Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
Since when is he seen as the clear number 2 to Warne? I personally would only have Warne in over him if my batting was particularly weak, or I needed another great slip.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
watson
Banned
That's what kyear just said.
the big bambino
International Captain
A host of legitimate reasons.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
And that is what I am talking about.
Probably just an Aussie thing, Bradman is god, Lillee is the best despite a host of actual legitimate reasons why he simply isn't and Warne must also simply be the best while using the same arguments ignored for Bradman and Lillee.
His action was legal, deal with it. He benefitted from playing at home and in helpful conditions, so did lillee (at least Murali still played everywhere). He gained a bit by playing vs minnows, wow so did Bradman.
No legitimate reason why Warne is so clearly ahead strictly as a bowler.
Last edited:
the big bambino
International Captain
I think it very ironic you insinuating that others are guilty of parochialism.
EDIT: Omg I just noted your BS abt the minnows again.
EDIT: Omg I just noted your BS abt the minnows again.
Last edited:
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Bradman was the best.
There are plenty of reasons to consider Lillee the best quick ever, but plenty of others to consider also.
And wouldn't you love to have played 25 tests against Zimb/Bang like Murali did, instead of 4 like Warne did?
Wouldn't you have loved to play 36 tests against Eng like Warne did, instead of 16 Murali did? Us poms have never been to good with spin.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Welcome to CW. I feel honoured that you used your first post quoting me....
They said to make the first time memorable......
watson
Banned
The 'minnow argument' is not 'crap'. What it does mean is that runs or wickets against a 'minnow' don't carry a lot of weight or significance. Not much gets value added, and not much gets 'down-graded'.
I like the example of Maurice Leyland. IMO he is a Top 10 of English batsman because he averagd 57 against Australia and tended to make runs when they mattered - under pressure. Conversely, in the 5 Tests he played against the West Indies (1929-33) he averaged only 4.6 with a top score of 18.
However, Leyland's lack of runs against a 'minnow' does not impact my opinion of him because in the greater scheme of things only runs against Australia really matters.
Last edited:
the big bambino
International Captain
Leyland's figures clearly show he was adept at spin but had problems with pace. Therefore his mark against the WI is not meaningless at all. It carries a lot of meaning.
smash84
The Tiger King
So if a good bowler performs exceptionally well against minnows and another good bowler does not perform too well against them over the course of their careers how then would you interpret that?
watson
Banned
Perhaps the bowler has a motivation problem and needs a 'big occasion' to get psyched-up. John Snow was a bit like and seemed to save his best for Test matches against Australia or the West Indies.
However, I not sure that there ever been a 'good bowler' who consistently fails against the 'minnows'. Maybe every now and again due to injury, sickness, or concurrent lack of form. But not all the time.
watson
Banned
Were Learie Constantine and Herman Griffith significantly faster than Tim Wall?
bagapath
International Captain
thats true. these past few weeks, i have been trying to sleep with Cleopatra.
the big bambino
International Captain
Plus Francis, Martindale and Hylton. At various stages in their career all rated fast to Wall's fm. (despite cricinfo's rating him to the contrary).
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
The minnow argument isn't crap, nor is playing home games in much more condusive conditions, but the minnow argument is mitigated by the fact that Murali took a far higher number of top order wickets than Shane did and as I believe it was Miagra who asked why Flower's wicket and the Zim or Bangladesh openers wickets should count less that the amount of times that Wrne got Harmisson's scalp. The fact that Murali greatly benefitted from bowling in Sri Lankan conditions at home is evident but also loo at their records agains each country away. Not any discernible difference at all. Of course not all the sample sizes are not ideal, but here's what the stats say. In England Murali averaged 19, Warne 21. In South Africa Murali 26, Warne 24. In Pakistan Murali 24, Warne 28. In India Murali 45, Warne 43. In New Zealand Murali 19, Warne 21 and Finally in the W.I Murali averaged 23 vs Warne's 39. How anyone could look at that and conclusively state that Warne was the better bowler is beyond me. So even with out the minnows and home court advantage, there is not to choose between them.
As for Lillee, I have never heard an argument as to why he is better than Marshall, far less considered the best ever. If it was Marshall with the better stats but played in the pre helmet era, never really played or succeeded in the sub continent, while playing most of your games in three seam friendly countries I could understand. But Lillee was the one who enjoyed those advantages while still Marshall still had the better numbers and career. Where Lillee deserves credit was being able to come back from a career threatening injury and reinvent him self, but all bowlers have to do that as they get older and loose their pace, but still credit has to go to him for what he had endure. Lillee like Viv spent part of their peaks in WSC but while Viv and Chappell stood out (along with the other Richards, though with much less matches), while Lillee had the most victims, his numbers were basically the same as his career numbers and what Holding, Robers and Imran did. But once again, considering the compretition that was still an amazing feat. In fact indurance apart, there wasn't much to separate Lillee from Holding far less McGrath, Ambrose, Trueman, Imran and Marshall. He was a warrior and one of the very best ever, but never understood, charisma apart why Aussies condidered him, and by some distance the very best ever.
As for Lillee, I have never heard an argument as to why he is better than Marshall, far less considered the best ever. If it was Marshall with the better stats but played in the pre helmet era, never really played or succeeded in the sub continent, while playing most of your games in three seam friendly countries I could understand. But Lillee was the one who enjoyed those advantages while still Marshall still had the better numbers and career. Where Lillee deserves credit was being able to come back from a career threatening injury and reinvent him self, but all bowlers have to do that as they get older and loose their pace, but still credit has to go to him for what he had endure. Lillee like Viv spent part of their peaks in WSC but while Viv and Chappell stood out (along with the other Richards, though with much less matches), while Lillee had the most victims, his numbers were basically the same as his career numbers and what Holding, Robers and Imran did. But once again, considering the compretition that was still an amazing feat. In fact indurance apart, there wasn't much to separate Lillee from Holding far less McGrath, Ambrose, Trueman, Imran and Marshall. He was a warrior and one of the very best ever, but never understood, charisma apart why Aussies condidered him, and by some distance the very best ever.