Sobers slams Australia and Shane Warne Performances

[James]

Very interesting article from one of the greats of the game:

http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/238823.html

I've never even heard of Subhash Gupte before!

 

[dinu23]

"The Aussies have done so well for all these years because of two players: Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath."

no one can argue with that statement.

 

[_Ed_]

"The Aussies have done so well for all these years because of two players: Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath."

no one can argue with that statement.

True, but their batting's been handy too.

 

[Dydl]

Yes, you can't win matches without batsmen, as you can't win matches without bowlers...

(I know that was fairly obvious..)

 

[social]

And a team that was bowled out by Hirwani, Bennett and Border would survive every test vs Warne?

Hopefully, these quotes were out of context.

 

[James]

Most of his points I agree with actually, except for his comment on Shane Warne and to say something like ""I don't think they would have even won a single Test against Clive Lloyd's team" is OTT.

However, if you compare the bowling attacks of the 70's and 80's to the 90's and 00's there's simply no comparision IMO. There were so many absolute "world class" bowlers in those days while today you're really struggling to find bowlers that measure up to the standard of say Lillee, Hadlee, Botham, Garner, etc etc. Of the current bowlers playing at the moment only Warne and McGrath fit the bill IMO as all-time greats.

The Australian team under Taylor, Waugh and Ponting are great sides but if you were to put their teams up against teams of the 70's and 80's there's no way they would have been as dominant. That's what Sobers is trying to say I believe.

 

[Pratters]

I've never even heard of Subhash Gupte before!

 

[pskov]

Has anyone ever wondered if it's not that bowlers of yore were better, but that batsmen today have improved? I think that modern computer analysis helps batsmen significantly more than it helps bowlers.

 

[honestbharani]

Has anyone ever wondered if it's not that bowlers of yore were better, but that batsmen today have improved? I think that modern computer analysis helps batsmen significantly more than it helps bowlers.

Nope, even given all that, the bowling levels has gone down immeasurably over the past decade or so. Too much cricket may be one of the reasons, flatter wickets may be another, better bats and protective equipment, shortened boundaries, covered pitches (it has been around for a while now though)... All these things have not only made it difficult for the bowlers, but are also discouraging kids from taking up bowling because it is going to be such hard work.



And with regards to what Sobers had to say, I suppose he did exaggerate when he said that the great Aussie teams of the 99-2003 would have struggled to win even a single test against Lloyd's side, but it is true that I think the West Indies side would have done better than this Aussie side. 4 great bowlers Vs 2 great bowlers, plus 2 good bowlers... I think the 4 great bowlers would win their sides more matches than the 2+2 combo....

 

[honestbharani]

And a team that was bowled out by Hirwani, Bennett and Border would survive every test vs Warne?

Hopefully, these quotes were out of context.

I am not sure if Lloyd was the captain during that test match where Hirwani made his debut.

 

[Autobahn]

I am not sure if Lloyd was the captain during that test match where Hirwani made his debut.

Nope Viv Richards was in charge.

And the Windies' attack consisted of the less dangerous combo of Patterson, Walsh, Davis, Butts (A spinner!), Richards and Hooper.

Plus wisden described the pitch as "a deplorably under-prepared pitch" and missing Greenidge, the West Indies simply threw away their wickets in their second innings with 5 stumpings to More.

I mean surely you can't judge a side totally on that?

 

[Jono]

Has anyone ever wondered if it's not that bowlers of yore were better, but that batsmen today have improved? I think that modern computer analysis helps batsmen significantly more than it helps bowlers.

Pitches offer significantly less assistance to bowlers now-a-days. Both pace bowlers and spinners. Batsman are finding it easier and easier as this decade goes by.

England and NZ are the only nations producing anything close to seam friendly wickets now-a-days, and India and SL are the only ones producing spin friendly tracks, and even those are either reducing or when they do occur, idiots like Clive Lloyd make complaints that they are too spin friendly and not sporting.

 

[social]

Nope Viv Richards was in charge.

And the Windies' attack consisted of the less dangerous combo of Patterson, Walsh, Davis, Butts (A spinner!), Richards and Hooper.

Plus wisden described the pitch as "a deplorably under-prepared pitch" and missing Greenidge, the West Indies simply threw away their wickets in their second innings with 5 stumpings to More.

I mean surely you can't judge a side totally on that?

And Border?

And Bennett?

And Holland?

And others?

I loved watching the WI play (despite the fact that they routinely smashed Aus) but they werent very good players of spin and against Warne (circa mid-90s) they'd have struggled to post competitive totals in too many conditions.

Their fantastic fast bowlers would've evened up the game in many tests but to say they'd never lose is ignoring history.

 

[Francis]

I agree that this Aussie team isn't the best team ever or close to it. I do think that if he's using the Ashes as an example though, that's something else as many Aussies were out of form on that tour. But yeah they're not up there. I'd take the 18 years the West Indies were on top over them. I'd take the Invincibles... they'd be around third after that for me. That is - when Steve Waugh was captain.

Saying Warne isn't the best leg-spinner ever is interesting. Gupte had two good innings against the WI when Sobers played him. One where he took 9 wicket... another where he took four. All other innings he was murdered! Absolutely murdered! Going over 100 runs and at most, getting one wicket.

 

[silentstriker]

Saying Warne isn't the best leg-spinner ever is interesting. Gupte had two good innings against the WI when Sobers played him. One where he took 9 wicket... another where he took four. All other innings he was murdered! Absolutely murdered! Going over 100 runs and at most, getting one wicket.

Perhaps it was just sobers who specifically had issues with him. There is usually a bowler that is every batsman's arch-nemesis. Gupte was the best legspinner of that era, but Warne is the best of any era.

 

[viktor]

I don't think you can say so for sure, unless you have seen Gupte bowl, that is.
By all accounts he was a terrific leg-spinner, definitely the best of his era.

 

[C_C]

The West Indies's play against spin is massively underrated by some here.
For starters, Border taking a 10-fer was a total aberration. Just as big an aberration as Clarke taking 6-9 or something against India.
For two, the WI batting had some extremely accomplished players of spin - Lloyd was very good and Kalli was in the Lara-tendy-zaheer class when it came to playing spin.
Viv was very good for much of his career.
It should be noted that Warne's record against the current WI lineup ( who are far inferior batting-wise than their team from the 70s and 80s) is pretty ordinary too.
And the WI batsmen did do pretty well against the best spin attack the world has ever seen - the Indian spin quartet.

 

[Tom Halsey]

For starters, Border taking a 10-fer was a total aberration. Just as big an aberration as Clarke taking 6-9 or something against India.

They were both massively turning pitches.

 

[Armadillo]

They were both massively turning pitches.

Why Halsey, I had no idea that you watched cricket as a 1 year old.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Called reading, and I've also seen the wickets.

There is no way Border was a Test-class spin bowler, but he was turning it square.