The protege Ravindra Jadeja vs Shane Warne his early days mentor

[Daemon]

At what point do we start to being subjectivity into it? I mean everyone is already displaying their biases here (Indians severely under rating Warne for example). When do we start to say that we don't think Jadeja is as good as Kumble as a bowler not because of statistics but because we've watched him bowl and Kumble is clearly the more challenging bowler in the majority of conditions?

I don't think many here have any perspective on how stupid they actually sounds by saying bull**** like Jadeja averages 28 against Australia and that actually means something or "Lillee is a home track bully" or "Murali is definitely the GOAT" (another thread but pertains to this conversation). The truth is everything you see is colouring your experience. If every test was played in India then pace bowling wouldn't even exist. If every test was played in Australia swing bowling would be considered nothing more than a two piece leather hack.

The fact is that India favours spin bowlers who spin hard into the pitch. Australia favours pace bowlers who can properly utilise extra bounce. England favours accurate swing bowlers and to a lesser extent spin. Sri Lanka favours spin. The West Indies used to favour pace but now is much more like Sri Lankan or Indian conditions. New Zealand favours swing. Pakistan favours reverse swing. The UAE favours spin. South Africa is like a hybrid of New Zealand and Australian conditions and Bangladesh is very similar to Indian conditions.

Until the 80s, very few tours existed outside England, Australia and the West Indies. In the 80s Sri Lacks and India started getting more tours, Pakistan became strong and New Zealand became competitive. In the 90s South Africa re emerged and Zimbabwe became competitive. In the 00s Bangladesh became a thing and India became a top tier nation. In the 10s Afghanistan and Ireland began and Bangladesh became competitive.

The fact is we will never know how good Marshall would have been in Bangladesh or how good Bradman would have been in Ireland. We can make some guesses and maybe extrapolate data but the more countries are granted test status and the more places cricket is played worldwide, the more opportunities will exist for players to have holes in their records.

So Warne and Murali both sucked in India. Who cares? In other countries they were unstoppable. It's fair to say that they were likely the best two spin bowlers in the history of the sport. But Jadeja is probably better than both of them in Indian conditions, which doesn't favour their style of bowling. But nor does Australia suit Jadeja's style of bowling, so Warne was way better there.

Ultimately we all need to realise that or beliefs about cricketers are coloured by our own experiences and biases. And as soon as the Indian contingent realise that their country is not conducive to good test cricket the sooner they can start preparing better pitches.

bro

 

[Migara]

Murali took 7 fivers and 2 tenfers against India. And also took another 5 fivers and 1 tenfer against Australia. But all that will be brushed aside because home pitch.

Warne was worse than terrible against India on Aussie pitches.

 

[Pratters]

At his best even India struggled against Murali

 

[TheJediBrah]

If Lillee played as much cricket as Marshall or Hadlee in sub continent, he'd have a bowling average of 40 too.

really? another one? I'm going to make this my sig:

You're literally just going with the "this irrelevant other guy from another country does this so there" comeback, again. It's not a good one.

Never seen this from a non-subcontinental poster either. I can't get my head around why any adult would think this is a meaningful response, yet 4 or 5 different people have done it in this thread.

 

[Red]

Objectively speaking, there is no way Symonds should be bowling 10 overs per game for an ATG ODI XI.

do I need to find my comprehensive post that explains why Symonds is a legitimate 5th bowler in any context of ODI, again?

 

[Burgey]

West Indies and Pakistan has been the best side during Lillees career. Flopped against both on tour.

The West Indies side Lillee toured to in 73 was miles from the best side of that time. It was the tour he broke down with stress fractures ffs. Terrible in the Pakistan series though.

 

[Burgey]

Warne's decimation in India, the whole getting beans from India despite living in good 5 star hotels and culminating him getting nightmares of Tendulkar smashing him all happened. It was memorable.

I feel sorry for him having to leave a hotel in India tbh

 

[Burgey]

But some of it is also coz I remember like in the 2011 tour, they actually go out of their way to dish out tracks based on the visiting sides

This is just flat out untrue tbh. The pitches here flattened out in the 2000s because there was a once in a century drought that lasted about nine years.

 

[Red]

Lillee not playing in India is a bigger cop out than Warne or Ponting being dire in India surely...

Hard for it to be a "cop out" when Aust played 6 tests in India between 1971-84 (Lillee's career) and all 6 of those tests (in 1979) were when Lillee was not playing for the official Aust team because of World Series Cricket.

So, he literally never had a a chance to play a test in India. But yeh, it's a "cop out"

 

[Burgey]

Murali took 7 fivers and 2 tenfers against India. And also took another 5 fivers and 1 tenfer against Australia. But all that will be brushed aside because home pitch.

is there a reason performances vs India seem to be regarded as so important by the brain dead on here when judging players from the 90s and 2000s? They were a middling side at best for all bar two years of that entire period and never threatened to do anything other than be a speed bump for the better countries.

 

[Burgey]

At his best even India struggled against Murali

India struggled away against basically any side which bowled overarm during this period. The idea theyre some sort of benchmark for that era is like me arguing the 1984-85 Australian side were the best of that era. It’s laughable.

 

[_00_deathscar]

is there a reason performances vs India seem to be regarded as so important by the brain dead on here when judging players from the 90s and 2000s? They were a middling side at best for all bar two years of that entire period and never threatened to do anything other than be a speed bump for the better countries.

90s, yes. 2000s...are you mad?

 

[stephen]

Warne was worse than terrible against India on Aussie pitches.

Yes, though the series he played in Australia against India was unrepresentative of his ability. He was either green or playing when he needed shoulder surgery.

But we've covered this before and your agenda is to discredit Warne to pump Murali's tires. But I don't think that's necessary. Both bowlers had weak records in two other countries. Warne was on the whole better away from home than Murali, while Murali was better at home than Warne. Both took over 600 wickets against top 8 nations. Both were irreplaceable for their sides when they retired.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But we've covered this before

gee, you think?

 

[Burgey]

90s, yes. 2000s...are you mad?

Early 2000s for sure. They were still pish away, let's be honest here. For some bizarre, brain dead reason they get held up as being such a super tough test when, if cricket was played as a season across any given year, they'd never have made a play off because they lost every away game in the regular season. They were terrible. Later in the 2000s was when they began to get some credibility fort he first time ever in their history, because they began winning away from home. Since then they've been terrific for the most part, always there or thereabouts.

 

[TheJediBrah]

2003-04 India were pretty good. ATG batting line-up, and drew the series against a decent, if not full strength, Aus.

when was it that they lost the 8-0 away in Eng and Aus?

 

[Burgey]

That being the "all but a couple of years" period.

 

[Daemon]

As usual most people were generally having a laugh until migara dropped by. Lock the thread ffs.

 

[Burgey]

Rare gold from Daemon here

 

[Migara]

India struggled away against basically any side which bowled overarm during this period. The idea theyre some sort of benchmark for that era is like me arguing the 1984-85 Australian side were the best of that era. It’s laughable.

India rarely struggled at Sri Lanka. Most of the time sides were even, because we dished up some spicy green tracks. How ever it was Murali and Vaas who definitively turned tables on India at home. Then we could sport some flatter wickets where batsmen can score. Even then, at our very best, India would take us to the last day, where much eliter sides capitulated on spinning tracks by day three or four.

Strictly speaking a significant chunk of Tendulkar's runs against us was scored on pace responsive tracks. He should be credited for it.