Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
By whom exactly?Vaughan was quite overrated on this board
By whom exactly?Vaughan was quite overrated on this board
I've never remotely denied this, and thus the all-chance average (ie, runs scored in innings all counted, but each chance counted as a dismissal - so thus if someone scores 149 while being dropped 4 times at regular intervals it's 149 runs for 6 dismissals; if someone scores 180* having been dropped on 4 it's 180 runs for 1 dismissal) is sometimes very useful.I can see the logic in Richard's beloved FCA but one of its weaknesses is that it ignores any runs scored after the drop.
I can't recall specific posters names. There have been ****load of users on this board over the last 5 years to be fair.By whom exactly?
Yeah, amazing summer.Did score oodles of runs against one of the best dozen or so test teams ever & looked bloody handsome* doing it, so it was probably understandable that he was.[/SIZE]
I'd have thought that to make a tall claim like you made in your previous post you'd at least be able to remember one or two specific posters, or posts.I can't recall specific posters names. There have been ****load of users on this board over the last 5 years to be fair.
It's much easier to do this than what you did. Just change what you had as COLOR to QUOTE and bang, you've got it.
Okay. I feel my point is proven here. Lee's stats are still better than that of the West Indies' attackWalking into a West Indian team since 2001/02 is not difficult. Being able to do so does not prove one a high-calibre player. In any case, Lee between 2001 and 2006/07 was really not as good as some of the better WIndians - Dillon, Collins, Collymore. Granted he was, as I say, probably a bit better than Taylor, Edwards et al.
I agree to a point. But he would still be no 1 for the West Indies.Lee was a very poor Test bowler for almost his whole career - it was just a couple of sensational periods at the start and near-end of it which, to some extent, camouflage this.
31-32 still isn't too bad. And anyway, you can't really just remove good performances because they benefit your argument. Also, consider that H Singh averages 31 overall. Once you get beyond Warne and Murali that's about par for a spinner these days.MacGill's record for most of his career, again, is poor - it was only the odd good game here and there with him, plus the fact that his record is improved massively by Bangladesh and ICC World XI games. Even just knocking those out changes his average to, IIRR, about 31-32; when you look at things on a game-by-game basis rather than just looking at the average, you see that he really wasn't that good. Again, granted, though, better than most of the WIndians of 2007.
The Aussies were a league above is back then. It was like Manchester United v Portsmouth from the early 90s until 05.Not sure about that, under general circumstances - though in this case there is actually the fact that avoiding a whitewash was at stake. Of course he can't be blamed for the games being dead, and of course dead games or not they were fine innings', but he can be "blamed" for his performances when the series was live being notably down on those when it was dead.
.I think "well" underdoes it. As I say, I've never seen him bat better than he did that summer
He played very well, but read his autobiography and you we see that he himself considers 02/03 the peak of his career as a batsman.
Almost.It's much easier to do this than what you did. Just change what you had as COLOR to QUOTE and bang, you've got it.
Lee's stats from 2001-2005 are nothing of the sort; both they and those of most of the West Indians are nothing short of abysmal. He really wasn't clearly better than all of them.Okay. I feel my point is proven here. Lee's stats are still better than that of the West Indies' attack
Not sure he would; maybe there might've been the odd occasion where he could've been, but certainly not continuously. People underestimate just how bad Lee was for most of his career, they really do.I agree to a point. But he would still be no 1 for the West Indies.
Fingerspinners like Harbhajan Singh aren't really comparable to the likes of Warne, Murali and MacGill who are wristspinners. Either way the point isn't that MacGill was utterly woeful, especially not compared to most wristspinners, just not that good. As I say - look at his career on a match-by-match basis. When he was good he was sensational, but he was only good in about 1 match in 7 or 8, which really isn't terribly impressive.31-32 still isn't too bad. And anyway, you can't really just remove good performances because they benefit your argument. Also, consider that H Singh averages 31 overall. Once you get beyond Warne and Murali that's about par for a spinner these days.
More like Man Utd shorn of McClair, Hughes and Cantona (or Cantona, Solskjaer and Cole; or Sheringham, Solskjaer, Yorke and Cole; or van Nistelrooy and Solskjaer; take your pick from which point you want) vs. Portsmouth. As I say - take McGrath, Gillespie and Warne out and Australia were merely a bit better than the rest, not a league above.The Aussies were a league above is back then. It was like Manchester United v Portsmouth from the early 90s until 05.
I'm sure he does, and I'm not surprised, but I don't consider it to be a clear-cut matter.He played very well, but read his autobiography and you we see that he himself considers 02/03 the peak of his career as a batsman.
Hence the "just FTR" which pretty well emphasised that I wasn't interpreting as such.Where did I intentionally even tried to say "you" were the one who was overrating him?
Almost.
Regardless, the WIndies team that toured England in 07 were one of the poorest teams I've seen tour England. If it weren't for Chanderpaul I really don't know what would have happened. It is for this reason I don't really rate Pieterson's 226 against them too highly either.Lee's stats from 2001-2005 are nothing of the sort; both they and those of most of the West Indians are nothing short of abysmal. He really wasn't clearly better than all of them.
OkayNot sure he would; maybe there might've been the odd occasion where he could've been, but certainly not continuously. People underestimate just how bad Lee was for most of his career, they really do.
The fact is he was a match winner if you let him get in amongst you. His stats are far better than you acknowledge, averaging 27 for much of his career, 29 at the end, good strike rate and all.Fingerspinners like Harbhajan Singh aren't really comparable to the likes of Warne, Murali and MacGill who are wristspinners. Either way the point isn't that MacGill was utterly woeful, especially not compared to most wristspinners, just not that good. As I say - look at his career on a match-by-match basis. When he was good he was sensational, but he was only good in about 1 match in 7 or 8, which really isn't terribly impressive.
They were far better than England. I actually thought we were better in the 06/07 whitewash as a team than in 02/03.More like Man Utd shorn of McClair, Hughes and Cantona (or Cantona, Solskjaer and Cole; or Sheringham, Solskjaer, Yorke and Cole; or van Nistelrooy and Solskjaer; take your pick from which point you want) vs. Portsmouth. As I say - take McGrath, Gillespie and Warne out and Australia were merely a bit better than the rest, not a league above.
Perhaps not clear cut, no.I'm sure he does, and I'm not surprised, but I don't consider it to be a clear-cut matter
Hence the "just FTR" which pretty well emphasised that I wasn't interpreting as such.
And I wasn't, so please don't respond to a post of mine by quoting information irrelevant to what I was saying.
It was a dreadful team, beyond question (still miles ahead of the Bangladeshis of '05 and the Zimbos of '03 mind), but as I say - this fades to relative irrelevance due to the fact that Vaughan then replicated his success against them against India, whose bowling I honestly do rate as better than that of Australia which he scored centuries off in the last two Tests of 2002/03.Regardless, the WIndies team that toured England in 07 were one of the poorest teams I've seen tour England. If it weren't for Chanderpaul I really don't know what would have happened.
I don't either - but that has more to do with the fact that he was stumped off a no-ball on 40-odd than the bowling.It is for this reason I don't really rate Pieterson's 226 against them too highly either.
His stats aren't that good - as I say, he was capable of being a matchwinner, but only on the odd occasion. He played, IIRR, about 40 serious Tests and bowled genuinely well in about 6 of them.The fact is he was a match winner if you let him get in amongst you. His stats are far better than you acknowledge, averaging 27 for much of his career, 29 at the end, good strike rate and all.
Me too, but Australia were only far better than England for the first three-and-a-half Tests. It was noticeable that once they lost McGrath and Warne, then Gillespie, there was first not much between them and then England (in spite of copious injuries of their own) were, with help from winning an important toss, quite a bit better.They were far better than England. I actually thought we were better in the 06/07 whitewash as a team than in 02/03.
Zimbabwe is a complex saga going far beyond cricket as you know. Bangladesh are not a test standard team by definition. The West Indies on the other hand are and should have been asking serious questions of themselves. I considered them the worst test team of the real test teams.It was a dreadful team, beyond question (still miles ahead of the Bangladeshis of '05 and the Zimbos of '03 mind), but as I say - this fades to relative irrelevance due to the fact that Vaughan then replicated his success against them against India, whose bowling I honestly do rate as better than that of Australia which he scored centuries off in the last two Tests of 2002/03.
You're really into this FCA aren't you?I don't either - but that has more to do with the fact that he was stumped off a no-ball on 40-odd than the bowling.
They are that good. Better than any current spinner today.His stats aren't that good - as I say, he was capable of being a matchwinner, but only on the odd occasion. He played, IIRR, about 40 serious Tests and bowled genuinely well in about 6 of them.
Didn't Gillespie play in Sydney?Me too, but Australia were only far better than England for the first three-and-a-half Tests. It was noticeable that once they lost McGrath and Warne, then Gillespie, there was first not much between them and then England (in spite of copious injuries of their own) were, with help from winning an important toss, quite a bit better.
Me too - I completely agree that Bangladesh and, since that 2003 tour, Zimbabwe, are not Test-standard sides. I don't count those four matches - or any matches involving Bangladesh or post-2003 Zimbabwe - as credible Tests. West Indies of 2007 were indeed the worst Test-standard side I've seen tour England, though it's fair to say that that point was the lowest of the low and that since their subsequent tour of South Africa they've been - when the first-team has been available - a decent bit better.Zimbabwe is a complex saga going far beyond cricket as you know. Bangladesh are not a test standard team by definition. The West Indies on the other hand are and should have been asking serious questions of themselves. I considered them the worst test team of the real test teams.
They all learn eventually...You're really into this FCA aren't you?
Apart from the likes of Warne and Murali spin simply doesn't have a role to play in modern cricket other than playing one to fit historical stencils. MacGill was better than most spinners, but still, in the general context of bowlers, not really all that good.They are that good. Better than any current spinner today.
He played but he was nowhere near fit throughout and, while that was just about disguiseable in the first-innings, it really, really showed in the second. Warne played only the first three Tests; McGrath just the first three-and-a-half.Didn't Gillespie play in Sydney?
Yep, they are a bit better now, 07 was their lowest point.Me too - I completely agree that Bangladesh and, since that 2003 tour, Zimbabwe, are not Test-standard sides. I don't count those four matches - or any matches involving Bangladesh or post-2003 Zimbabwe - as credible Tests. West Indies of 2007 were indeed the worst Test-standard side I've seen tour England, though it's fair to say that that point was the lowest of the low and that since their subsequent tour of South Africa they've been - when the first-team has been available - a decent bit better.
Yes, I was calling for his head. He couldn't score a run and was going further and further into his shell. The New Zealand away century saved his career.But as I say, that bad-ness is irrelevant to the Vaughan saga. It's much more prescient for, for example, Andrew Strauss - the fact that he couldn't even make runs agains that rabble showed what a d-i-r-e state he was in at that point.
mmm...we shall see.They all learn eventually...
.Apart from the likes of Warne and Murali spin simply doesn't have a role to play in modern cricket other than playing one to fit historical stencils. MacGill was better than most spinners, but still, in the general context of bowlers, not really all that good
So Warne missed two and Mcgrath 1 and a half.He played but he was nowhere near fit throughout and, while that was just about disguiseable in the first-innings, it really, really showed in the second. Warne played only the first three Tests; McGrath just the first three-and-a-half.
More like Man Utd shorn of McClair, Hughes and Cantona (or Cantona, Solskjaer and Cole; or Sheringham, Solskjaer, Yorke and Cole; or van Nistelrooy and Solskjaer; take your pick from which point you want) vs. Portsmouth. As I say - take McGrath, Gillespie and Warne out and Australia were merely a bit better than the rest, not a league above.
I'm sure he does, and I'm not surprised, but I don't consider it to be a clear-cut matter.