Best against the best

[Howe_zat]

Haha yeah.

I loved, absolutely loved, Dravid's heroics during the 2003/04 tour. But the 2007/08 attack was much better. Lee was a far better bowler, Stuart Clark was very good and Mitch was beginning his rise.

Hogg was not much worse than MacGil (in that specific series, not overall obviously).

Oh, I see. Thought you were talking about Australia touring in 04-05 compared to their tour in 2008. Thought it was a bit weird.

 

[honestbharani]

Really? I know Warne had a poor record in India but the '04 attack seems a lot stronger. What happened to it?

2004: McGrath, Gillespie, Kasper, Warne, Clarke/Katich

2008: Lee, Clark/Siddle/Krezja, Johnson, White(!), Watson/Clarke/Katich

my point exactly.. the 2007 one at home for Aus against India was slightly better but the one they brought over here was their worst since the attach they had in 1996 for the solitary test...

 

[honestbharani]

Oh, I see. Thought you were talking about Australia touring in 04-05 compared to their tour in 2008. Thought it was a bit weird.

It was funny that in 03/04 when we went there, we perhaps faced the worst Aussie bowling in 20 years and yet when they came to India later in 2004 we perhaps faced their best attack in 20 years in India.. And in 07/08 we faced a reasonable but not great attack in Australia but when they came here in 2008 it was the worst since 96, as I mentioned in my earlier post.. Amazing how drastically different the bowling attacks were in a series played just a few months later on both occassions..

 

[Ikki]

When chappell played against WI pace quartret he averaged 14
Cricket Records | Records | The Frank Worrell Trophy, 1981/82 | Most runs | ESPN Cricinfo

He never faced WI pace quarter in WI. And which Australian best attack are you talking.
Tendulkar won man of the series in the only series he played against Australian so called best attack.

Yet in 75 he averaged 117 against Gibbs, Holding and Roberts. And in 79 he averaged 45 against Roberts, Garner, Croft and Holding - the same attack you are referring to in 82. True, he didn't face them in WI but Australia was still, in that time, a very good place to bowl pace.

FTR, the author is considering attacks with 2 all-time greats at least. There aren't many tests where the WIndies had a full 4 pronged attack to make this kind of study.

He never faced WI pace quarter in WI. And which Australian best attack are you talking.
Tendulkar won man of the series in the only series he played against Australian so called best attack.

He actually played in 2 series but only one complete one. Against the attack you're referring to (Gillespie, Warne and McGrath) he averages 39. And if we are going to nitpick; Tendulkar never faced them in Australia.

Even if we include matches where 2 of Warne(W), McGrath(M) or Gillespie(G) are present (which is what the author of the article is doing) his stats don't put him at the top. He averages 37 in matches against M+G; 39 in matches against W+G; and 42 in matches against M+W.

Lara on the other hand averages 56 in matches against W+G+M; 47 in matches against M+G; 56 in matches against W+G; and 51 in matches against W+M.

Yet if you look at that analysis it has Tendulkar ahead of Lara, which is simply not true when considering the best attack of their time (Australia).

 

[Bun]

nitpikking at its best. who cares if gilleaspie dindt feature in 99. sachin faced mcg and warne and inspite of a couple of dubious dismisslas and an appaling team, sachin did well... joke to suggest otherwise.

not to mention the 01 series, but ill pass it as it was a home series.

 

[sehwag fan]

Yet in 75 he averaged 117 against Gibbs, Holding and Roberts. And in 79 he averaged 45 against Roberts, Garner, Croft and Holding - the same attack you are referring to in 82. True, he didn't face them in WI but Australia was still, in that time, a very good place to bowl pace.



He actually played in 2 series but only one complete one. Against the attack you're referring to (Gillespie, Warne and McGrath) he averages 39. And if we are going to nitpick; Tendulkar never faced them in Australia.

Even if we include matches where 2 of Warne(W), McGrath(M) or Gillespie(G) are present (which is what the author of the article is doing) his stats don't put him at the top. He averages 37 in matches against M+G; 39 in matches against W+G; and 42 in matches against M+W.

Lara on the other hand averages 56 in matches against W+G+M; 47 in matches against M+G; 56 in matches against W+G; and 51 in matches against W+M.

Yet if you look at that analysis it has Tendulkar ahead of Lara, which is simply not true when considering the best attack of their time (Australia).

WI prime started from 1979-95. And Greg chappell was massive failure against that attack.And we are talking about WI pace quartet. Not some ordinary attack.And you are excluding Marshall from WI pace quartet.Thanks

And btw why didn't Mcgrath tour India in 1998? It was his fault.

Massive lol at trying to bring Warne. Warne had embarassing record against India. So it is M+G only.

 

[Ikki]

I think this is a bit more representative.

Although his average is still a shade under 30. Quite surprising for me.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

You've ignored the 75 series. The only series that doesn't count in this analysis is 1973. And ironically, when you ignore that and consider the rest his average goes even higher to 59.

 

[Ikki]

WI prime started from 1979-95. And Greg chappell was massive failure against that attack.And we are talking about WI pace quartet. Not some ordinary attack.

And btw why didn't Mcgrath tour India in 1998? It was his fault.

Massive lol at trying to bring Warne. Warne had embarassing record against India. So it is M+G only.

I'm not going to debate when you want to consider WI prime or how you want to define that. But the author is considering the attacks at the commencement of there being 2 all-time greats. In 75 the WIndies had Roberts and Holding, with also Lance Gibbs as the spinner. This is a great attack.

Whether you want to blame the umpires, McGrath or what have you; it is pretty clear that Tendulkar's record against the best Australian attacks is simply not that good. Especially not near Lara's, for example.

And what are you laughing about? If we exclude Warne it makes Tendulkar's averages even worse ; you'd want him to be in it if you wanted to show Tendulkar as a success against the great Australian attack.

 

[sehwag fan]

You've ignored the 75 series. The only series that doesn't count in this analysis is 1973. And ironically, when you ignore that and consider the rest his average goes even higher to 59.

Yes WI series of 1975 had a attack which Gavaskar faced in 1983.

 

[sehwag fan]

I'm not going to debate when you want to consider WI prime or how you want to define that. But the author is considering the attacks at the commencement of there being 2 all-time greats. In 75 the WIndies had Roberts and Holding, with also Lance Gibbs as the spinner. This is a great attack.

Whether you want to blame the umpires, McGrath or what have you; it is pretty clear that Tendulkar's record against the best Australian attacks is simply not that good. Especially not near Lara's, for example.

And what are you laughing about? If we exclude Warne it makes Tendulkar's averages even worse ; you'd want him to be in it if you wanted to show Tendulkar as a success against the great Australian attack.

No fact is Tendulkar has won a man of the series against OZ. None of the M,W or G have ever won a man of the series against India.

 

[Spark]

First time I've heard MOTS being used as a measure to define performance, tbh.

 

[GotSpin]

No fact is Tendulkar has won a man of the series against OZ. None of the M,W or G have ever won a man of the series against India.

Case closed Ikki. Sorry mate

 

[smash84]

You've ignored the 75 series. The only series that doesn't count in this analysis is 1973. And ironically, when you ignore that and consider the rest his average goes even higher to 59.

I actually started my filter from 76 or so because I thought Chappell would have played a fair number of tests against WI during that time. I was not aware of the 75 series. Was a bit of a surprise to see those numbers crop up tbh.

 

[sehwag fan]

Tendulkar has more Mom and Mos than M+W+G combined

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Spark]

So you showed that he played in a pretty average team for a lot of his career, congrats.

Now if you'll try making a cricket-based argument...

 

[Ikki]

Yes WI series of 1975 had a attack which Gavaskar faced in 1983.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Gavaskar faced a better attack which includes Marshall. Although I have to say I was wrong about Gavaskar. I thought his 74 series was the one he scored a lot of runs in; it was his 76 series against them which basically (no Gibbs, though) the same attack as Chappell. So, you're right if that is what you meant.

No fact is Tendulkar has won a man of the series against OZ. None of the M,W or G have ever won a man of the series against India.

Maybe with years of therapy they'll get over it.

 

[smash84]

Sehwag Fan is Dhoni_Fan................mods please check

 

[sehwag fan]

So you showed that he played in a pretty average team for a lot of his career, congrats.

Now if you'll try making a cricket-based argument...

This just shows that Tendulkar dominated Australia more than M+W+G dominated India.
Now MOM and MOS don't belong to cricket.

 

[sehwag fan]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Gavaskar faced a better attack which includes Marshall. Although I have to say I was wrong about Gavaskar. I thought his 74 series was the one he scored a lot of runs in; it was his 76 series against them which basically (no Gibbs, though) the same attack as Chappell. So, you're right if that is what you meant.



Maybe with years of therapy they'll get over it.

Warne has still not got over what Sachin gave him throughout career.

 

[vcs]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Gavaskar faced a better attack which includes Marshall. Although I have to say I was wrong about Gavaskar. I thought his 74 series was the one he scored a lot of runs in; it was his 76 series against them which basically (no Gibbs, though) the same attack as Chappell. So, you're right if that is what you meant.



Maybe with years of therapy they'll get over it.

Have to say that was very funny.