Wisden's Greatest Post War England XI

[marc71178]

No, he's not been proven right "at the end of the day"

No, I mean Harmison is only rated the best bowler in the World - surely he must see off all comers from Mars, Venus and Uranus to prove DKL right.

 

[Richard]

No, in the same number of games as Caddicks "golden period" he's taken a lot more wickets, and that included a time when he was significantly underperforming.

He wasn't underperforming at all - he was just being shown as very, very substandard.
For all we know this could yet be Harmison's "golden" period, we can but wait and see.

 

[Richard]

No, I mean Harmison is only rated the best bowler in the World - surely he must see off all comers from Mars, Venus and Uranus to prove DKL right.

Jimmy Adams was rated number-one batsman in The World by the same farcical system - of course, his subsequent decline meant that anyone who talked him up in his early career was still proven right.
If Harmison averages 60 against South Africa, Australia and India, let me assure you, it will mean squat that he was once rated number-one.

 

[Swervy]

So Harmison has not emulated Caddick in an exactly comparable period, in other words.
It's how the rest of his career pans-out that will define him, just as it did with Caddick (I think we can fairly safely say his career's over now).

well as a strike bowler he has done 3 things more than caddick did during his 'golden era':
1) take more wickets..the prime aim of a strike bowler
2) take those wickets at a faster rate than Caddick did
3) majorly contribute to a team who who is consistantly winning now (he is one of 2 main reasons for this, the other is Flintoff)

 

[marc71178]

He wasn't underperforming at all - he was just being shown as very, very substandard.

So, by the same token, his recent run is not overperforming, it is being shown to be very very good indeed.

 

[Swervy]

So, by the same token, his recent run is not overperforming, it is being shown to be very very good indeed.

marc you are missing the point..that isnt the case because it doesnt suit richards arguement...when will you ever learn

 

[Scaly piscine]

Jimmy Adams was rated number-one batsman in The World by the same farcical system - of course, his subsequent decline meant that anyone who talked him up in his early career was still proven right.
If Harmison averages 60 against South Africa, Australia and India, let me assure you, it will mean squat that he was once rated number-one.

For a while Jimmy Adams was good, he just faded as he played fewer and fewer attacking shots. Also note that bowling figures are a bit more consistent than batting, so people will get to the top of the batting rankings more easily. I'm sure if Harmison does well against South Africa you'll say the real test is India or Aus, just as before NZ got whitewashed people said that would be a true test to where England are at in the World.

 

[Richard]

well as a strike bowler he has done 3 things more than caddick did during his 'golden era':
1) take more wickets..the prime aim of a strike bowler
2) take those wickets at a faster rate than Caddick did
3) majorly contribute to a team who who is consistantly winning now (he is one of 2 main reasons for this, the other is Flintoff)

And take them at a higher average - the most important factor.
And unless I am very much mistaken the finest period in England's recent history was the period from 1999\2000 (yes, to merely lose 2-1 in South Africa was an excellent effort) to May 2001 (where a strong Pakistan were annhialated).
No, don't say the most recent 7 months is better, because it's not - it's just more recent. 3 series victories compared to 4-and-a-half, plus a very honourable defeat.

 

[Richard]

For a while Jimmy Adams was good, he just faded as he played fewer and fewer attacking shots. Also note that bowling figures are a bit more consistent than batting, so people will get to the top of the batting rankings more easily. I'm sure if England beat South Africa you'll say the real test is India or Aus, just as before NZ got whitewashed people said that would be a true test to where England are at in the World.

South Africa have been a bit poor recently but I'd still say they're more likely winners.
I didn't expect New Zealand to do very well and it was good to see them shown-up.

 

[Richard]

So, by the same token, his recent run is not overperforming, it is being shown to be very very good indeed.

If you wish to see it that way, yes.
I personally see it as being made to look better than he has bowled.

 

[Swervy]

And take them at a higher average - the most important factor.
And unless I am very much mistaken the finest period in England's recent history was the period from 1999\2000 (yes, to merely lose 2-1 in South Africa was an excellent effort) to May 2001 (where a strong Pakistan were annhialated).
No, don't say the most recent 7 months is better, because it's not - it's just more recent. 3 series victories compared to 4-and-a-half, plus a very honourable defeat.

ask most strike bowlers what their main concern is!!!! 9 times out of ten it will be taking wickets...they dont mind going for a few extra runs, the key is to exploit the new ball and start getting into the middle order

 

[Richard]

A bowler who's taken 300 wickets at 23 will generally be remembered as better than one who's taken 350 at 25.
And quite rightly IMO.

 

[marc71178]

And take them at a higher average - the most important factor.

16 more wickets (but an extra 0.93 per wicket)

Now you are talking rubbish.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I can just see it when Flintoff bats with the tail... Richard wants him to get 50* from 100 balls and improve his average as it's much better than scoring 75 off 60 balls.

 

[Richard]

16 more wickets (but an extra 0.93 per wicket)

Now you are talking rubbish.

Overs comparison?
Rather than match comparison, given that it's unfair to make a match:wickets ratio and compare.

 

[Swervy]

And unless I am very much mistaken the finest period in England's recent history was the period from 1999\2000 (yes, to merely lose 2-1 in South Africa was an excellent effort) to May 2001 (where a strong Pakistan were annhialated).
No, don't say the most recent 7 months is better, because it's not - it's just more recent. 3 series victories compared to 4-and-a-half, plus a very honourable defeat.

in 1999 England were the lowest of the low..completely outplayed by NZ (anyone remember the Sun headline that summer??)..and completely outplayed in SA (2 innings defeats..and a last test win in that one inning farce)...then a win over Zimb 1-0 (and England were lucky to get away with that thanks to the weather in the second test from what I can remember)...and then going down by an inning to a poor WI team (ok they won the series 3-1, but I see little glory in that considering the disarray that WI team were in)..if that is better than the current run of victories, then what hope is there

 

[a massive zebra]

ask most strike bowlers what their main concern is!!!! 9 times out of ten it will be taking wickets...they dont mind going for a few extra runs, the key is to exploit the new ball and start getting into the middle order

At the end of the day the team that scores the least runs will lose, not the team the bats for the least overs - so the most important factor is average. If a team is bowled out for 300 in 90 overs that is preferable to making 200 in 110 overs.

Obviously in certain situations strike rate is preferable. If for example you have 80 overs to get a team out and unlimited runs to play with, bowling them out for 250 in 70 overs is preferable to having them 160/8 at the close.

In general, however, average is the most important factor.

 

[Richard]

in 1999 England were the lowest of the low..completely outplayed by NZ (anyone remember the Sun headline that summer??)..and completely outplayed in SA (2 innings defeats..and a last test win in that one inning farce)...then a win over Zimb 1-0 (and England were lucky to get away with that thanks to the weather in the second test from what I can remember)...and then going down by an inning to a poor WI team (ok they won the series 3-1, but I see little glory in that considering the disarray that WI team were in)..if that is better than the current run of victories, then what hope is there

A series against a very fine New Zealand side which could have gone either way going into the final day; completely outplayed by a very, very fine South Africa side, one innings defeat in which they competed admirably until the exertions of a match where they made South Africa follow-on for the first time in 36 years took it's toll, plus that match itself and another very well played draw; a win over probably the best Zimbabwe side that has ever been, which, yes, might have been drawn but for rain in Trent Bridge (just shows how good Zim really were); and an innings defeat to a West Indies side considerably better than today's, which were subsequently outplayed comfortably.
Yes, I do think that period was much better than the last 7 months. But of course, for the purpse of hopes the most recent must be the better.

 

[Swervy]

A bowler who's taken 300 wickets at 23 will generally be remembered as better than one who's taken 350 at 25.
And quite rightly IMO.

again that isnt always the case...will Joel garner really be considered that much a better bowler than Dennis Lillee..if he is, the question should be asked,'should he???'

 

[Scaly piscine]

There's not much point in being economical and taking wickets more slowly if your other bowlers aren't as good, as is nearly always the case. SA have suffered from this with Pollock