The stats do not do him justice!

[Smith]

I accept your points, but if you consider that he has done magnificantly (albeit in just 1.75 matches) in England and did so damn well in dominating Zimbabwe and Kenya in Africa and compare that to his relative mediocrity in India, it paints a stark contrast.

He is only 20.

England can't play spin to save their skin.

 

[MrIncredible]

Ian Bishop. Just looked at his record in stats guru highest average away from home was 26 in Pakistan. Averaged under 25 against all teams (averaged 31 against NZ in 2 tests and 37 vs SL in 2 tests imo not near enough of a sample size so dont count). IM Bishop had the potential (had he played atleast 50 tests) to take over well over 200 wickets, SR under 50 and WPM 4.5 and an average of 22. still ended up with a good/great record but what might have been....

 

[Smith]

Ian Bishop. Just looked at his record in stats guru highest average away from home was 26 in Pakistan. Averaged under 25 against all teams (averaged 31 against NZ in 2 tests and 37 vs SL in 2 tests imo not near enough of a sample size so dont count). IM Bishop had the potential (had he played atleast 50 tests) to take over well over 200 wickets, SR under 50 and WPM 4.5 and an average of 22. still ended up with a good/great record but what might have been....

He could have been very well at his peak when he played those tests. But it's indeed a classic case of what might have been. Similar record regarding Waqar. Had he retired due to some reason, god forbid, after his first 4 or 5 years at the top level, people would have been comparing him with the greatest ever fast bowlers. A player can truly be judged only after his whole career, and should have gone through the full cycle in that.

 

[Richard]

England can't play spin to save their skin.

England isn't one thing, nor are all batsmen who play for and in England the same.

 

[zaremba]

England isn't one thing, nor are all batsmen who play for and in England the same.

No, but if you had to apply one stereotype to English batsmen it would be that they are hopeless against wrist spin. And having watched Mushy for the past 5 years believe me that, by and large, the stereotype is true. I can't think off-hand of too many exceptions. The only players I can think of who consistently scored runs against us in the Mushy years were Ramps (who must have averaged 200 against us), Stuey Law and Matt Walker.

 

[Richard]

It's true that good-quality wristspin does tend to have the wood over a large majority of English batsmen. What shouldn't be forgotten, however, is that good-quality wristspin has the wood over a large majority of batsmen.

Average fingerspin and crap-quality wristspin, however, is quite another matter. And it irritates the heck out of me when people are incapable of distinguishing between England and English batsmen, never mind applying one blanket stereotype to every single batsman to come out of a country.

 

[Burgey]

Ian Bishop. Just looked at his record in stats guru highest average away from home was 26 in Pakistan. Averaged under 25 against all teams (averaged 31 against NZ in 2 tests and 37 vs SL in 2 tests imo not near enough of a sample size so dont count). IM Bishop had the potential (had he played atleast 50 tests) to take over well over 200 wickets, SR under 50 and WPM 4.5 and an average of 22. still ended up with a good/great record but what might have been....

Bishop toured here in 92-93 and IIRC he'd already had injury issues and wasn't as good or quick as he had been. Even so, the man was terrifying frankly. I think it was him who clocked Langer in the melon on debut at Adelaide in that famous test too.

 

[Richard]

I've only ever seen hindsight footage of Bishop, at a time when I was truly appreciative of what makes a good bowler (I did watch him in 1995, but being just 9 years old at the time I didn't really think too hard about it).

I've no doubt that Bishop of '89-'90/91 and '92/93-'93 was among the best bowlers the game has seen, and that Bishop of '95-'97 was still a very fine merchant fit to rank as an excellent Test bowler.

It's just that in 1997/98 and 1998 he was very poor indeed and those who judge him purely by his overall career average think he was merely excellent, when, as I say, he was in fact for a time one of the best ever.

 

[sledger]

Marus Trescothick immediately sprung to mind when I read this thread title.

Please discuss.

 

[rivera213]

He could have been very well at his peak when he played those tests. But it's indeed a classic case of what might have been. Similar record regarding Waqar. Had he retired due to some reason, god forbid, after his first 4 or 5 years at the top level, people would have been comparing him with the greatest ever fast bowlers. A player can truly be judged only after his whole career, and should have gone through the full cycle in that.

Yet he still ended up with more wickets per innings and an average the same as Wasim with not only a SR of 10+ less than both Wasim and Imran but the best SR of anyone with 200+ test wickets.

I think it's fair to compare him with the best ever, and he has a credible case to be considered THE best ever- especially since he played in a great era for bowling AND batting.

I can't really split him and Wasim though. I'd take either.

 

[SJS]

Learie Constantine

 

[fredfertang]

Pataudi Junior - averaged all but 35 and scored six test centuries after losing an eye - what might he have achieved otherwise?

 

[rivera213]

Pataudi Junior - averaged all but 35 and scored six test centuries after losing an eye - what might he have achieved otherwise?

An average of 70 w/12 test centuries?



That would make it 1 century every 7 innings which is world class.

He averages 45 batting @ 6 which was possibly his ideal position. Many Indians I know would put him in an all-time team as stand-alone captain.

 

[Smith]

England isn't one thing, nor are all batsmen who play for and in England the same.

No, but if you had to apply one stereotype to English batsmen it would be that they are hopeless against wrist spin. And having watched Mushy for the past 5 years believe me that, by and large, the stereotype is true. I can't think off-hand of too many exceptions. The only players I can think of who consistently scored runs against us in the Mushy years were Ramps (who must have averaged 200 against us), Stuey Law and Matt Walker.

Aye, I should have said wrist spin.

It's true that good-quality wristspin does tend to have the wood over a large majority of English batsmen. What shouldn't be forgotten, however, is that good-quality wristspin has the wood over a large majority of batsmen.

Average fingerspin and crap-quality wristspin, however, is quite another matter. And it irritates the heck out of me when people are incapable of distinguishing between England and English batsmen, never mind applying one blanket stereotype to every single batsman to come out of a country.

Pietersen plays wrist spin reasonably well.

By England, it is obvious that I meant English batsmen and that is a given. I don't know why the emphasis on trivial things like that.

Point is that England are probably the worst players of wrist spin going around. Even a work in progress like Chawla can make them dance on burning coal, it is pretty much proof of how dire they are in that department.

No wonder then, Adil Rashid is touted to be the next best thing in wrist spin. I disagree. From whatever I;ve seen of him, he'd struggle to make to the A team of any of the subcontinental sides, which is a good barometre.

Yet he still ended up with more wickets per innings and an average the same as Wasim with not only a SR of 10+ less than both Wasim and Imran but the best SR of anyone with 200+ test wickets.

I think it's fair to compare him with the best ever, and he has a credible case to be considered THE best ever- especially since he played in a great era for bowling AND batting.

I can't really split him and Wasim though. I'd take either.

Sure, Waqar indeed was a star in his own right up there with Wasim. But he'd been a unanimous choice for the greatest fast bowler ever (like Bill O Reilly) if he had met the conditions that I scribed above.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Sir Vivian Richards, Kevin Pietersen, Matthew Hayden, AB de Villiers, Ishant Sharma, Wasim Akram, Brian Lara and Greg Chappell.

 

[rivera213]

Pietersen plays wrist spin reasonably well.

By England, it is obvious that I meant English batsmen and that is a given. I don't know why the emphasis on trivial things like that.

Point is that England are probably the worst players of wrist spin going around. Even a work in progress like Chawla can make them dance on burning coal, it is pretty much proof of how dire they are in that department.

That's true, and that is a result of not seeing quality wrist spin in our own game.

It's not a secret we've had our asses handed to us by a number of Aussie leggies over the years, and

No wonder then, Adil Rashid is touted to be the next best thing in wrist spin. I disagree. From whatever I;ve seen of him, he'd struggle to make to the A team of any of the subcontinental sides, which is a good barometre.

Well tbh he IS the best thing in wrist spin from an English perspective. I don't think (though wouldn't bet against it) that commentators have said he is comparible to top notch leggies, but it's strange for us to produce a leg spinner full stop yet alone someone who may (in future years) be test class (I'm not getting my hopes up, but he's only 20 so can't rule it out completely).

If he were Australian, he wouldn't be considered anything above average based on the leggies they've had through the years, but it's all relative and the only half-decent spinners we've produced (and a couple of top drawer ones) are offies.

I think Rashid would get into the Bangladesh teams in all 3 formats and in Sri Lanka's A team but not the Pakistan A or possibly even the 3rd tier of India.

He'd be a dead cert for the 1st Ashes test if he were Australian though.

Sure, Waqar indeed was a star in his own right up there with Wasim. But he'd been a unanimous choice for the greatest fast bowler ever (like Bill O Reilly) if he had met the conditions that I scribed above.

Dunno about O'Reilly being the unanimous choice for best leggie ever. He was pretty much the only bowler in the 30's (on the batsmen friendly wickets) to not be owned by 1 batsman or the other, and I'm sure people are aware he had the wood over Hammond to a level which possibly hasn't been matched, but I'd go for Warne all things considered.

I, obviously judging by this thread, look at statistics as a measure of success rather than a genuine indicator of the level of talent of a player, so the fact Warne has 708 wickets compared to O'Reilly's 144 doesn't have much of a bearing on my decision.

Guys like Kumble, O'Reilly, Benaud, Qadir and Chandrasekhar also have credible claims based on talent but I'd plump (ha ha) for Shane.

 

[Richard]

Pietersen plays wrist spin reasonably well.

Pietersen also plays seam and fingerspin reasonably well. Pietersen is an outstanding batsman, and wouldn't be so if he didn't play all types of bowling very well indeed.

By England, it is obvious that I meant English batsmen and that is a given. I don't know why the emphasis on trivial things like that.

Because it's very annoying to see such sweeping stereotypes used - less still with such poor emphasis.

Point is that England are probably the worst players of wrist spin going around. Even a work in progress like Chawla can make them dance on burning coal, it is pretty much proof of how dire they are in that department.

No wonder then, Adil Rashid is touted to be the next best thing in wrist spin. I disagree. From whatever I;ve seen of him, he'd struggle to make to the A team of any of the subcontinental sides, which is a good barometre.

English batsmen in general (not "England") are probably no worse against quality wristspin than batsmen from just about anywhere else in general, maybe with the exception of India (though I've seen more than enough average Indian batsmen, rather than the exceptional ones, made to look, well, pretty poor by quality wristspin).

Against crap wristspin, English batsmen - same as batsmen from most places - are perfectly proficient. Mostly, crap wristspinners don't even make it to the First-Class level, so you don't see the demonstration of that if you just make a sweeping generalisation.

Piyush Chawla, work in progress or not, is clearly pretty good quality already. Thus, he'll trouble all but the best batsmen. Adil Rashid is nowhere near so good, but could quite easily have played for Pakistan (never mind Pakistan A) 2-3 years ago.

 

[andruid]

Adil Rashid is nowhere near so good, but could quite easily have played for Pakistan (never mind Pakistan A) 2-3 years ago.

What's that supposed to mean?


Methinks kaneria's reccord is somehow undone by the fact he played in an unbalanced un-coordinated test attack and would probaly have the skill to average 3-5 less overall in Tests were he playing in a more stable bowling unit where he had better surerity of his task within it.

 

[trapol]

Sorry to go back over old ground.

But a friend mentioned to me about a chapter in one of Ed Smiths books. He of England/Middlesex and Kent fame. It was titled why there will never be another Bradman....

This is second hand so hopefully somebody out there can help me out but the premise (as i understand it) was basically that Great players are great players across every era. What has changed is everybody else. The gap between Bradman and everybody else was so large because everyone else was so poor (not everyone obviously but the majority) So today we still have our great players but the bottom wrung, for want of a better term, has improved.
This has been done through greater professionalism, increased training etc etc etc...

I think the analogy he used was if you took George Best and 10 punters to a park and played football the difference between them and George would be huge. But for 12 months if George worked with those other 10 players everyday, training hard and improving their skills....then George would still be a great player but everybody else would be better to and the difference them not so great.....

Thoughts

 

[wfdu_ben91]

There will be never be another Bradman, because it's mentally impossible for a batsman to average 100 for 20 years of cricket, at the highest level. That's what so incredible about Bradman - He accomplished the impossible and unthinkable.