjah in 2002 when the pakistani boys were bowled out for 59 and 53 let them bowl the aussies out for less than that and on one instance during the 1999 seies drubbing that has u say this great pakistan team in the first test at the gabba and throughout that seies had wasim, waqar, shoaib, saqlain mushtaq (at some stage) bowling together in that seies and dont think they blew away slater, blewett, the waughs, ponting, langer & gilchrist, it was the the total opposite.

Finally that mcgrath doesn't produce wicket taking deliveries on flat pithces. Thats bogus because in the sub-continent which is a historical graveyard for fast bowlers and has an abundance of flat pitches mcgrath has one of the best records in all three countries over their and on every tour glenn would find a flat pitch to contend with and he has done exceptional on it most of the time. So mate when u make these fascinating comments think mate please because cleary u dont know what ur saying

 

[aussie]

aussie

could there be more inaccurate information in this post?

what r u sayin that what i just wrote isn't fact

 

[tooextracool]

what r u sayin that what i just wrote isn't fact

err yes, hayden has never scored a 100 in england and he scored 39 runs in NZ on his last tour at an average of 19.5

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

err yes, hayden has never scored a 100 in england and he scored 39 runs in NZ on his last tour at an average of 19.5

Indeed, I'm not sure where the aussie guy was coming from.

I'd expect both those records to improve this season, of course.

 

[marc71178]

As most of the Pakistanis were woeful - as they do have a tendency to be.

So if they have this tendencyt, how can they be better than a side that doesn't have it?

 

[marc71178]

Because results aren't the be-all-and-end-all.

To decide if 1 side is better than the other they're a more reliable source than anything else.

 

[Beleg]

Re Inzamam:

I haven't really seen enough of Damien Martyn to elucidate much on his batting powress, but I have seen a lot of Mark Waugh and I cannot really precieve how anyone can place Inzamam as BETTER then BOTH Martyn (an excellent batsman in his own right from what little I have watched) and Mark Waugh. I am just totally flabbergasted, completely flummoxed.

Re: Pakistan bowlers in late 1990's.

I think the problem here is that the Pakistan bowling-line up at that time never really performed exceptionally in tandom. (specially in tests) That has a lot to do with when the individual players reached their peaks.

Wasim Akram: Wasim Akram got his break from the 1989 Indian tour and his best years were arguably between 1989 and 1997 after which he just tapered off in tests (while still maintaining a staggering level of excellence and economy rate in ODI's). That doesn't not mean that he didn't brighten up the setting gloam occasionally with some whirlwind performance - Colombo, Kandi 2000, St. Johns 2000, Madras 1999, WI 1997 speak for themselves.

Waqar Younis: He burst on the screen during that famous 1989 tour. [Which also gave us Sachin Tendulkar] From 1989 to 1995 he was arguably the best bowler of the era, certainly better then anyone I have ever seen, since or before. His strike-rate, his average, his pace, his line and length all are pretty good indicators of that. However, after the internal squabbles with the board, Wasim Akram and some injuries in 1994-5, and after losing a lot of his pace (that's around the time of his transition to glamorgan, I believe) he never was the same bowler again. And his average at the end of his carrier indicates just how brilliant he was at his pomp - even seven/eight years of steady downward slide (amidst a short false dawn in 2000) wasn't able to push his average past 25 or muddy his strike-rate much.

Shoaib Akhtar: Due he started out in 1997, he only become famous after that infamous yorker in Calcutta. He had created some shockwaves with his display in Durban (a series I believe Pakistan squared against arguably one of the strongest South African teams of 90's), but he was generally heralded as a bright, vivacious young and upcoming talent with unfullfilled potential - something he shared in common with Shabbir and Zahid. He got his break from that test and hasn't really looked back since. Therefore, his best years can be placed in the time-period 2000-2005. (Though if he continues to go the way he is going at the moment I really cannot see how he will be able to last more then 2 years - his waqar younis'esqe style and physique ensures that)

Saqlain Mushtaq: He is an interesting enigma. Though maintaining a 4 wicket per test ratio, he never really kicked it at test level. His average and strike-rate are an indication of that. (though his orientation can be used to excuse part of his high strike-rate, off-spinner have to generally toil much harded then leggies for their wickets) His peak came in the period 1999-2001. During that period he scored it against India [the best players of spin in the world, taking four continuous five-fours against a team that contained Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Azhar and Jadeja], against Australia and to some extent against NZ in NZ. Summing up, he was a pretty good test spinner, but certainly no where near the status he achieves in ODI's.

In ODI's he was one of the most consistent performance on the international stage during the years 1997-2001. His strike-rate of 28, which for a spinner who has played so much is almost unimaginable provides ample justification of that. He bowled continuously successfully against almost all nation, both in the middle, among the first 15 overs and the death. (something almost unheard of at that time). At that time I thought he was the only one who could catch up with Wasim Akram's ODI wickets record. How wrong was I. Since 2002, when he has been fit, his performance has been absymal compared to his pre-2002 record and by all accounts it seems that he is finished - overkill, excessive cricket and overuse of his gifted techniques has been his undoing.

Mushtaq Ahmad: Interesting little bowler. If he is good, he can be devastating. Sydney, 1995. England 1992, 1996, SA 1997, WI [odi] 2000 and probably a couple of times at home two. But he just hasn't been able to be as consistent as his better, Warne or even Kumble. [And the fact that he was born in the golden era of leg-spin marred his excellence a bit, in any other time he would be remembered far more then he is nowadays]

[And he is one of the better exponents of googly, the ball that took of Nathan Astle's off stump in Auckland 2001 is one of the best balls I have ever had the pleasure of viewing]

Collectively, it is quite clear that these top five bowlers of Pakistan never played together when the heights of their carrier. Wasim, Waqar and Mushtaq did, and were devestating; their brilliance was in their flashy ability to cause sudden avalaunches that would cave in the whole team in a matter of moments. [Unlike the steady, common sense bowling of McGrath, Kaspa and Gellispie which in itself is slightly more effective]

Saqlain and Shoaib only shared a brief period together alongside a declining Wasim and Pakistan actually didn't do a lot wrong. There is reason why Pakistan liked batting first. Pakistani attacks ability to defend modest totals played a large part in their success during the late 90's, 2000. (The fact that Pakistani batsman disappointed more then a pizza hut's max should in no way deter the brilliance of their bowling attack)

This is why, in another thread, I picked up Qadir, Wasim, Waqar and Imran as the greatest Pakistan bowling attack. (Though they didn't play together in more then a couple of matches) When they did play though, they were at the zenith of their carriers (except for Qadir) and it's a shame that we didn't get to see more of them. A case can also be made for either Waqar, Wasim, Mushtaq or Wasim, Saqlain and Shoaib though.

 

[mavric41]

err yes, hayden has never scored a 100 in england and he scored 39 runs in NZ on his last tour at an average of 19.5

And against Zimbabwe in Perth he scored 380 at an average of 380. Jeez its funny how 1 test averages can distort things. If you can say the same things after the Ashes, maybe it will have some creedence.

 

[Richard]

Re Inzamam:

I haven't really seen enough of Damien Martyn to elucidate much on his batting powress, but I have seen a lot of Mark Waugh and I cannot really precieve how anyone can place Inzamam as BETTER then BOTH Martyn (an excellent batsman in his own right from what little I have watched) and Mark Waugh. I am just totally flabbergasted, completely flummoxed.

Re: Pakistan bowlers in late 1990's.

I think the problem here is that the Pakistan bowling-line up at that time never really performed exceptionally in tandom. (specially in tests) That has a lot to do with when the individual players reached their peaks.

Wasim Akram: Wasim Akram got his break from the 1989 Indian tour and his best years were arguably between 1989 and 1997 after which he just tapered off in tests (while still maintaining a staggering level of excellence and economy rate in ODI's). That doesn't not mean that he didn't brighten up the setting gloam occasionally with some whirlwind performance - Colombo, Kandi 2000, St. Johns 2000, Madras 1999, WI 1997 speak for themselves.

Waqar Younis: He burst on the screen during that famous 1989 tour. [Which also gave us Sachin Tendulkar] From 1989 to 1995 he was arguably the best bowler of the era, certainly better then anyone I have ever seen, since or before. His strike-rate, his average, his pace, his line and length all are pretty good indicators of that. However, after the internal squabbles with the board, Wasim Akram and some injuries in 1994-5, and after losing a lot of his pace (that's around the time of his transition to glamorgan, I believe) he never was the same bowler again. And his average at the end of his carrier indicates just how brilliant he was at his pomp - even seven/eight years of steady downward slide (amidst a short false dawn in 2000) wasn't able to push his average past 25 or muddy his strike-rate much.

Shoaib Akhtar: Due he started out in 1997, he only become famous after that infamous yorker in Calcutta. He had created some shockwaves with his display in Durban (a series I believe Pakistan squared against arguably one of the strongest South African teams of 90's), but he was generally heralded as a bright, vivacious young and upcoming talent with unfullfilled potential - something he shared in common with Shabbir and Zahid. He got his break from that test and hasn't really looked back since. Therefore, his best years can be placed in the time-period 2000-2005. (Though if he continues to go the way he is going at the moment I really cannot see how he will be able to last more then 2 years - his waqar younis'esqe style and physique ensures that)

Saqlain Mushtaq: He is an interesting enigma. Though maintaining a 4 wicket per test ratio, he never really kicked it at test level. His average and strike-rate are an indication of that. (though his orientation can be used to excuse part of his high strike-rate, off-spinner have to generally toil much harded then leggies for their wickets) His peak came in the period 1999-2001. During that period he scored it against India [the best players of spin in the world, taking four continuous five-fours against a team that contained Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Azhar and Jadeja], against Australia and to some extent against NZ in NZ. Summing up, he was a pretty good test spinner, but certainly no where near the status he achieves in ODI's.

In ODI's he was one of the most consistent performance on the international stage during the years 1997-2001. His strike-rate of 28, which for a spinner who has played so much is almost unimaginable provides ample justification of that. He bowled continuously successfully against almost all nation, both in the middle, among the first 15 overs and the death. (something almost unheard of at that time). At that time I thought he was the only one who could catch up with Wasim Akram's ODI wickets record. How wrong was I. Since 2002, when he has been fit, his performance has been absymal compared to his pre-2002 record and by all accounts it seems that he is finished - overkill, excessive cricket and overuse of his gifted techniques has been his undoing.

Mushtaq Ahmad: Interesting little bowler. If he is good, he can be devastating. Sydney, 1995. England 1992, 1996, SA 1997, WI [odi] 2000 and probably a couple of times at home two. But he just hasn't been able to be as consistent as his better, Warne or even Kumble. [And the fact that he was born in the golden era of leg-spin marred his excellence a bit, in any other time he would be remembered far more then he is nowadays]

[And he is one of the better exponents of googly, the ball that took of Nathan Astle's off stump in Auckland 2001 is one of the best balls I have ever had the pleasure of viewing]

Collectively, it is quite clear that these top five bowlers of Pakistan never played together when the heights of their carrier. Wasim, Waqar and Mushtaq did, and were devestating; their brilliance was in their flashy ability to cause sudden avalaunches that would cave in the whole team in a matter of moments. [Unlike the steady, common sense bowling of McGrath, Kaspa and Gellispie which in itself is slightly more effective]

Saqlain and Shoaib only shared a brief period together alongside a declining Wasim and Pakistan actually didn't do a lot wrong. There is reason why Pakistan liked batting first. Pakistani attacks ability to defend modest totals played a large part in their success during the late 90's, 2000. (The fact that Pakistani batsman disappointed more then a pizza hut's max should in no way deter the brilliance of their bowling attack)

This is why, in another thread, I picked up Qadir, Wasim, Waqar and Imran as the greatest Pakistan bowling attack. (Though they didn't play together in more then a couple of matches) When they did play though, they were at the zenith of their carriers (except for Qadir) and it's a shame that we didn't get to see more of them. A case can also be made for either Waqar, Wasim, Mushtaq or Wasim, Saqlain and Shoaib though.

Wow... word out Beleg.
All right, I admit it, I was trying to kid everyone - I know full well that the Pakistan attack of 1999\2000 didn't contain everyone at their peak, and no, the Pakistan side actually of 1999\2000 wasn't really incredibly good. I was simply trying to add to the list of teams.
IF, however, Saqlain and Shoaib had been born 6 years earlier the attack around 1994-1995 would have been possibly the best ever.
Happy now FDO and tec?

 

[Richard]

It wasn't on a helpful track, it was a flat deck. It had a bit of bounce and pace in it of course since it was in Perth, but there was absolutely no seam movement, particularly by that stage in the match. It was a trademark Mcgrath performance on a wicket with nothing in it, against some poor batting. And that side included both Youhana and Inzamam, which is two of the four batsmen you named.

A bit?
It had so much bounce and pace (and the batting was so poor) that it helped bowlers like McGrath beyond the wildest dreams.

Right, they were better than Pakistan and worse than Australia, who were FAR better than Pakistan.

No, they were better than both.

 

[Richard]

so what happened in australia in 98? what happened in england in 98?
such a great SA team, yet since readmission they havent been capable of beating england in england who were easily one of the worst teams of the decade.

England in 1998 were emphatically not one of the worst teams of the decade - in the final 2 Tests they had a rare time where they got it together. I'm very confident they'd have beaten most sides in those 2 games. That was about the best England side I've ever seen.
As for what happened in Australia in 1998, I don't know - I can't even remember the scoreline. Might have been 1-0 to Aus from memory.

where is the evidence that SA were a better team? they were more talented than the australian team at the time, but they were certainly not more talented and far far far from being remotely as good as australia is now.

How can we possibly know that, SA of 1998-1999 haven't had the chance to be let loose on the rubbish sides knocking around this year.

 

[Richard]

precisely, hence saying that hoggard was one of the few bowlers that actually troubled him would only suggest the paucity of good bowling in the world today. and it would also explain how someone like him has such a brilliant average despite such obvious flaws.

Exactly - and so he's not likely to be scared of going back to open against someone other than Zimbabwe.
I have also started to wonder at his form during those Tests, because it's not like he didn't get inswingers during the two double-centuries, and I find it impossible to conceive that he didn't get any during his 150 against Pakistan, either, or his 132* against NZ. And he certainly got a few during his very productive home WI series.
He's got obvious flaws and it's going to get him out plenty - but before that series he'd usually scored a stack of runs in between it getting him out.

 

[Richard]

which automatically makes them better than australia doesnt it? the fact that they lost to zimbabwe in zim would suggest that they were extremely average, the fact that they got whitewashed by a worse australian team than the one now would make them even worse.

The fact that they lost in Zimbabwe simply suggests that they were capable of playing exceptionally poorly.

 

[aussie]

err yes, hayden has never scored a 100 in england and he scored 39 runs in NZ on his last tour at an average of 19.5

hayden has scored one century in england u r forgetting his century in the 5th test of the 2001 series

 

[Richard]

thats probably the biggest joke ive ever heard. to say that inzy is better than martyn is debateable, to say that he is twice the player as martyn is, is really inane. inzy the man whos average goes down to the low 30s when he plays australia, SA and india as opposed to martyn who averages over 40 against every test playing nation........
gee clearly inzy is twice the player that martyn is.

All right, he isn't twice the player Martyn is. But I am still pretty confident his average vs India will rise soon.

1997-1998 SAF v PAK 112 28 280 13 1 0 6/78 21.54
1997-1998 ZIM v PAK 57 8 158 4 0 0 2/74 39.50
1998-1999 PAK v AUS 107 11 327 4 0 0 2/59 81.75
1998-1999 IND v PAK 51 9 150 4 0 0 2/64 37.50
1999-2000 AUS v PAK 40 3 214 3 0 0 3/194 71.33
1999-2000 WIN v PAK 115 18 349 8 0 0 3/91 43.63
1999-2000 SRL v PAK 41 4 153 1 0 0 1/42 153.00
2000-2001 PAK v ENG 52 6 164 1 0 0 1/32 164.00
2000-2001 NZL v PAK 31 10 83 1 0 0 1/62 83.00
2003-2004 PAK v SAF 51 6 199 2 0 0 1/18 99.5

quite impressive if those were batting averages. if only a few come remotely close to that, then the standard of spin bowling must really be pathetic.

I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to the pre-1998 record.