Best After The Don

[Riggins]

Yeah there's a possible (okay a dim one, but still) that Bevan himself might've been on this poll if he had a slice of luck or was from a country with less competition for places. Freak cricketer.

yeah imagine if he never did his shoulder too.

 

[Migara]

Centurymaker check SRT's record in odis and tests against the Pakistani, West Indian pacemen and McGrath. Its not as good as you think and no point of advantageous distinction with Lara.

There were at least dozen of bowlers from 1970-2000 who were distinctly better than Larwood.

 

[Coronis]

yeah imagine if he never did his shoulder too.

Imagine if Warne never did his shoulder.

 

[Migara]

Imagine if Warne never did his shoulder.

Imagine if Murali also didn't do his shoulder twice.

 

[centurymaker]

Imagine if Murali also didn't do his shoulder twice.

tit for tat

 

[Riggins]

they could both still bowl afterwards though.

 

[the big bambino]

That record is better than everyone else's from this era, although it is not as good as his record against weaker attacks.

If a great has an avg of 50+, it doesn't mean that the great should be avg'ing 50+ against great attacks. If he did, then those bowlers wouldn't be that great afterall for allowing him to avg 50+?

I just had a look at his stats and still can't fugure out what you are going on about.
Besides, a player avg'ing say 25 or even 60 against an attack containing a particular bowler doesn't tell you jack all about how he fared against that bowler. You have watch their head-head battle with your own "eyes"

Trouble is you can't. That is why a man's stats tells you much more. They are an accumulation of everything you don't see. There is a thread on CW (years ago I think and which I can't find now) that outlined his form against Pakistan, WI and Aus with and without their top bowlers. The thread was a bit of trolling but I did a quick check and it seemed pretty accurate up to that time.

I agree there is a discount on an ave when a man faces class bowlers. But it cuts both ways. Class bowlers pay for their wickets when confronted by great batsmen as the averages of Pakistan and SA bowlers from the early 80s to early 00s show when playing Australia. Similarly SRT's personal ave against Donald is actually quite impressive. And he scored very well off Steyn too. I'm not downgrading SRT. His form against the best bowlers of his era is a superior one as you'd expect. I'm just saying that I don't think (imo) that he was distinctly better than Lara against class pace. I can't say for certain as I don't have the Lara breakdowns. So in that regard I'm relying on what I see. From that perspective I see little difference btwn either player against class pace or spin. Lara's ability to score hugely and quickly gives him the palm imho.

 

[the big bambino]

As I said earlier (although he may not have been "great", he was good enough)

Ambrose/Walsh - very good

Wasim-Waqar- good (didn't play enough)

McGrath - avg to good

Donald- below avg to average

Steyn- beyond great

Warne- beyond great

Murali - great

Fair enough. I think he did well v the Ws in odis. Against Donald I'd rate his effort as impressive. I believe McGrath may have won their battles though. Agree that he well and truly trumped Warne and Murali.

 

[the big bambino]

There were at least dozen of bowlers from 1970-2000 who were distinctly better than Larwood.

Back again eh? Soon I'll do a comparison with the Eng bowlers of 27-39 and the Pakistan and SA bowlers of the late 80s and to early 00s. Also the English attack of 98-2009 which won 2 ashes. I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.

 

[the big bambino]

Imagine if Murali also didn't do his shoulder twice.

Lucky his elbow held up.

 

[centurymaker]

Fair enough. I think he did well v the Ws in odis. Against Donald I'd rate his effort as impressive. I believe McGrath may have won their battles though. Agree that he well and truly trumped Warne and Murali.

On his day, yes, Tendulkar really did dominate him, but otherwise and overall nooooo IMO.
I recall him being bowled quite a bit by him too. Pollock might've played a hand by keeping things tight though (and I am sure he was much quicker and probably more effective in the 1st half of his career).

Tendulkar just had too many failures either side of his great/good knocks against Donald & Pollock (and Hansie Cronje ). He's known for his consistency, so I wouldn't give him more than an avg mark against them.

He got out to Hansie Cronje 5 times funnily enough iirc.

 

[centurymaker]

Trouble is you can't. That is why a man's stats tells you much more. They are an accumulation of everything you don't see. There is a thread on CW (years ago I think and which I can't find now) that outlined his form against Pakistan, WI and Aus with and without their top bowlers. The thread was a bit of trolling but I did a quick check and it seemed pretty accurate up to that time.

I agree there is a discount on an ave when a man faces class bowlers. But it cuts both ways. Class bowlers pay for their wickets when confronted by great batsmen as the averages of Pakistan and SA bowlers from the early 80s to early 00s show when playing Australia. Similarly SRT's personal ave against Donald is actually quite impressive. And he scored very well off Steyn too. I'm not downgrading SRT. His form against the best bowlers of his era is a superior one as you'd expect. I'm just saying that I don't think (imo) that he was distinctly better than Lara against class pace. I can't say for certain as I don't have the Lara breakdowns. So in that regard I'm relying on what I see. From that perspective I see little difference btwn either player against class pace or spin. Lara's ability to score hugely and quickly gives him the palm imho.

Well I felt he was susceptible against class fast bowling in decent conditons relatively speaking. However, he made up for it by scoring HUGE when conditions were in his favour.

 

[the big bambino]

On his day, yes, Tendulkar really did dominate him, but otherwise and overall nooooo IMO.
I recall him being bowled quite a bit by him too. Pollock might've played a hand by keeping things tight though (and I am sure he was much quicker and probably more effective in the 1st half of his career).

Tendulkar just had too many failures either side of his great/good knocks against Donald & Pollock (and Hansie Cronje ). He's known for his consistency, so I wouldn't give him more than an avg mark against them.

He got out to Hansie Cronje 5 times funnily enough iirc.

Wow I missed that Cronje stat. iirc SRT's ave v Donald is 34 which is srsly good against that bowler and 12 above the rate he normally took wkts. Maybe the effort he needed to get on top of Donald caused him to get out to the likes of Cronje. I don't know. But talk about duelling the dragon and falling to the mouse! Then again I recall Razzaq getting him a few times in odis in Australia. Though I always thought Razzaq a very good bowler.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, I have trouble rating bowler V batsman as if it was an individual contest. It just never is, in cricket.. There are way too many factors to be able to boil it down to such simplified levels. Very very rarely it is true.. Like SL Vs any top side in the 2000s esp in SL could well be thought of as Murali Vs that side but the flip side to that argument is the series against India when Mendis debuted.. So cricket is perhaps one of the most complex games to judge based on the pure stats that are available, simply because the game is affected by so many factors that it can never really be boiled down to a number V number for player comparisons assuming all other factors were the same. They just never are.

 

[centurymaker]

Yeah, I have trouble rating bowler V batsman as if it was an individual contest. It just never is, in cricket.. There are way too many factors to be able to boil it down to such simplified levels. Very very rarely it is true.. Like SL Vs any top side in the 2000s esp in SL could well be thought of as Murali Vs that side but the flip side to that argument is the series against India when Mendis debuted.. So cricket is perhaps one of the most complex games to judge based on the pure stats that are available, simply because the game is affected by so many factors that it can never really be boiled down to a number V number for player comparisons assuming all other factors were the same. They just never are.

This,

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, I have trouble rating bowler V batsman as if it was an individual contest. It just never is, in cricket.. There are way too many factors to be able to boil it down to such simplified levels. Very very rarely it is true.. Like SL Vs any top side in the 2000s esp in SL could well be thought of as Murali Vs that side but the flip side to that argument is the series against India when Mendis debuted.. So cricket is perhaps one of the most complex games to judge based on the pure stats that are available, simply because the game is affected by so many factors that it can never really be boiled down to a number V number for player comparisons assuming all other factors were the same. They just never are.

The fact is that Sachin was never dominated by anybody consistently. He has dominated against all of them at some points. Cronje being an outlier, while McGrath coming close. Sachin's consistency is remarkable, and you have to pay a price for being so consistent, while scoring at a relatively high strike rate, all the time doing it with a close to perfect technique, and still producing attractive and elegant shots. No one batsman can have everything.

Sobers is the only one who has such consistency and technique, while adding the elegance and grace of a left hander. Sobers, hence, is most likely number 2 after Bradman, and to be picked ahead of Viv in an ATG side just on batsmanship.

Having said that, there is no way to discount Hobbs, although what surprised me the most in the cricinfo selection was that Hutton received the maximum votes by far for the opener's slot from the experts, while Hobbs just beat out Gavaskar. Strange.

All this said while not even considering the good Doctor. If he is included, then we might as well, throw the others out, including Sobers and Sachin.

 

[Migara]

Back again eh? Soon I'll do a comparison with the Eng bowlers of 27-39 and the Pakistan and SA bowlers of the late 80s and to early 00s. Also the English attack of 98-2009 which won 2 ashes. I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.

Conveniently forgetting Hadlee, Marshall, Roberts, Ambrose, Walsh, Garner, Holding and McGrath. What a champ!

 

[Migara]

Lucky his elbow held up.

 

[kyear2]

Back again eh? Soon I'll do a comparison with the Eng bowlers of 27-39 and the Pakistan and SA bowlers of the late 80s and to early 00s. Also the English attack of 98-2009 which won 2 ashes. I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.

Do you honestly belive that the bowlers that Bradman (and Hammond and Headley as well) were better than the ones faced by Sobers, Chappell, Richards, Tendulkar, Lara or even Hutton? Or even comparable?

Do you belive that the LBW rule changes, the increase of stump size, increase of games played and overall level of competition and fielding (and importantly catching) and playing in more than two contries wouldn't have made a difference to his early career numbers.

The fact that the only two coutries that he scored over 100 againts had poor attacks and were not to the level of England, his own team's or even the W.I's of that era. That part of the difference in average between Bradman and Headley is partially explained that apart from both playing againts England, Headley had to face Australia's attack and Grimmett and Ironmonger and Bradman got India and South Africa.
That the closest attack that Bradman faced to a modern attack was Body line and he averaged 55, and that attack was devised by Jaradine because he though the Don was somewhat suspect to short pitched fast bowling and that the bolwers of body line cannot be compared to Lillle or Thompson, or Lindwall and Miller far less the 70's quartet or Marshall, Garner and Holding. He struggled initiall againts the W.I attack of Martindale and Constantine also being dropped before scoring (a very good) his first of only two hundreds in the series. The man was great and the best, he wasn't god.

 

[mohammad16]

Lara was a better, more devastating and entertaining test batsmen than Tendulkar.