Viv vs Lara vs Smith: Who has the best series performances?

[Godard]

Plenty of bats have done well against Murali, even during his peak in SL, not so many as McGrath. Check Anwar in 2000, Thorpe in 2002 and Fleming a year later of how left-handers decoded him.

And Gillespie and MacGill were also bowling well in that 99 series, don't think the attacks can be compared.

By that logic, I can also say he was also decoded by certain right handers. Ponting 1999, Klusener 2001

 

[subshakerz]

Got four middle order wickets including Gilly's at the end and Aus managed just 379 in that innings, not a 500+. If you call that a failure it makes my case strong that your point(s) are indeed silly.

Lara had what four failures in those eight innings in 1999 but his performance is being unanimously considered the best ever.

Whereas Bhajji performed exceptional in four of the six innings and you still question the performance with bizarre reasoning.

Yeah but 379 was more than double India's score and Harbi was the most expensive at 120-4 at 4 a over.

Lara spread his performances out so yeah that is preferable, but he makes up with lack of consistency of other bat's great series with sheer quality of each innings.

I already said I don't have a problem with Harbi being in contention for best series ever though. Just because I have alternatives doesn't mean I am questioning the quality. Let's just leave it at that. You are sounding pedantic.

 

[subshakerz]

By that logic, I can also say he was also decoded by certain right handers. Ponting 1999, Klusener 2001

Yes that is my point. Scoring runs and averaging well against Murali was something achieved by many good bats around that time, though left handers are wanted I pointed out. So 'Lara decoding Murali's in itself wasn't as impressive as the sheer amount of runs scored in that series.

 

[Godard]

Yes that is my point. Scoring runs and averaging well against Murali was something achieved by many good bats around that time, though left handers are wanted I pointed out. So 'Lara decoding Murali's in itself wasn't as impressive as the sheer amount of runs scored in that series.

But scoring against Murali in his backyard does add to the fact right?

 

[Godard]

I just wanted to show Murali+ Vaas in 2001 were as good as McGrath+ Gillepsie+ Macgill in 1999 FW

 

[subshakerz]

But scoring against Murali in his backyard does add to the fact right?

Not some exceptional achievement. Half of India and Pakistan teams of Murali's time did it, and a good handful of other countries' bats.

 

[anil1405]

Yeah but 379 was more than double India's score and Harbi was the most expensive at 120-4 at 4 a over.

Lara spread his performances out so yeah that is preferable, but he makes up with lack of consistency of other bat's great series with sheer quality of each innings.

I already said I don't have a problem with Harbi being in contention for best series ever though. Let's just leave it at that. You are sounding pedantic.

379 was double India's score because batting was inept in that test. Not because the pitch was bad.

Bhajji got 3 middle order batters cheaply and eventually Gilly and hence the total was restricted to 379.

I don't have a problem with you not rating Bhajji's series performance as best. Neither do I as I haven't looked at other top bowling performances in a series closely.

But boy your arguments and reasoning sound amateur level.

 

[subshakerz]

I just wanted to show Murali+ Vaas in 2001 were as good as McGrath+ Gillepsie+ Macgill in 1999 FW

They aren't. Just because Vaas had an excellent series against a mediocre WI lineup sans Lara doesn't make him McGrath or even Gillespie level.

Murali is a top level bowler but once a batsmen could read him like Lara or many others he was negotiable. McGrath in that 99 series was some of the best consistently accurate pace bowling I have seen.

 

[subshakerz]

379 was double India's score because batting was inept in that test. Not because the pitch was bad.

Bhajji got 3 middle order batters cheaply and eventually Gilly and hence the total was restricted to 379.

I don't have a problem with you not rating Bhajji's series performance as best. Neither do I as I haven't looked at other top bowling performances in a series closely.

But boy your arguments and reasoning sound amateur level.

Eventually Gilly what? Oh yeah, hammered him.

I give Harbi series a lot more credit than you do other possible contenders. I don't have firm opinions on which is the best. They each have plusses and minuses, so don't get triggered if I nitpick your favorites.

 

[anil1405]

Eventually Gilly what? Oh yeah, hammered him.

I give Harbi series a lot more credit than you do other possible contenders. I don't have firm opinions on which is the best. They each have plusses and minuses, so don't get triggered if I nitpick your favorites.

Nah I'm fine with whoever you pick. It's just your logic in most arguments on this forum that sound amateur level to me.

 

[Slifer]

I don't think it's a particularly good idea to be comparing batting with bowling performances.

 

[subshakerz]

Nah I'm fine with whoever you pick. It's just your logic in most arguments on this forum that sound amateur level to me.

The logic is quite simple. I slightly prefer performances spread out over more tests to qualify as a greatest ever series in my criteria. It is sound logic based on how I understand the greater challenge of a player in maintaining quality over different matches and conditions without dropping it which is more likely to happen between matches than between innings.

But I can completely understand why you disagree with it as you have your own criteria which I won't call amateur.

 

[anil1405]

The logic is quite simple. I slightly prefer performances spread out over more tests to qualify as a greatest ever series in my criteria.

Two of the three best series bowling performances you are discussing are from a 3-test series. Lol at the 'spread' logic.

And the bigger factor you aren't talking about is the gulf in quality of the opponents here which is massssssive in the overall context of discussion.

I'd surely call your reasoning amateur.

 

[subshakerz]

Two of the three best series bowling performances you are discussing are from a 3-test series. Lol at the 'spread' logic.

Right so for a 3 test series should ideally be spread over the 3 tests. Not so hard to get.

Strongest opponents is mitigated by home and friendly bowling conditions.

 

[anil1405]

I've learnt a new criteria today. While comparing players, spread of performance across a series matters more than the quality of opponents they faced.

 

[subshakerz]

I've learnt a new criteria today. While comparing players, spread of performance across a series matters more than the quality of opponents they faced.

No.

Overall figures, opposition quality, playing conditions, home vs away, spread of performances... all to be considered.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Lara 1999(best ever)>Lara 2001/Viv 1978(396 runs in 4 innings, tearing down Lillee, Thomson and Hogg(one of the best bowlers at that time) to be the main difference between the sides in the series with which WI became the unquestioned best team in the world)>Smith 2019>Viv 1976>Smith 2017(many lucky breaks, ATG series still)

 

[honestbharani]

The Prince BC Lara.

 

[subshakerz]

Lara 1999(best ever)>Lara 2001/Viv 1978(396 runs in 4 innings, tearing down Lillee, Thomson and Hogg(one of the best bowlers at that time) to be the main difference between the sides in the series with which WI became the unquestioned best team in the world)>Smith 2019>Viv 1976>Smith 2017(many lucky breaks, ATG series still)

Viv 76 equals Smith 2019 for me. Viv slightly better attack.

 

[Kirkut]

I think Viv in 76 is slightly better than Smith's Ashes given the attacks.

Hell no! That 76 attack barely generated any lateral movement. 2019 bowling unit was miles better.