I think so. It would depend on what type of pitches they play on. I would give the edge to New Zealand on pitches outside the subcontinent. Hadlee was a class apart, but Murali would do some damage against NZ batsman, especially at home.
a lot of these points are just speculations. the argument can go on endlessly. so i am going to stick to what the numbers are. qadir averaged 11 runs - ELEVEN RUNS - more per wicket than Laker. and took 2 overs - TWO OVERS - more to take each wicket. please... dont insult laker by comparing him with qadir. in fact, qadir played his cricket immediately after bedi and chandra and prasanna retired. all of them were better than him - check their stats, please. laker was better than that trio. qadir will have to come much much below in the ranks of post war spinners. warne>murali>laker>tayfield>benaud>bedi>underwood>chandra>kumble>gibbs>saqlain>prasanna and then qadir. after that would be harbhajan and mushtaq.Didnt know warne and Murali are picked up for All time Eng 11???
Laker> Qadir.......veery very debatable...Laker was Bowler who played on un-convered wickets....not to bring the level of partiality among umpire (not that Qadir had HAwk Eye for an umpire).
Qadir on other hand played when Leg spin was dead and revived the art again in era where wickets were covered and that took the sting out of alot of bowlers(specially spinner)....Lakers stat look impressive but still if he had to bowl in 80's on covered wickets against the batsmen who had better facilities (interms of TV replay's, Video tapes) to look at bowler before they face him.....and bowling in era where (for sure) Umpires had to be more more impartial than in 50's and 60's....all these factors considered i highly doubt that he would have matched qadir's figures............on the flip side you put qadir in Laker Era, where someone with the variety that qadir had and un covered wickets, he is more likely of doing as good as Laker interms of # of wickets.....maybe even better than him.
Qadir was not a World Class legspinner,
Yeah and I can bet you know all about Derek Underwood, Tony Lock, Jim Laker, Headley Verity, Wilfre Rhodes, Bobby Peel, Johnny Briggs etc.
Partiality among Umpires ? Did you really watch Cricket and umpiring in Pakistan in the 80s ?
Thank You for knowing what you are talking about.
Did u read my post completely, i said not that Qadir had Hawk Eye as umpire and that means that not all of qadir's decision are fair
U people surprise me how your personal inferiority complex for losing to Pak over generations results in coming up with such statements....read below
The man only played 22 tests. Australia may as well count Hussey in there, then.
LOL
Yeah, I'd have to agree with this. McGrath Warne and Lillee are more balanced and trump the quartet for me. I also think Warne would have had something on the Windies batsmen. And the batting talent is by no means just the Don. In Langer and Hayden you have an opening partnership that rivals the greatest - even the Windies. The middle order is quite easily Australia again, Bradman, Ponting, Chappell, Gilchrist (the best keeper of all time - yes I am factoring in his batting), Waugh...take your pick. Without Bradman, I'd say they're slightly less stronger than the Windies, but then again, it'd be like me saying let's leave out Sobers.
What Nonsense. First you question my knowledge and then question my intent. This is not Gupshup or Pakistanimedia and you will not be applauded for this sort of response.
Then why bring the umpiring part ? If there was one generation of bowlers that had clear advantage of biased Umpring at home then it was the Qadir's generation of Pakistani bowlers. The guy has an average of 26 @ home and away average of 47. That's worse than Ashley Giles.
I'd prefer to look at it as to who would have the better overall team to tackle all conditions, rather than who would win a one-off match.
Yeah thats an interesting Qs to ask...
Where as WI were complaining WHY MAAAN! Why didnt we get WACA
Good point.....I think i am stuck in 87WC, My bad
