Page 123 of 209 FirstFirst ... 2373113121122123124125133173 ... LastLast
Results 1,831 to 1,845 of 3131
Like Tree147Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #1831
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,948
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    The disregard for the Windies pace bowlers continues on the lines of Benaud and Bradman. Gibbs ahead of Marshall. Malcolm would roll in his grave if he gave a f***
    Can some one please explain to me why there is this disregard of the W.I. quicks by Benaud, Bradman, Bird ect?
    And don't say intimiatory bowling because that would be hypocrtical. Seems almost like they don't even want to mention his name along side Lillee, least anyone considers Marshall his superior.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3

  2. #1832
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,420
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    Can some one please explain to me why there is this disregard of the W.I. quicks by Benaud, Bradman, Bird ect?
    And don't say intimiatory bowling because that would be hypocrtical. Seems almost like they don't even want to mention his name along side Lillee, least anyone considers Marshall his superior.
    Perhaps it's as simple as they prefer Lillee to Marshall?

  3. #1833
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pune, India
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    Can some one please explain to me why there is this disregard of the W.I. quicks by Benaud, Bradman, Bird ect?
    Don't know what to say,but that IS the reason... and yes, they're a bunch of hypocrites in my opinion.

  4. #1834
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pune, India
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    Perhaps it's as simple as they prefer Lillee to Marshall?
    But Marshall wasn't even in Benaud's shortlist of players for his XI, apparently. I find that simply astonishing


  5. #1835
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,948
    Thats not the question, that is obvious. But Gibbs before Marshall? Bedser and Lindwall above Marshall? Benuad has at least six bowlers above Marshall. It's not that he or the other quicks are not seen as the best, but not rated at all. Even read that Hadlee though that the de-evolved the game. What was with the lack of love for our quicks in general.

  6. #1836
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,420
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    Thats not the question, that is obvious. But Gibbs before Marshall? Bedser and Lindwall above Marshall? Benuad has at least six bowlers above Marshall. It's not that he or the other quicks are not seen as the best, but not rated at all. Even read that Hadlee though that the de-evolved the game. What was with the lack of love for our quicks in general.
    Benaud rarely makes disparaging remarks about any aspect of the game. However, many cricket lovers loathed the WI's pace barrage of the 80s, the slow over rates, lack of subtlety in bowling tactics, and the absence of spin bowling. I would say he's making a point without actually saying anything.

  7. #1837
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,417
    maybe these guys honestly thought that at an individual level the WI pace battery was not quite as skilful, that they could only hunt in packs?
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  8. #1838
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Satyanash89 View Post
    But Marshall wasn't even in Benaud's shortlist of players for his XI, apparently. I find that simply astonishing
    It really isn't that astonishing

  9. #1839
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,420
    Benaud's shortlist of fast bowlers (and by his own criteria he was limited to 6) were:

    - Lindwall
    - Trueman
    - McGrath
    - Larwood
    - Lillee
    - Barnes

    It is very Anglo-centric (but he does include Imran, Botham, Hadlee and Kapil in the shortlist for all-rounders).

    While you could argue for the inclusion of Marshall, and others like Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose & Holding, I don't think you can argue that any of the top six shouldn't be in there.

  10. #1840
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,948
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    maybe these guys honestly thought that at an individual level the WI pace battery was not quite as skilful, that they could only hunt in packs?
    That would be stupid. Holding came on the scene when it was just him and Roberts and Croft only played 27 Tests (same as Barnes, back to that later). When Marshall made the team Croft was gone and Roberts was leaving. Holding started to decline after the '84 Aus series and was so injury prone throughout his career that the amount of games they actually played together was quite low. Walsh didn't come into his own until long after Marshall retired. Together they formed the greatest team in history with Marshall the spearhead and unquestioned leader. Doesn't seem like some thing to be punished for. Is Warne punished for playing with Mcgrath, Gillespie and Lee, seems like quite flawed and hypocritical once again.

  11. #1841
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    Benaud's shortlist of fast bowlers (and by his own criteria he was limited to 6) were:

    - Lindwall
    - Trueman
    - McGrath
    - Larwood
    - Lillee
    - Barnes

    It is very Anglo-centric (but he does include Imran, Botham, Hadlee and Kapil in the shortlist for all-rounders).

    While you could argue for the inclusion of Marshall, and others like Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose & Holding, I don't think you can argue that any of the top six shouldn't be in there.
    Great bowlers all, but no way is Lindwall, Larwood and Trueman better than Marshall and Barnes played all of 27 tests on substandard pitches. When I did a list of most persons AT XI's the only person who didn't choose Marshall was Benuad.
    Then again in his Wk short list some how he choose Healy and Marsh over Knott and Quadir over Murali was just tranparent.

  12. #1842
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    Benaud rarely makes disparaging remarks about any aspect of the game. However, many cricket lovers loathed the WI's pace barrage of the 80s, the slow over rates, lack of subtlety in bowling tactics, and the absence of spin bowling. I would say he's making a point without actually saying anything.
    They loathed loosing, but yes I can believe that reason. And by the way, no one was less subtle, more aggressive and less sporting than Lillee and Lindwall wasn't too shy with the bumpers either.

  13. #1843
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,420
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    Great bowlers all, but no way is Lindwall, Larwood and Trueman better than Marshall and Barnes played all of 27 tests on substandard pitches. When I did a list of most persons AT XI's the only person who didn't choose Marshall was Benuad.
    Then again in his Wk short list some how he choose Healy and Marsh over Knott and Quadir over Murali was just tranparent.
    I don't really care about Barnes, because like most early era players, he's too hard to judge. So if someone includes him, or doesn't include him, I don't really mind.

    I think you can mount a case for Trueman, Lindwall and maybe Larwood being Marshall's equals. Of course it's all subjective, but it's possible.

    Personally, I'd include Marshall in a shortlist of 6, but he may or may not make my final XI. Lillee always will, Imran usually will, then the third spot for a quick depends on the day.

    Benaud's biggest oversight was not including Knott. I can't fathom how you'd have Marsh over Knott in that shortlist. They were contemporaries, and Knott was a better keeper, and probably a better batsman. Odd.

    Qadir was also a strange choice. Really strange! I think Benaud was making a point here without making a quote, possibly that he views Murali's action suspiciously. I'd have thought he'd have included Grimmett over Qadir anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    They loathed loosing, but yes I can believe that reason. And by the way, no one was less subtle, more aggressive and less sporting than Lillee and Lindwall wasn't too shy with the bumpers either.
    I assume his point is that fast bowlers should be aggressive, but that when there are four of them, bowling slow over rates with a lot of bouncers and balls that are ridiculously difficult to score from, it makes for very unattractive, monotonous cricket. Fwiw I agree with that.


    .
    Last edited by Monk; 19-04-2013 at 03:24 PM. Reason: clarification on Murali's action

  14. #1844
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pune, India
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    While you could argue for the inclusion of Marshall, and others like Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose & Holding, I don't think you can argue that any of the top six shouldn't be in there.
    Now that I see which six he shortlisted, I see your point. Maybe I'm just used to seeing Marshall named as one of the very best fast bowlers, so when someone doesn't have him in their top 6, I find it exceedingly strange. If it had been someone on CW who had said Marshall wasn't in the top 6 fast bowlers ever, I would disagree vehemently... I think most here would too.

    The thing is, I think a tiny bit of bias might have creeped into his selections because of the fact that they probably followed the Ashes more than any other Test series. Bradman, in particular had a very strange XI... apart from Barry Richards, Tendulkar and Sobers, Bradman's entire team consisted of players he'd either played with or against.

  15. #1845
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    I don't really care about Barnes, because like most early era players, he's too hard to judge. So if someone includes him, or doesn't include him, I don't really mind.

    I think you can mount a case for Trueman, Lindwall and maybe Larwood being Marshall's equals. Of course it's all subjective, but it's possible.

    Personally, I'd include Marshall in a shortlist of 6, but he may or may not make my final XI. Lillee always will, Imran usually will, then the third spot for a quick depends on the day.

    Benaud's biggest oversight was not including Knott. I can't fathom how you'd have Marsh over Knott in that shortlist. They were contemporaries, and Knott was a better keeper, and probably a better batsman. Odd.

    Qadir was also a strange choice. Really strange! I think Benaud was making a point here without making a quote, possibly that he views Murali's poorly. I'd have thought he'd have included Grimmett over Qadir anyway.



    I assume his point is that fast bowlers should be aggressive, but that when there are four of them, bowling slow over rates with a lot of bouncers and balls that are ridiculous to score from, it makes for very unattractive, monotonous cricket. Fwiw I agree with that.


    .
    If we were discussing the '70's then I would be more inclined to agree, Marshall did have a good bouncer, but he seldom over used it. Garner was a more short a length bowler and he didn't have Marshall's variety, but he didn't over do it either. Holding got most of his wickets LBW and bolwed, kind of hard to do that when dropping bouncers every ball, though he was the fondest of the bunch when it came to the bouncers, but he too gets a bad rap based on some of his actions in the '70's namely againts the Indian's and agains Close.
    The worse offenders when it came to the bouncers was Croft and Roberts and yes Holding but that was as mentioned mostly in the '70's. I can assure you from growing up watching them, watching us play was hardly unattractive or monotonous.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Thread Hijacks
    By sledger in forum Site Discussion
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 10-02-2010, 04:32 PM
  2. Sri Lanka Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 05:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •