Saeed Anwar Or Brian Lara?

[tooextracool]

Not a pitch that bowlers couldn't take wickets on. The West Indies produced sufficient good deliveries to show that. Also, it was far from a featherbed on the first day.

are you kidding me? antigua 04, was the closest you'll ever come to seeing the flattest wicket ever.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

are you kidding me? antigua 04, was the closest you'll ever come to seeing the flattest wicket ever.

And yet the West Indians bowled well. Regardless of what score England made and how tired they were, the West Indian bowlers bowled with pace, accuracy and aggression on the admittedly flat surface. I've already stated that it was one of the flattest tracks I've ever seen.

Regardless of pitch composition though, the mental intensity required by Lara is not at all to be underestimated. I don't consider it to be Lara's greatest innings (see 153 not out), but considering that I don't know anyone else (who is educated) who truly believes it is, I don't think it's over-rated.

 

[tooextracool]

Regardless of pitch composition though, the mental intensity required by Lara is not at all to be underestimated. I don't consider it to be Lara's greatest innings (see 153 not out), but considering that I don't know anyone else (who is educated) who truly believes it is, I don't think it's over-rated.

it is to an extent, but i mean what people fail to realise is that no one can score 400* regardless of the bowling, unless its on a very flat track.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

it is to an extent, but i mean what people fail to realise is that no one can score 400* regardless of the bowling, unless its on a very flat track.

I can think of one or two bowling attacks that would concede 400 on a minefield.

 

[tooextracool]

I can think of one or two bowling attacks that would concede 400 on a minefield.

no as poor as they are, even they wont let a player get 400 on a minefield. all you need on a minefield is to get the ball in the right place, and im fairly sure that both those attacks can do that occasionally, which is more than enough to get someone like lara out before he gets near 400.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

no as poor as they are, even they wont let a player get 400 on a minefield. all you need on a minefield is to get the ball in the right place, and im fairly sure that both those attacks can do that occasionally, which is more than enough to get someone like lara out before he gets near 400.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think I know the St. Stephen's College bowling attack a bit better than you do.

 

[cricket player]

Salman Butt or Jacques Kallis

For a Indian Yes Because That Match was taken Away from india by That exact
Great inning by Anwar,I am sure If I was comparing Ganguly With brian Lara you would give it an example of Tendulkar or Lara but Sens This treat releats to a pakistan player I am sure you would make that stupid comment as usual

 

[C_C]

this post pretty much summarizes your knowledge of cricket- which stands at an absolute 0. the fact that you suggest that by playing down the wrong line, you can still manage to play down the right line and get bat on ball simply suggests that you have no idea what you are talking about

Au contraire, hombre.
Shows YOUR lack of knowledge.
Playing down the wrong line doesnt mean you miss the ball by a mile. Playing down the wrong line can get you bowled ( the ball pitching inside the line of the bat) or catch the edge(very common when you are trying to turn the ball) and go to the slips.
But then again, you would know a lot more about batting than Majid Khan i guess........ most of my batting insights are from him alongside logical deductions... but lets not get into too much detail on that...clearly expert guidance and logic are something you are completely bereft of.

how many players were roaring successes in england? lets hear it.

Okay. from 90s, here goes:


Sachin Tendulkar (ave 71.60 but then again each and every time Sachin scored, there was collusion from ECB to produce batsmen friendly wickets that changed overnight)
Saurav Ganguly ( ave. 74.00 in ENG)
Rahul Dravid ( 87.66 ave)
Adam Gillchrist ( 68 ave)
Matthew Eliott( 55.6 ave)
Damien Martyn ( 76.5 ave)
Steve Waugh (74.5 ave)
Saeed Anwar ( 59 ave)
Herschelle Gibbs(53.11 ave)
Graeme Smith (79.33 ave)
Sanath Jayasurya (51.62 ave)
Marvan Atapattu (50.12 ave)
Shiv Chanderpaul ( 58.54)


The list is quiete huge with regards to people since 1990 who've had a cracker of a time in england.... and several others like Kirstien,Azharuddin, Mark Waugh, etc.... average close to or higher than their career averages......
You'll actually find more batsmen in the post 1990s with a better record in England than you'll find in the subcontinent....so much for your 'subcontinent is easier to bat' hypothesis.

care to explain how? how did he magically start playing down the right line when he was playing mcgrath and co? the fact that he played down the right line against those bowlers would suggest that it wasnt a weakness ITFP.

because how you do against one team is not JUST a question of your technique...its a question of form, psychological advantage, confidence etc etc....Anwar had a good start against OZ and carried that confidence....however, if you'd actually WATCHED him, you'd know that he had a weakness outside his offstump and often got castled and/or lobbed catches to slip cordon playing down the wrong line to deliveries outside the offstump.

because hayden only came into prominence in mid 2001, by which time anwar was playing his last series in test match cricket. as far as slater is concerned, yes the man who averages less than anwar, 34 in england, 28 in india, 29 in NZ and 29 in the WI, is a better player than anwar. clearly. and you must be a joker if you thought that gibbs was even test class pre 2000(he was averaging below 30 at the start of the series in the WI in 01), which is when anwar played most of his career.

Sorry i meant Taylor-Slater..... and yes, i think Slater was a better batsman than Anwar.
That said, 1990s wasnt an era of openers really...not like how the 60s/70s/80s and the 2000s were/are. He certainly doesnt come close to players like Greenidge,Haynes, Gooch, etc, let alone superheavyweights like Gavaskar or Boycott.
Oh and i forgot to mention...i would take a pre-back injury Atherton over Anwar as well.

 

[tooextracool]

Au contraire, hombre.
Shows YOUR lack of knowledge.
Playing down the wrong line doesnt mean you miss the ball by a mile. Playing down the wrong line can get you bowled ( the ball pitching inside the line of the bat) or catch the edge(very common when you are trying to turn the ball) and go to the slips.
But then again, you would know a lot more about batting than Majid Khan i guess........ most of my batting insights are from him alongside logical deductions... but lets not get into too much detail on that...clearly expert guidance and logic are something you are completely bereft of.

oh please, you can go on and talk about all your knowledge. the basic fact is that when you play down the wrong line, its near impossible to get an outside edge, because in that case you've actually played down the right line.

Okay. from 90s, here goes:


Sachin Tendulkar (ave 71.60 but then again each and every time Sachin scored, there was collusion from ECB to produce batsmen friendly wickets that changed overnight)
Saurav Ganguly ( ave. 74.00 in ENG)
Rahul Dravid ( 87.66 ave)
Adam Gillchrist ( 68 ave)
Matthew Eliott( 55.6 ave)
Damien Martyn ( 76.5 ave)
Steve Waugh (74.5 ave)
Saeed Anwar ( 59 ave)
Herschelle Gibbs(53.11 ave)
Graeme Smith (79.33 ave)
Sanath Jayasurya (51.62 ave)
Marvan Atapattu (50.12 ave)
Shiv Chanderpaul ( 58.54)

how many of those are extremely good batsmen?
tendulkar, dravid, gilchrist, martyn, waugh, anwar, gibbs, and chanderpaul are all batsmen of extraordinary calibre. smith was somewhat lucky to have been fed by one of the worst attacks on the flattest wickets in england for a while. no surprise that he had problems in his last 3 tests when the engand actually bowled better. the list gets very small after that, no surprise either, given that very few batsmen, most of whom are quality succeed in england. its rarely a place where the poor batsmen succeed unless of course they get flat pitches.

The list is quiete huge with regards to people since 1990 who've had a cracker of a time in england.... and several others like Kirstien,Azharuddin, Mark Waugh, etc.... average close to or higher than their career averages......

again all of those are very good players, its no surprise that either of them succeeded because they all had successful careers.

You'll actually find more batsmen in the post 1990s with a better record in England than you'll find in the subcontinent....so much for your 'subcontinent is easier to bat' hypothesis.

thats all rather stupid, there have been many many batsmen who've had success in the sub continent. certainly most of whom required some proficiency against spin bowling.

because how you do against one team is not JUST a question of your technique...its a question of form, psychological advantage, confidence etc etc....Anwar had a good start against OZ and carried that confidence....however, if you'd actually WATCHED him, you'd know that he had a weakness outside his offstump and often got castled and/or lobbed catches to slip cordon playing down the wrong line to deliveries outside the offstump.

if a weaknesss has to do with form, confidence etc, then the fact stands that is isnt a technical weakness at all. in other words if someone can play around a weakness, it cannot be counted as a weakness- for example gary kirsten and steve waugh both had weaknesses against the short ball. but because they succeeded more often than they failed, it suggested that they could play around it.

Sorry i meant Taylor-Slater..... and yes, i think Slater was a better batsman than Anwar.

again well done with ignoring the facts, slater averaging less and being even more inconsistent.

That said, 1990s wasnt an era of openers really...not like how the 60s/70s/80s and the 2000s were/are. He certainly doesnt come close to players like Greenidge,Haynes, Gooch, etc, let alone superheavyweights like Gavaskar or Boycott.
Oh and i forgot to mention...i would take a pre-back injury Atherton over Anwar as well.

and england had 2 openers didnt they? just like every other side. and anwar would get in over the 2nd opener. fact is that anwar would have made most(if not all intl sides), and that suggests that hes world class.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

oh please, you can go on and talk about all your knowledge. the basic fact is that when you play down the wrong line, its near impossible to get an outside edge, because in that case you've actually played down the right line.

If you play down the correct line there's a fair chance it won't get an edge.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

if a weaknesss has to do with form, confidence etc, then the fact stands that is isnt a technical weakness at all. in other words if someone can play around a weakness, it cannot be counted as a weakness- for example gary kirsten and steve waugh both had weaknesses against the short ball. but because they succeeded more often than they failed, it suggested that they could play around it.

If it can get a batsmen out when exploited well, it's a weakness, sunshine.

 

[tooextracool]

If you play down the correct line there's a fair chance it won't get an edge.

yes, but its not vice versa.
virtually every time you edge the ball though you are playing down the right line, just that you are usually playing away from your body/poor footwork, or were just outdone by good bowling.

 

[tooextracool]

If it can get a batsmen out when exploited well, it's a weakness, sunshine.

both waugh and kirsten had problems with it on occasions, yet on other occasions they didnt. in other words there were times when it was exploited well, and yet they succeeded.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

yes, but its not vice versa.
virtually every time you edge the ball though you are playing down the right line, just that you are usually playing away from your body/poor footwork, or were just outdone by good bowling.

I stand corrected.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

both waugh and kirsten had problems with it on occasions, yet on other occasions they didnt. in other words there were times when it was exploited well, and yet they succeeded.

If they succeeded, then it's clear it was exploited pretty poorly.

 

[tooextracool]

If they succeeded, then it's clear it was exploited pretty poorly.

not really, the best of bowlers couldnt get those 2 out in some of their best bowling spells. and thats not because their weakness just suddenly disappeared, its because they had the ability to play around it. steve waugh for example would duck, weave and do absolutely everything other than play a pull shot to a short pitched ball.

 

[SJS]

Salman Butt or Jacques Kallis

Salman KHAN and Jacques Kallis