Wisden's Greatest Post War England XI

[a massive zebra]

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???'

That is not a very good example because Garner's average and strike rate is better, so you prove nothing.

 

[Swervy]

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.

thats a very simplistic way of looking at it.

A strike bowler is given the task of taking wickets as quickly as possible..remember the strike bowler works as a part of a team, it is also the resposibility of the other bowlers to do what tehy have to do...but if a strike bowler is ever told from the start of a game in normal circumstances to keep the scoring down, then that bowler isnt being used in the correct way by his captain.

I would say that most captains would rather see the opposition at 3 for 60 after an hours play than 1 for 20, because the strike bowlers have done what is needed, and used the new ball to its full.

 

[a massive zebra]

It may be a simplistic way of looking at it, but the fact of the matter is the team that scores the most runs will win, not the team that bats for the most overs.

 

[Swervy]

That is not a very good example because Garner's average and strike rate is better, so you prove nothing.

i wasnt really trying to prove much there..i was plucking a couple of bowlers out of the air there.

You see , most people dont have to look at an average to figure if a bowler was good..the human brain does a pretty good job of that itself...my brain can deduce without looking at averages that Marshall was a great bowler and so was hadlee, Lillee etc....

People can see through averages, this is why when some people say Sobers wasnt a good bowler..look at his average....well go ask somebody who played against Sobers when he bowled and see if they think he wasnt a good bowler...same goes for lance Gibbs, regarded by many as the world premier offie at the time...but his average doesnt show this.

Each bowler has a role to play within the team...a bowler will be judge on how well he carries out that role..as opposed to how low his average is.

 

[Swervy]

It may be a simplistic way of looking at it, but the fact of the matter is the team that scores the most runs will win, not the team that bats for the most overs.

well yes...to win a game you need to take 20 wickets (normally)...its best to do this as quickly as possible isnt it

 

[Swervy]

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.

I am sure you said a while back that the first cricket you watched was the WI series in 2000, so how do you really know what previous to that series...trust me..England were a poor team...sometimes it was embarressing for them...honestly that was how it was....that Zimb team was as strong as they ever have been but they werent strong in relation to the rest of the world,they were almost on a par with England coz England really were that bad.

That series vs WI was just a series between 2 or the 3 worst test playing teams going at that time, just cant get away from that one.

But yes after that,England did start turning it around a bit with some really good overseas performances

 

[marc71178]

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

Strike rate then - that would be a fair comparison?

 

[SJS]

Who is VV Raman ?....never heard about him. Are you talking about VV Kumar ? I read an article about VV Kumar long time ago in a magazine in India called "Illustrated Weekly" which doesn't exist anymore.... that he was a prodigious talent only to be pushed out of the test scene because of Chandra's presence after playing only two tests.

I am sorry. I meant Kumar and yes he was a great talent.

 

[SJS]

I don't know that Dilip Doshi was better than Ashley Giles, and yes, I have seen footage at least of him bowling.
Never heard of Goel or Shivalkar, myself.
Personally I wouldn't rate Saqlain as especially good, not in Test-matches, anyway. A typical subcontinent spinner - a handful on turners, not so on non-turners.
Like, I hasten to add, the best of the Indian.

I dont want to argue about why I feel Doshi was better than Giles. I believe he was , by a mile, so lets leave it at that .

Its possible that you havent heard of Goel and Shivalkar. They didnt play international cricket. Goel played one test and/or an unofficial test match. Very many people in India considered him better than Bedi. He bowled with a slightly lower trajectory than Bedi but was every inch as accurate. In the few matches that he and Bedi played in together, he mostly managed to perform better.

Shivalkar was playing around the same time. Again fastish like Goel. Not as great a bowler as the other two, according to me, but then I am not originally from Bombay .

Bombayites considered him better. But anyway he was very very good.

Shivalkar play

 

[Craig]

I seem to remember the likes of Dennis Lillee rated him on that Ashes tour.

For me, that was enough to suggest that given the right support, we had a decent bowler here.

What he's done has far exceeded expectations.

Mind, you, what would Lillee know about fast bowling?

So what he says is 100% correct all the time?

 

[luckyeddie]

So what he says is 100% correct all the time?

Which one's more likely : Harmison to 'have something' or McGrath the 'greatest fast bowler of all time'?

Maybe both?

 

[a massive zebra]

How is McGrath a greater bowler than Marshall?

 

[luckyeddie]

How is McGrath a greater bowler than Marshall?

I think you missed the point.

Before McGrath made his comeback following ankle surgery, Dennis Lillee did some work with him and pontificated over his ability, suggesting that he was the greatest of all time.

Don't get me wrong, I rate McGrath as one of the top 10 bowlers of all time, but like so many, I would put Marshall, Mikey and one or two others ahead of him - but not by much.

 

[a massive zebra]

I think you missed the point.

Before McGrath made his comeback following ankle surgery, Dennis Lillee did some work with him and pontificated over his ability, suggesting that he was the greatest of all time.

Don't get me wrong, I rate McGrath as one of the top 10 bowlers of all time, but like so many, I would put Marshall, Mikey and one or two others ahead of him - but not by much.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[marc71178]

So what he says is 100% correct all the time?

His past record suggests he's very often right - don't forget the number of bowlers he's assisted as a coach.

 

[Richard]

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

Except that Pollock in the right conditions will take lots of wickets very quickly - for example, see Trent Bridge last summer.

 

[Richard]

thats a very simplistic way of looking at it.

A strike bowler is given the task of taking wickets as quickly as possible..remember the strike bowler works as a part of a team, it is also the resposibility of the other bowlers to do what tehy have to do...but if a strike bowler is ever told from the start of a game in normal circumstances to keep the scoring down, then that bowler isnt being used in the correct way by his captain.

I would say that most captains would rather see the opposition at 3 for 60 after an hours play than 1 for 20, because the strike bowlers have done what is needed, and used the new ball to its full.

The new-ball's a little different, but if you look at it Harmison's never been very effective with the new-ball.

 

[Richard]

i wasnt really trying to prove much there..i was plucking a couple of bowlers out of the air there.

You see , most people dont have to look at an average to figure if a bowler was good..the human brain does a pretty good job of that itself...my brain can deduce without looking at averages that Marshall was a great bowler and so was hadlee, Lillee etc....

People can see through averages, this is why when some people say Sobers wasnt a good bowler..look at his average....well go ask somebody who played against Sobers when he bowled and see if they think he wasnt a good bowler...same goes for lance Gibbs, regarded by many as the world premier offie at the time...but his average doesnt show this.

Each bowler has a role to play within the team...a bowler will be judge on how well he carries out that role..as opposed to how low his average is.

And people who try to know better than the game tend to make mistakes, such as in the case of Gibbs. The number of times people have tried to talk about him defying the figures I've lost count of.
If you look at Lance Gibbs you'll see that his record for the first 10 years of his Test-career was outstanding (up to 1968 he was averaging 23.47). Not surprisingly, he lost momentum as he got older and, inevitably, as pitches were covered.
Anyone who followed his career (CLR James, for instance, whose writings prompted me to notice this pattern in his figures) would tell you that Gibbs was considered the premier fingerspinner only when he was getting the wickets at the good average. From the 1968 Wisden Trophy onwards, he was nowhere near as effective. Of course, in India at the age of 40 he was still lethal because a true champion will still have his moments.
Gibbs was considered great for exactly the same reason any bowler was considered great - because he got wickets at a good average.

 

[Richard]

well yes...to win a game you need to take 20 wickets (normally)...its best to do this as quickly as possible isnt it

But it's far more important to take them for as few runs as possible.
300ao off 100 is far better (for the bowling side) than 350ao off 90.

 

[Scaly piscine]

The 'right conditions' for Pollock you refer to are usually the sort of conditions where anyone would take wickets fairly briskly. Most of the recent matches Pollock has tended to take 2-3 wickets from 25+ overs (fair enough he's usually only conceded 60-70 runs) which usually means the innings has lasted over 100 overs and the opposition have scored 350+. This looks great statistically but it doesn't win a great deal of matches.