Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[Sanz]

almost as harshly criticised as Viv Richards battings by some people

Oh Please, No one is criticizing VIV's batting. It's just that some people use stats to prove their point whenever they can(Remember Mcgrath vs. Akram Thread) and when they can't prove their point because stats are not telling other story they simply come up with 'Stats dont tell you the truth' and blah blah blah.

Check that thread out :- http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=6791&page=3&pp=15&highlight=mcgrath+akram

Here are a couple of reasons you had suggested on why Mcgrath is better than Wasim

1. "..if my life depended on it,I would choose Mcgrath in both forms of cricket over Akram any time" [Sunny wins over Richards]

2. The fact of the matter is McGrath has been as effective if not more effective as a bowler as Akram" [Sunny Wins over Richards]

3. "when it really comes down to it, its a daft question..two completely different bowlers (left and right handed, swing and seam bowling, fast and fastish) but the figures would suggest that Mcgrath (whether he has better fielders with him or not) he has been a more effective bowler, and thats not opinion thats fact.. [Sunny wins over Richards, because the figures suggest that he is and that's not an opinion but some FACT ]

 

[marc71178]

1st test australia 323 and 284/3 declared
india 409 and 73/2

4th test india 705/7 declared and 211/2 declared
australia 474 and 357/6

so how exactly did india not have the upper hand in 4 and australia have the upper hand in 1?

After Day 1, Australia were in complete control of the game - and never really relinquished it. They were closer to winning that game than India were the 4th.

 

[marc71178]

Well, that's because (rightly or wrongly) one-day internationals are still not regarded within the establishment as anything other than a money-making scheme

Most definitely rightly.

 

[Sanz]

After Day 1, Australia were in complete control of the game - and never really relinquished it. They were closer to winning that game than India were the 4th.

Yeah Right. India outscores Australia in the first innings and was only 2 down with 5 of our main batsmen still there in the second innings and all at a sudden Australia were close to winning whereas in the fourth we made Australia follow on and in the fourth innings they were 357/6 and one more hour available match would have been India's but you think otherwise.

 

[marc71178]

4th test india 705/7 declared and 211/2 declared
australia 474 and 357/6

Interesting definition of follow on there...

 

[Sanz]

4th test india 705/7 declared and 211/2 declared
australia 474 and 357/6

Interesting definition of follow on there...

My mistake, We could have made them follow on, but Sourav's defensive and lack of another bowler forced him against it. It still doesn't deny the fact that India would have won the match with another 15-20 overs. That Agarkar dropped katich when Australia were 280/4 didn't help either.

 

[tooextracool]

After Day 1, Australia were in complete control of the game - and never really relinquished it. They were closer to winning that game than India were the 4th.

you're kidding me.....the only day australia had control in that test match was in the first day!!they lost 7 wickets for 50 odd runs on the 2nd day and then got outscored by india in the first innings. how in the world were they even close to winning that match?
australia were about as close to winning that match as zimbabwe were in the first test against SL!

 

[ReallyCrazy]

After Day 1, Australia were in complete control of the game - and never really relinquished it. They were closer to winning that game than India were the 4th.

damn and here i was thinking that a test match lasts 5 days....australia only dominated day 1 and that was that

 

[ReallyCrazy]

swervy you were talking about richards' run of scores in a select few test matches that you picked out. He was no doubt going through a good form period during that time. But the fact that his overall record is not that impressive suggests to me that you can find more instances poor run of scores as well. The fact is he was not consistent and thus not as reliable as gavaskar. Look at his record against Pakistan(who perhaps possessed the 2nd best bowling attack after the WI)...his average is an appalling 41.

Yes I agree with you averages only tell half the story (I'd say they tell 70% of the story). But you seem to totally ignore them in this comparison. If the numbers are close, we can ignore them. But Gavaskar has outperformed Richards too much to totally ignore all the numbers as you have done.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

My mistake, We could have made them follow on, but Sourav's defensive and lack of another bowler forced him against it. It still doesn't deny the fact that India would have won the match with another 15-20 overs. That Agarkar dropped katich when Australia were 280/4 didn't help either.

also in australia's 2nd innings, both langer and Hayden got two lives from the umpire. And then damien martyn got a life from the umpire too.

 

[aussie_beater]

well he wasnt noted for his play of spin, he was noted for his play of fast bowling.

Gavaskar played the one innings against spin bowling that I admire the most and it convinced me of his superior technique against spin as well.It was the 1987 Bangalore test against Pakistan which was his last test match also, and he scored 96 in the second innings in the worst minefield I have ever seen, and was wrongly given out caught at forward short leg after the ball hit him close to his shoulder. That was a masterclass on how to handle spinners in a deteriorating pitch.

 

[a massive zebra]

But the fact that his overall record is not that impressive

In all fairness Richards overall record is very impressive and up with the best of his time but not as impressive as some people make out and it certainly does not stand out like some people make out.

 

[aussie_beater]

In all fairness Richards overall record is very impressive and up with the best of his time but not as impressive as some people make out and it certainly does not stand out like some people make out.

Well it does stand out for most who have watched him at his devastating best and then compare him with the rest of his contemporaries like Gavaskar, Chappell, Miandad and the rest.

 

[PY]

It would be interesting to see Richards' average measured against other batsmen of that era. I know that he didn't have to face the awesome foursome but the other bowlers from other nation were far from shoddy during his career (ie a truckload better than the attacks at the moment).

Has someone done this already?

 

[a massive zebra]

It would be interesting to see Richards' average measured against other batsmen of that era. I know that he didn't have to face the awesome foursome but the other bowlers from other nation were far from shoddy during his career (ie a truckload better than the attacks at the moment).

Has someone done this already?

Javed Miandad 52.57
Sunil Gavaskar 51.12 (this is most impressive to me considering he is an opener and plays for India)
Greg Chappell 53.86
Viv Richards 50.23
Alan Border 50.56 (plenty of not-outs to help)
Clive Lloyd 46.67
Geoff Boycott 47.72
Gordon Greenidge 44.72
Zaheer Abbas 44.80

 

[marc71178]

It still doesn't deny the fact that India would have won the match with another 15-20 overs.

Australia were 80 short with 4 wickets left (and slowed down when the required run rate was too much to seriously get it)

Another 15-20 overs would likely have seen a result, but there's absolutely no guarantee in India's way.

 

[tooextracool]

Javed Miandad 52.57
Sunil Gavaskar 51.12 (this is most impressive to me considering he is an opener and plays for India)
Greg Chappell 53.86
Viv Richards 50.23
Alan Border 50.56 (plenty of not-outs to help)
Clive Lloyd 46.67
Geoff Boycott 47.72
Gordon Greenidge 44.72
Zaheer Abbas 44.80

you dont take into account that richards played for 3 years too long...if richards had retired in 87 he would have averaged higher than all these players!towards the end he became a very ordinary player.

 

[Swervy]

Oh Please, No one is criticizing VIV's batting. It's just that some people use stats to prove their point whenever they can(Remember Mcgrath vs. Akram Thread) and when they can't prove their point because stats are not telling other story they simply come up with 'Stats dont tell you the truth' and blah blah blah.

Check that thread out :- http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=6791&page=3&pp=15&highlight=mcgrath+akram

Here are a couple of reasons you had suggested on why Mcgrath is better than Wasim

1. "..if my life depended on it,I would choose Mcgrath in both forms of cricket over Akram any time" [Sunny wins over Richards]

2. The fact of the matter is McGrath has been as effective if not more effective as a bowler as Akram" [Sunny Wins over Richards]

3. "when it really comes down to it, its a daft question..two completely different bowlers (left and right handed, swing and seam bowling, fast and fastish) but the figures would suggest that Mcgrath (whether he has better fielders with him or not) he has been a more effective bowler, and thats not opinion thats fact.. [Sunny wins over Richards, because the figures suggest that he is and that's not an opinion but some FACT ]

erm...i am sure you need to take what I said in context of what was being said by everyone else...from what I can remember, I was only responding to some people saying that without a doubt Akram was a better bowler than McGrath..I was trying to point out how futile it was to argue either way on that one, them being completely different types of bowlers etc. My arguement wasnt based on averages etc, it was based on what i feel i would want out of a bowler

 

[Sanz]

you dont take into account that richards played for 3 years too long...if richards had retired in 87 he would have averaged higher than all these players!towards the end he became a very ordinary player.

And If Gavaskar had retired in 1971 he would have averaged higher than Sir Don.

 

[Sanz]

erm...i am sure you need to take what I said in context of what was being said by everyone else...from what I can remember, I was only responding to some people saying that without a doubt Akram was a better bowler than McGrath..I was trying to point out how futile it was to argue either way on that one, them being completely different types of bowlers etc. My arguement wasnt based on averages etc, it was based on what i feel i would want out of a bowler

Whatever the context was, you did use stats to prove your opinion and here on this thread when stats were against your opinion you dismissed it by saying they dont tell the correct story.

And that Akram and Mcgrath were different type of bowler but both opened for their countries whereas Sunny and Viv not only of different type of batsmen but also had different rold, Sunny's role was tougher whereas Viv's role much easier still Sunny did better than Viv and that too consistently.

Let me quote you again from that post :-

"...I might have been the best bowler in the world...but real life doesnt deal with hypotheticals.The fact of the matter is McGrath has been as effective if not more effective as a bowler as Akram..."

When you say fact, I think you were talking about STATS, well it's True in case of Sunny Gavaskar, VIV Richards may have been the best batsmen but Sunny was more effective than him as a batsman and that is a FACT.

And please dont deny that your argument was not based on averages - Your First post in that thread looked something like this :-

"....
Tests

McGrath Ave 21.71 rpo 2.5 strike 52.0
Akram Ave 22.38 rpo 2.59 strike 54.6

ODI
McGrath Ave 22.38 rpo 3.89 strike 34.4
Akram Ave 23.52 rpo 3.89 strike 36.2


There is not one of those 6 key stats that Akram has bettered McGrath on...on ODI runrate, he is bang on with McGrath (you must bare in mind that for 8 years before McGrath was playing, Akram was playing in a time when the average runrate was a lot lower than now!!!!!)

So who has been the more effective bowler? "