West Indies Attacks early 80s vs present English attack

[C_C]

think you might be overstating how good that SA bowling attack was....de Villiers was certainly brilliant..Adams??????...Symcox???? Klusener had a bit of pace butwasnt that special. The bowling attack was Donald and Pollock really..and did those players play much together anyway???? Again, what the England bowling attack may lack in an outstandingly shining talent(like Donald and Pollock at their best), it makes up with relentless pressure due to depth,and variety.

Please.
Depth and variety has to be balanced with quality- if not, we all would be picking 11 allrounders for an alltime world XI and not specialists like Bradman or Murali/Warney.
Adams and Symcox were no worse than Giles with the ball, Donald and Pollock were both streets ahead of any english pacer currently. And deVillers was as good as any english pacer right now - okay they didnt play long but this english attack ( Jones-Flintoff-Hoggard-Giles-Harmison) hasnt played together much either.

And again, you seem to be swept up with 80s/90s nostalgia with the 4 WIs bowlers you mentioned. Croft was very good, as was Clarke...but Wayne Daniel was only really at his best in the late 70's and wasnt really that good (fast but not anyway near as good as you make out)..and Winston Davis simply wasnt that good full stop

I am sure Wayne Daniel and Winston davis wernt that good. which is why they have done excellently in their limited opportunities and against almost all oppositions....sure they wernt as good as the four prong/Clarke or Croft but they would displace Hoggard or Lee or any other bowler from the playing 4/5 in the world today or in their era and the 90s.
And the two Ds ( Daniel and Davis) were never in contention for fulltime spots to the main WI team but were rather their 6th/7th bowling option..... it goes on to show how much superior their bowling strength is when their 7th/8th bowling option can give the top 4 of any nation a genuine competition.

I find it strange that you are willing to class a bunch of bowlers who have not much more than 50 tests between them as being so good, when for other players of the current day, they have to have played 50 tests each to be recognised as being good

Well You could be Shaun Pollock himself but if you were born in the era of the four prong in the west indies, you wouldnt have logged more than 20-25 matches in your career. I am sure that makes Shaun Pollock inferior to Hoggard as a bowler.
Didnt someone say that i should watch the matches before i comment - well i would urge you to watch the WI bowling from the 70s and 80s and South Africa through the 90s and you'll realise the sheer folly of rating this english attack as good as the Saffie one, let alone the west indies one.

 

[Swervy]

Well You could be Shaun Pollock himself but if you were born in the era of the four prong in the west indies, you wouldnt have logged more than 20-25 matches in your career. I am sure that makes Shaun Pollock inferior to Hoggard as a bowler.
Didnt someone say that i should watch the matches before i comment - well i would urge you to watch the WI bowling from the 70s and 80s and South Africa through the 90s and you'll realise the sheer folly of rating this english attack as good as the Saffie one, let alone the west indies one.

At no point have I said the current English bowling attack is as good as the WI's 70s 80s attack...I would say though it might be as good as SAs in the 90s.

and yes, I did watch them

 

[C_C]

At no point have I said the current English bowling attack is as good as the WI's 70s 80s attack...I would say though it might be as good as SAs in the 90s.

and yes, I did watch them

I dont think they are as good as South Africa of the 90s, West Indies of the 90s or Pakistan of the 90s. They may become as good but arnt as good yet. Having two alltime great bowlers plus 2 decent ones equates to a better attack than 4/5 guys bowling well ( that is, well- not earth-shattering awesome) over a period of just 2 years, dominated by stats against minnows.
Incase you dont know, Harmison minus ZIM, BD and WI averages 38, Flintoff without them three averages 35.24, etc. They still have a long way to go inorder to compare with the allround excellence of the South African/Pakistani/West Indian attacks of the 90s.
They are clearly the second best attack today but that is reflective of the massive decline in bowling prowess around the world than anything.

 

[greg]

I dont think they are as good as South Africa of the 90s, West Indies of the 90s or Pakistan of the 90s. They may become as good but arnt as good yet. Having two alltime great bowlers plus 2 decent ones equates to a better attack than 4/5 guys bowling well ( that is, well- not earth-shattering awesome) over a period of just 2 years, dominated by stats against minnows.
Incase you dont know, Harmison minus ZIM, BD and WI averages 38, Flintoff without them three averages 35.24, etc. They still have a long way to go inorder to compare with the allround excellence of the South African/Pakistani/West Indian attacks of the 90s.
They are clearly the second best attack today but that is reflective of the massive decline in bowling prowess around the world than anything.

The second best attack? What is the best?

 

[C_C]

The second best attack? What is the best?

Australia.
True, Gillespie had a bad series but he is still a better bowler or atleast comparable to any english bowler currently. Nevermind McGrath and Warney.

 

[twctopcat]

Oh no you see i am an Al-Qaeda member, racist and england hater to dare suggest such a thing according to some. How dare i say something like that about the Queen's own country!

Sorry, i was genuinely agreeing with your point regarding the England attack being v good but with a long way to go. I don't really know about the specific SA attack so cannot comment.
No sarcasm intended!

 

[twctopcat]

Australia.
True, Gillespie had a bad series but he is still a better bowler or atleast comparable to any english bowler currently. Nevermind McGrath and Warney.

Now that i don't agree with.

 

[C_C]

Sorry, i was genuinely agreeing with your point regarding the England attack being v good but with a long way to go. I don't really know about the specific SA attack so cannot comment.
No sarcasm intended!

No i wasnt being sacrastic towards you - just conveying my sardonic take on some of the english supporters here. You see, voicing such opinions and saying that there isnt a HUGE gap between England and India has led to the accusations of me being a member of the Al Qaeda, me being racist due to the historical past between england and India, me being an utter scumbag, being a crank, etc.

 

[cameeel]

The gap between the Windies attack of the '80's and the English attack of the present is huge, the Australian attack is closer to the Windie's then the current England attack.

S.Jones
M. Hoggard
S. Harmison
A. Giles

G. McGrath
B. Lee
J. Gillespie/S. Tait
S. Warne

 

[greg]

The gap between the Windies attack of the '80's and the English attack of the present is huge, the Australian attack is closer to the Windie's then the current England attack.

S.Jones
M. Hoggard
S. Harmison
A. Giles

G. McGrath
B. Lee
J. Gillespie/S. Tait
S. Warne

The funniest post of the lot.

 

[greg]

Australia.
True, Gillespie had a bad series but he is still a better bowler or atleast comparable to any english bowler currently. Nevermind McGrath and Warney.

Well that's what you get if you can't see past the statistics. Gillespie may return something close to his former glory. Or he may not. You have no way of knowing that. Every career must come to an end.

The English attack may (in your opinion) be unproven. Gillespie may have a distinguished career behind him with 250 test wickets at a good average.

But being unproven does not preclude someone from being a good bowler. It just means they haven't proven it yet. Having been a good bowler in the past with the statistics to support you does not preclude you from being a bad bowler.

Gillespie may never play test cricket again (unlikely I think, especially considering the resources at Australia's disposal but possible unless he can work out what has gone wrong over the last 8 months). That would be a strange thing for a bowler who would walk into the England attack, don't you think? :-)

 

[C_C]

Well that's what you get if you can't see past the statistics. Gillespie may return something close to his former glory. Or he may not. You have no way of knowing that. Every career must come to an end.

The English attack may (in your opinion) be unproven. Gillespie may have a distinguished career behind him with 250 test wickets at a good average.

But being unproven does not preclude someone from being a good bowler. It just means they haven't proven it yet. Having been a good bowler in the past with the statistics to support you does not preclude you from being a bad bowler.

Gillespie may never play test cricket again (unlikely I think, especially considering the resources at Australia's disposal but possible unless he can work out what has gone wrong over the last 8 months). That would be a strange thing for a bowler who would walk into the England attack, don't you think? :-)

Yes, being unproven does preclude someone from being a good bowler for the time being.
Good is performance. Performance is experience. Therefore without experience, even Bradman or Sobers is a nobody. They are somebody because of their statistical greatness and that is why Sobers is considered the greatest allrounder ever and not Brendan Julien despite Julien being extremely talented- more talented than possibly any of the four great allrounders from the late 70s-early 90s.

If you take a statistical period into account for your decisionmaking, your results are a lot more consistent and contigious than going by the drop of a hat notion of form, where you'd be always reshuffling the pecking order, only to realise that the eventual pecking order is almost completely congrous to the statistical pecking order.

I am sure if Gillespie does superbly next series or in the RoW match, you would be scurrying to change your opinion, while mine remains unaffected.

 

[greg]

Yes, being unproven does preclude someone from being a good bowler for the time being.
Good is performance. Performance is experience. Therefore without experience, even Bradman or Sobers is a nobody. They are somebody because of their statistical greatness and that is why Sobers is considered the greatest allrounder ever and not Brendan Julien despite Julien being extremely talented- more talented than possibly any of the four great allrounders from the late 70s-early 90s.

If you take a statistical period into account for your decisionmaking, your results are a lot more consistent and contigious than going by the drop of a hat notion of form, where you'd be always reshuffling the pecking order, only to realise that the eventual pecking order is almost completely congrous to the statistical pecking order.

I am sure if Gillespie does superbly next series or in the RoW match, you would be scurrying to change your opinion, while mine remains unaffected.

Only because you have no opinion to change. Either because for you if Gillespie retires tomorrow with a career ending knee injury he is still better than any English bowler or because your opinion is whatever your statistics tell you at any moment in time. You have no means for predicting the future.

Brendon Julian. lol.

 

[C_C]

Only because you have no opinion to change. Either because for you if Gillespie retires tomorrow with a career ending knee injury he is still better than any English bowler or because your opinion is whatever your statistics tell you at any moment in time. You have no means for predicting the future.

Brendon Julian. lol.

Have you even watched brendan Julian ? He definately had a LOT of talent that he wasted on boozing and womanising.
And incase you missed the entire frickin point, statistical predictions for the future is far more accurate than your intuitive feel for the game, which is why statistical predictions and not intuitive feel is used for modelling (which is predicting) and not an intiutive dude.
It is obvious that you have very little clue about science and scientific thought, so i am gonna stop bothering.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

( okay, McGrath-Warne would've made that attack. But Gillespie, Kaspa, Lee, etc. would've struggled to make the barbados team, let alone west indies team)

Agreed with all of your post, aside from this bit about Gillespie. Gillespie at his best was in the same class as the fringe guys in the West Indies team like Croft, Clarke and Daniel. Gillespie these days obviously isn't the same bowler, but in the 97-2002 period he was extremely quick and also accurate and capable of moving the ball a long way. Given that he suffered from serious injuries and bowled in a period of relatively unhelpful pitches and many good batsmen, Gillespie's record is quite excellent indeed, and it's unfair to rate him behind guys like Daniel.

 

[C_C]

Agreed with all of your post, aside from this bit about Gillespie. Gillespie at his best was in the same class as the fringe guys in the West Indies team like Croft, Clarke and Daniel. Gillespie these days obviously isn't the same bowler, but in the 97-2002 period he was extremely quick and also accurate and capable of moving the ball a long way. Given that he suffered from serious injuries and bowled in a period of relatively unhelpful pitches and many good batsmen, Gillespie's record is quite excellent indeed, and it's unfair to rate him behind guys like Daniel.

Gillespie at his best was most definately a lesser bowler than Clarke and Croft, though perhaps a bit better than Daniel and Davis.....Clarke and Croft at their best were as good as any pacer around - only difference is they didnt do it for long enough or didnt get the chances.... but Daniel/Davis were a lot more consistent than Dizzy, who swings between mediocrity and excellence in a span of a single series or two....

 

[greg]

Have you even watched brendan Julian ? He definately had a LOT of talent that he wasted on boozing and womanising.
And incase you missed the entire frickin point, statistical predictions for the future is far more accurate than your intuitive feel for the game, which is why statistical predictions and not intuitive feel is used for modelling (which is predicting) and not an intiutive dude.
It is obvious that you have very little clue about science and scientific thought, so i am gonna stop bothering.

I know exactly what you're talking about, thank you very much. I just think it's an approach that is fundamentally flawed, used in isolation for assessing cricket. Fine for placing players and teams in historical context but not for predicting results in the here and now. Of course mathematical modelling has a role in predicting results. Odds compilers in betting companies for example, who can be expected to get things right, on average, will often use mathematical modelling to price their markets. But then betting companies have a whole host of compensatory actions they can take if their models get things wrong. But that is all they can hope for - get things right "on average". And they will often get things wrong.

EDIT:fundamentally flawed is way too strong a phrase

Slightly O/T but I would be interested for example in how you account for the fact that pure statistics may not reflect the fact that certain teams or players have room for improvement or are past their peak and on the decline. It was noticeable in this Ashes series, for example, the extent that many of the England players clearly improved dramatically through the series. Strauss and Flintoff, for example, looked clueless at the start of the series vs Warne but by the end Strauss (whilst never comfortable) had improved to take two centuries off him and Flintoff looked as assured as it is possible to be against him in the first innings at the Oval. Simon Jones was a different bowler at Old Trafford and Trent Bridge than the bowler who was seen at Lords.

On the other hand an Australian team with most of its players past its peak showed hardly any improvement in any area throughout the series.

 

[C_C]

Fine for placing players and teams in historical context but not for predicting results in the here and now.

Which is why i suppose almost all bookies give odds based on statistical simulation models and not just what they feel, correct ?

Slightly O/T but I would be interested for example in how you account for the fact that pure statistics may not reflect the fact that certain teams or players have room for improvement or are past their peak and on the decline.

Room for improvement ? decline ? all those are hard to guage, statistics or otherwise. However, one can look at statistics in conjunction to the playing age of the players and draw a reasonable inference. If Matty Hayden was 5 years younger, we wouldnt be talkin about career-threatening a decline but a loss of form. The fact that he is on the wrong side of 30 underscores that he doesnt have much time left and thus, is most likely declining.

Flintoff looked as assured as it is possible to be against him in the first innings at the Oval.

That is yet another hyperbole.
Clearly you havnt watched Lara or Tendulkar's duels with Warney in the 90s or from a few years back.

 

[marc71178]

It isnt as good as Donald-Pollock-deVillers-Adams-Klusener- Symcox-etc. combo,

And that's also getting carried away.

2 great bowlers, 1 who never actually played enough games to prove himself at that level and some pie chuckers.

 

[marc71178]

True, Gillespie had a bad series but he is still a better bowler or atleast comparable to any english bowler currently.

3 Tests, 3 Wickets, 300 runs.

Not at all comparable.