Will Tait break Akhtars world record?

[zaremba]

AWTA. Likewise McGrath's apparent/effective speed also came from the lift that he got from a good length which had nothing to do with the pace that would be recorded by the speed gun from the hand.

 

[Migara]

Verity on uncovered wickets may well have been as much of a handful as them. Or not far off.

Well, Murali and Warne on those, would be a nightmare. Kumble would be far worse than a nightmare, because he pitches everything within stumps.

Verity would have got wet wickets to bowl on occasionally. I don't think it was a day to day experience in a dry country like Australia. I would think majority of his matches were played on reasonable decks.

 

[Migara]

Sorry I was not trying to say that spinners were better just that there were more quality spin bowlers. The same as the great fast bowlers of Bradman's time were imo as good as the best today, but there were not as many.

You are probably right because every test side then had a reasonable spinner in their sides, while in 90s WI, SAF, ENG and NZ failed to field a spinner of quality. But on other hand the quality spinners were far greater in quality than what Bradman faced. You'll never find three spin legends (Murali, Warne & Kumble) playing in same 20 years time with few very good ones (Harbhajan, MacGill, Saqlain, Mustaq and Hogg) in the same time frame. Different people may have different opinions. but for me last 20 years was the pinnacle of spin bowling in test cricket

So although they were not better then Warne or Murali or a few others there were more quality spinners around, and most sides had at least 2-3.

This is what I doubt.

One thing is that Warne and Murali do not know how to bowl on uncovered pitches

If they know how to take wickets on roads, they'll know how to do it on sticky dogs.

 

[zaremba]

Well, Murali and Warne on those, would be a nightmare. Kumble would be far worse than a nightmare, because he pitches everything within stumps.

Just so we're clear, I'm not arguing about whether Verity was a better bowler than Warne/Murali. I'm just saying that Verity was, on the pitches on which he bowled, a real handful. He averaged 28 against Bradman's Australia, which is remarkable. And so I think it's fair to say that he was much of a handful on those pitches as Warne/Murali have been on today's pitches. And if Bradman could succeed against him on those pitches I've no reason to think he wouldn't have equally succeeded on today's pitches against Warne/Murali.

 

[aussie]

The rule you refer to is the not playing a shot rule. so that May and MCC could just pad up to balls that hit them out side the line. Interesting that for the series in Aust 1970-71 they went back to the old law, not sure why though

Ok sir. But isn't the "not playing a shot rule" a small facet of the overall LBW rule though?.

For example going back to that 1957 test under the old LBW rule. May & Cowdrey was padding up to any balls from the spinners that pitched outside the line of off-stump. Which under that old LBW rule under no circumstances would that have been out. But of course today under the new LBW rule a batsman can be out LBW even if the ball pitched outside the line.

Very odd to hear in the 70-71 Ashes series that they went back to old law indeed if it is true...

 

[The_roc]

. Batsmen can use it to every bit as much effect.

How so?

 

[archie mac]

Ok sir. But isn't the "not playing a shot rule" a small facet of the overall LBW rule though?.

For example going back to that 1957 test under the old LBW rule. May & Cowdrey was padding up to any balls from the spinners that pitched outside the line of off-stump. Which under that old LBW rule under no circumstances would that have been out. But of course today under the new LBW rule a batsman can be out LBW even if the ball pitched outside the line.

Very odd to hear in the 70-71 Ashes series that they went back to old law indeed if it is true...

As far as I know and I can look it up if you like

It was the not playing a shot rule that was the problem, as they were playing under the current law regards to ball pitching outside off stump but striking them in line.

So what happened to those "two pals of mine" was that as soon as the ball landed outside off stump the batsman just kicked it away with their bats high in the air, which is why they changed the rule to not offering a shot soon after Sort of how batsman played Warne when he was getting a lot of turn

Would be easier to explain if we were face to face

 

[archie mac]

You are probably right because every test side then had a reasonable spinner in their sides, while in 90s WI, SAF, ENG and NZ failed to field a spinner of quality. But on other hand the quality spinners were far greater in quality than what Bradman faced. You'll never find three spin legends (Murali, Warne & Kumble) playing in same 20 years time with few very good ones (Harbhajan, MacGill, Saqlain, Mustaq and Hogg) in the same time frame. Different people may have different opinions. but for me last 20 years was the pinnacle of spin bowling in test cricket

This is what I doubt.

If they know how to take wickets on roads, they'll know how to do it on sticky dogs.

Not sure if you read much about the old players? But I would be happy to say that O'Reilly and Grimmett were every good as any spin bowler in history. Throw in Verity who was around in Bradman's time and you have three of the best ever imo

 

[Migara]

Not sure if you read much about the old players? But I would be happy to say that O'Reilly and Grimmett were every good as any spin bowler in history. Throw in Verity who was around in Bradman's time and you have three of the best ever imo

I never heard that Grimmet and O'Riely bowed to Bradman in test cricket. Perhaps you may be able to point a test match they did so.

 

[Burgey]

I never heard that Grimmet and O'Riely bowed to Bradman in test cricket. Perhaps you may be able to point a test match they did so.

Yeah he won't be able to do that, but it doesn't matter because the post he responded to was yours that there'd never been three spin legends in the one 20 year period before. And he showed you up in two lines, so you decided to move the goal posts.

Don't worry though,we've all done it. It never works, but it doesn't stop us from trying .

 

[Furball]

I never heard that Grimmet and O'Riely bowed to Bradman in test cricket. Perhaps you may be able to point a test match they did so.

They'd have bowled to him plenty of times in Shield cricket though?

 

[zaremba]

They'd have bowled to him plenty of times in Shield cricket though?

Career FC average: 95

 

[GuyFromLancs]

FCA also falls short in deciding the kind of chance. Is brushing the fielders fingers at deep extra-cover the same as giving 1st slip a sitter that he drops on his foot?

 

[Furball]

Career FC average: 95

I'd be interested to look at his shield average.

I'm sure SJS has posted in the past that Bradman's career FC average owes a lot to his exploits in England.

 

[marc71178]

FCA also falls short in deciding the kind of chance. Is brushing the fielders fingers at deep extra-cover the same as giving 1st slip a sitter that he drops on his foot?

Mate seriously don't try and argue - the flaws have been pointed out time and time again. Over time you'll learn to allow him his little foibles as it's a complete waste of time trying to debate them with him.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'd be interested to look at his shield average.

I'm sure SJS has posted in the past that Bradman's career FC average owes a lot to his exploits in England.

Sure does, if you mean it's been detrimental. Sheffield Shield average of 110.

 

[zaremba]

Sure does, if you mean it's been detrimental. Sheffield Shield average of 110.

Bloomin' 'eck

 

[aussie]

As far as I know and I can look it up if you like

It was the not playing a shot rule that was the problem, as they were playing under the current law regards to ball pitching outside off stump but striking them in line.

So what happened to those "two pals of mine" was that as soon as the ball landed outside off stump the batsman just kicked it away with their bats high in the air, which is why they changed the rule to not offering a shot soon after Sort of how batsman played Warne when he was getting a lot of turn

Would be easier to explain if we were face to face

Ohhhh yes sir sir, i get the difference. Always good to being educated by the CW veterans

 

[aussie]

Mate seriously don't try and argue - the flaws have been pointed out time and time again. Over time you'll learn to allow him his little foibles as it's a complete waste of time trying to debate them with him.

And you should stop trolling Richard's FCA theory if you dont agree with it, especially when he has clearly never said anything like this what poster GuyFromLancs said.

 

[Richard]

If you look at any game in which both Lee and Aktar played, Lee was always quicker. Maybe Aktar was put off by the opposition. Not sure about Tait being faster again though.

Not true at all - Shoaib outpaced Lee plenty often enough, as well as of course proving himself miles better, which is far more important. Most significant example of course came in the Test at SSC in 2002/03.

Personally I think Tait could easily prove capable of bowling quicker max balls than either Shoaib or BLee, but in terms of Shoaib vs. Lee Shoaib comes-out trumps on just about every count.

Except of course fitness record.