nz man4man better than australia

[Richard]

gough : pre 2000- 4.25, post - 4.36

Which disguises 2 different periods in the post-2000 era.

caddick : pre 2001 - 3.66 post - 4.42

Which is really just the result of 4 horrible games - get rid of them and it goes way down again.

croft pre : 2000 - 4.18, post 2000 - 4.75

In all of 4 games post-2000

fleming : pre 2000 - 4.31, post 2000 - 4.75

And he was clearly lessening as a bowler.

cairns : pre 2000 - 4.63, post 2000 - 4.92

Because Cairns 4.63 is brilliant ITFP isn't it?
Bad bowlers can become even worse - especially if they get injured like Cairns

srinath : pre 2000- 4.36, post 2000 - 4.73

I'm very surprised Srinath's record was ever that good. Well done on another bowler.

kumble : pre 2000 - 4.16, post 2000 - 4.60

Kumble started before that, in the Aiwa Cup of 1999.

akhtar : pre 2000 - 4.41, post 2000 - 4.63

Akhtar's always been inconsistent and you could find all sorts of patterns in that pre-2000.

saqlain : pre 2000 - 4.22, post 2000 - 4.43

Saqlain's is much more post-2002.

dillon : pre 2000 - 4.35, post 2000 - 4.74

Dillon's appears to be 4.41 in all of 2000 - he was never that good.

streak : pre 2000 - 4.45, post 2000 - 4.52

WOW, what a difference! A whole 0.07-an-over.

 

[tooextracool]

thats exactly what im talking about, theres no point arguing with you really. no matter what evidence i bring up you'll choose to ignore it and look at the rest of their career. with all your rubbish patterns and what not, you fail to get the point that the argument is that everyone no matter how good or poor they were before that, got worse, which suggests that pitches got flatter. your arguments such as "hes always been inconsistent, just that hes been more inconsistent," make you out to be a joke and a waste of time really.

 

[Swervy]

Which disguises 2 different periods in the post-2000 era.


Because Cairns 4.63 is brilliant ITFP isn't it?
Bad bowlers can become even worse - especially if they get injured like Cairns

Cairns a bad bowler..thats an interesting one

 

[Richard]

thats exactly what im talking about, theres no point arguing with you really. no matter what evidence i bring up you'll choose to ignore it and look at the rest of their career. with all your rubbish patterns and what not, you fail to get the point that the argument is that everyone no matter how good or poor they were before that, got worse, which suggests that pitches got flatter. your arguments such as "hes always been inconsistent, just that hes been more inconsistent," make you out to be a joke and a waste of time really.

There are reasons for any pattern.
And I find that this generalisation that most economy-rates has gone up has more to do with other factors than simply bowling becoming easier to hit due to pitches.

 

[Richard]

Cairns a bad bowler..thats an interesting one

Any Kiwi will tell you that Cairns' records with the ball could have been massively better than they've turned-out, too.
The injuries haven't helped, of course.

 

[Richard]

man for man better? woah steady on there. methinks not

Woah, just noticed Sledger's been banned.
Not another neill pickupp, surely?

 

[tooextracool]

There are reasons for any pattern.
And I find that this generalisation that most economy-rates has gone up has more to do with other factors than simply bowling becoming easier to hit due to pitches.

its a combination of both, im not going to deny that they were better bowlers in the 90s. but i really think that the bowlers who have an ER of less than 4.5 in this era should be cut some slack.

 

[Robertinho]

Wow, the evidence really was compelling.. give him credit for God's sake, that cold, hard evidence!

 

[Swervy]

Any Kiwi will tell you that Cairns' records with the ball could have been massively better than they've turned-out, too.
The injuries haven't helped, of course.

But to imply Cairns is/was a bad bowler is going a tad too far I think.

IMO injuries have been THE reason his career stats havent looked as impressive as they should have been. Anyone who would have seen him in the late 80's/early 90's(ie before the major injury stuff) would know he had the potential to be one of the very very best NZ bowlers (although 218 test wickets is nothing to sniff at )

 

[Zinzan]

thats exactly what im talking about, theres no point arguing with you really. no matter what evidence i bring up you'll choose to ignore it and look at the rest of their career. with all your rubbish patterns and what not, you fail to get the point that the argument is that everyone no matter how good or poor they were before that, got worse, which suggests that pitches got flatter. your arguments such as "hes always been inconsistent, just that hes been more inconsistent," make you out to be a joke and a waste of time really.

A bit like arguing with You about Hayden aye TEC......Very frustrating

 

[Zinzan]

its a combination of both, im not going to deny that they were better bowlers in the 90s. but i really think that the bowlers who have an ER of less than 4.5 in this era should be cut some slack.

Yet you consistenly criticise Lee when he goes for 60 runs (normally getting 2 or 3 wts) in the odd game

 

[Richard]

its a combination of both, im not going to deny that they were better bowlers in the 90s. but i really think that the bowlers who have an ER of less than 4.5 in this era should be cut some slack.

Hell, so do I.
But it doesn't change the fact that over 4.5 is very, very questionable, and over 4.7 is a joke.
And some people go-on as if 5-an-over is acceptible.

 

[Richard]

But to imply Cairns is/was a bad bowler is going a tad too far I think.

IMO injuries have been THE reason his career stats havent looked as impressive as they should have been. Anyone who would have seen him in the late 80's/early 90's(ie before the major injury stuff) would know he had the potential to be one of the very very best NZ bowlers (although 218 test wickets is nothing to sniff at )

He did indeed have that potential - but injuries snatched it away from him (as they possibly did with Nash and O'Connor - and who knows Bond too - as well).
And, terribly sad as it is (no sarcasm there), it turned-out that he actually wasn't that good a bowler. The reason for that had far more to do with injuries than it had to do with his ability - but it's fact nonetheless.

 

[Richard]

A bit like arguing with You about Hayden aye TEC......Very frustrating

You could have the same argument with me about Hayden - me and tec have had plenty and I think we both tend to get as frustrated as the other at our failure to see each others' points.
But any fool can see that Hayden has and always has had a glaring weakness against seam and swing.
And a Kiwi, above all, should notice that given the fact that Kyle Mills, amazingly, has been the one bowler to expose that recently.

 

[Richard]

Yet you consistenly criticise Lee when he goes for 60 runs (normally getting 2 or 3 wts) in the odd game

That's because going for 60 is an extremely poor performance.
Even if you get 3 wickets.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That's because going for 60 is an extremely poor performance.
Even if you get 3 wickets.

Ridiculous. 3/60 as an opening bowler in an ODI is a potentially matchwinning performance. The relatively poor RPO of 6 (which isn't even THAT bad in modern ODIs, in a single game) is easily outweighed by three wickets which serve to get lower quality batsmen to the wicket, reduce the momentum and scoring rate of the opposition and build pressure.

3/60 where the wickets came in the slog at the death could well be poor, although on the same token going for 60 bowling at the death isn't as bad as doing it early in the innings. Three wickets early in the innings however can devastate an opposition side, as Lee has shown time and time again.

 

[Richard]

3\60 will almost certainly involve at least 1 wicket where the slog was on - possibly 2.
And if you set some pressure on by taking early wickets, you're just letting it off again by ending-up with 10-60.
Of course 3 early wickets can have a profound effect, though, if you only go for 45 or so.

 

[marc71178]

I suggest you watch the HawkEye of the trajectory of a few deliveries sometime.

I suggest you take a course in basic mathematics.

 

[Swervy]

He did indeed have that potential - but injuries snatched it away from him (as they possibly did with Nash and O'Connor - and who knows Bond too - as well).
And, terribly sad as it is (no sarcasm there), it turned-out that he actually wasn't that good a bowler. The reason for that had far more to do with injuries than it had to do with his ability - but it's fact nonetheless.

I am struggling to understand how Cairns can be called bad as a bowler though

 

[marc71178]

Of course 3 early wickets can have a profound effect, though, if you only go for 45 or so.

3 early wickets have a huge effect regardless of final figures.