Yet you make direct comparisons to their form earlier and the form of other teams later...when you have the team itself as a reference. They got worse...a lot worse.
Staistically Charlie Blythee puts Malcolm Marshall to shame. But you have to take the numbers where they are relevant and compare with relevance. You have to take certain factors into account.
As I said, if you want to do such a direct comparison, then the Zimbabwe pre-02 has been almost as good as the India post-03. Which would mean by that rationale they could be top, or thereabouts. :laugh:
It's all relative, which is why I tell you to look at their win/loss record. They were regularly beaten up; only less so than Bangladesh.
Look, this is getting past silly.Quote:
The fact is that Indian bowlers bleed about the same amount of runs per wicket as Zimbabwe used to till 2002. Hence roughly, they possessed the same attacks.
Makes some sense as well. India in all it's history has not had a bowler, spin or fast, who averaged what Heath Streak did. In other words, you are cruelly underrating the Zimbabweans pre 2002.
I'll just say what I said in an earlier post; even if we are to keep Zimbabwe...my point still stands. Meaning the difference between their averages - even if we only remove Bangladesh - means Ponting is ahead in that count. Not that I think THAT makes him better than Tendulkar, but pointing out that Tendulkar has taken the lead in their overall averages is just as irrelevant or relevant.
My own position is that the difference in their averages even if we remove both teams is little. In fact, I recall arguing this point with you when you tried to use a 2-3 run difference average in one comparison as a "large" difference and I mentioned the difference between the two without minnows.
For me, the 90s had generally a better standard of bowlers and that makes the difference (even when you remove minnows) even smaller. If you're going to argue who is better, don't argue averages IMO. It's too close on that count.