Cook Vs the WI quartet of the 80s

[smash84]

Holding must have been pretty quick if he could beat a guy like Boycott for sheer pace. Wouldn't be surprised. Also that spell at the Oval in '76, where there was nothing in the air or the pitch to assist the bowlers, and he took all his wickets beating batsmen for pace. Almost everybody bowled or LBW.

From most accounts of those days Thommo at his peak was significantly quicker than all the other bowlers and his fastest recorded was 99 mph. Holding, Waqar, Marshall, Imran, Lillee.

All these guys at their peak are a level below Akhtar, Tait, Lee, and Thommo in terms of sheer pace IMO.

 

[smash84]

Without debating over the accuracy of methodologies back in those days, this is not very surprising really.

From the footages of Holding's bowling, it's pretty clear that he bowled in the 90s regularly.

hmmm......watching the same video I really can't conclude that he regularly bowled in the 90s

 

[GIMH]

It's all guesswork without speedguns really

Bizarre quotes from Cook really, but I'm not entirely convinced of their accuracy at this point. He seems too bright to just out and out say what he did, but we'll see.

Oh and huge lol at Bun calling his success trivial

 

[smash84]

]It's all guesswork without speedguns really[/B]

Bizarre quotes from Cook really, but I'm not entirely convinced of their accuracy at this point. He seems too bright to just out and out say what he did, but we'll see.

Oh and huge lol at Bun calling his success trivial

indeed it is.......

regarding Cook, his success may not be trivial but he wasn't really that great when he got found out against Amir and Asif last summer. I wouldn't really rate this Aussie attack too highly tbf and so Cook has a lot to prove IMO.

 

[centurymaker]

indeed it is.......

regarding Cook, his success may not be trivial but he wasn't really that great when he got found out against Amir and Asif last summer. I wouldn't really rate this Aussie attack too highly tbf and so Cook has a lot to prove IMO.

Just because they bowled poorly in the Ashes?
Aussie attack is still better than NZ's, Srilanka's, WI's, India's and pakistan's attack.

 

[TumTum]

Cook has a point though with the pitches and bats argument.

WI of around the 80s in today's cricket probably wouldn't be that great, although still dominating. However if the batsmen of today were to go back in time, yeah WI would still kick everyone's butts.

 

[vcs]

Well, Cook (and England) batted very well, Australia bowled poorly. The two are not mutually exclusive. But yeah, facing the W. Indies quartet would be an entirely different proposition to feasting on what Mitch served up (bar Perth), and the pies that Doherty and Beer provided on a regular basis.

 

[smash84]

Just because they bowled poorly in the Ashes?
Aussie attack is still better than NZ's, Srilanka's, WI's, India's and pakistan's attack.

Pakistan attack with Amir and Asif > than Aussie attack.

Did you watch the Pak-Eng series last summer? Cook was in danger of losing his place in the side dude. He seemed clueless most of the time especially against Asif. He has a lot to prove when facing quality attacks. The discussion here is about quality attacks. For you Mitch Johnson,Beer and Doherty might be better than McWarne but for most sane posters he is not.

 

[GIMH]

Look, they bowled turd, no doubt

The guy scored about 770 runs in an away series to Australia though. To call that trivial is just ignorant of Bun and fairly typical of his bitter outlook on any cricket that doesn't involve India.

 

[Shri]

Look, they bowled turd, no doubt

The guy scored about 770 runs in an away series to Australia though. To call that trivial is just ignorant of Bun and fairly typical of his bitter outlook on any cricket that doesn't involve India.

What Cook did was trivial compared to what the WI 80s bowlers did. I think thats what he meant.

 

[vcs]

Dravid was also amazing in the 2003 tour to Australia when they didn't have McWarne, but generally struggled on his other two trips there. We shouldn't look down on runs piled up against weak/out of form attacks.

 

[smash84]

Dravid was also amazing in the 2003 tour to Australia when they didn't have McWarne, but generally struggled on his other two trips there. We shouldn't look down on runs piled up against weak/out of form attacks.

I think that is one of the poorer arguments from you.

You might as well then treat the runs against Bangladesh the same as against McWarne

 

[vcs]

I think that is one of the poorer arguments from you.

You might as well then treat the runs against Bangladesh the same as against McWarne

No one is saying they should be treated the same, we are just saying it's not easy to score 700 runs in a trip to Australia either. I agree it's nowhere near comparable to facing the W. Indies pace attack, as my earlier posts in this thread will indicate.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of removing stats against minnows entirely from a player's stats either, or applying some elaborate filters to say a batsman failed over a sample size of 3 matches or so when an attack had X, Y and Z, so he must be crap at facing quality pace bowling, etc. All this is pretty common on here BTW, so maybe I'm just a bit oversensitive to stuff of that nature.

 

[centurymaker]

Pakistan attack with Amir and Asif > than Aussie attack.

Did you watch the Pak-Eng series last summer? Cook was in danger of losing his place in the side dude. He seemed clueless most of the time especially against Asif. He has a lot to prove when facing quality attacks. The discussion here is about quality attacks. For you Mitch Johnson,Beer and Doherty might be better than McWarne but for most sane posters he is not.

Amir and Asif?? They are finished? Stop living in the past. Aus attack >> Pak
You're the one who seems to be ignorant- there's Johnson, Hilfenhaus, Harris, Bollinger, Siddle... not just Johnson.

 

[centurymaker]

Johnson, Harris, Bollinger still > Asif, amir and gul

 

[smash84]

Amir and Asif?? They are finished? Stop living in the past. Aus attack >> Pak
You're the one who seems to be ignorant- there's Johnson, Hilfenhaus, Harris, Bollinger, Siddle... not just Johnson.

Get a life dude (or a brain). So what if they were in the past? Just goes on to prove my point even more. That when Cook was really tested then he didn't quite live up to it.

Among the names you mention only Dougie and Johnson (and even he is very inconsistent) are good bowlers. Others are just ordinary.

 

[Burgey]

Cook's comments rather ignore that if we accept his premise that cricket has gotten faster like other sports, the WI attack of the 80s would likely be faster now too, owing to training methods etc.

Typical upstart, born-to-ruler really. Has one good series against an attack which bowled poorly and deigns to criticse what's widely regarded as the most fearsome attack in cricket history.

Rather confirms my thoughts of him as a ****, really.

 

[smash84]

johnson, harris, bollinger still > asif, amir and gul

 

[smash84]

No one is saying they should be treated the same, we are just saying it's not easy to score 700 runs in a trip to Australia either. I agree it's nowhere near comparable to facing the W. Indies pace attack, as my earlier posts in this thread will indicate.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of removing stats against minnows entirely from a player's stats either, or applying some elaborate filters to say a batsman failed over a sample size of 3 matches or so when an attack had X, Y and Z, so he must be crap at facing quality pace bowling, etc. All this is pretty common on here BTW, so maybe I'm just a bit oversensitive to stuff of that nature.

Agreed that scoring 700 runs against Aussies in Aus is not an easy task but the pitches and the bowling attack has to be taken into consideration.

My point was that the time when Cook was tested (and it was not a one or two match rubber but 4 matches) he did not come out shining.

He still has a lot to prove and he comes out with statements rubbishing the WI attack of the 80s. I find it ludicrious.

 

[centurymaker]

Get a life dude (or a brain). So what if they were in the past? Just goes on to prove my point even more. That when Cook was really tested then he didn't quite live up to it.

Among the names you mention only Dougie and Johnson (and even he is very inconsistent) are good bowlers. Others are just ordinary.

Asif and amir destroyed teh aussie line-up when they toured aus at the start of last year

Any half-decent international bowler would've troubled any batsmen on the pitches that pak and eng played on last year.