Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 41 of 41

Thread: Alec Stewart - Toughest career opponents XI

  1. #31
    Cricketer Of The Year Bahnz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    On top of a pile of money, surrounded by many beautiful women
    Posts
    7,840
    Hmmm, must be a mistake in my summary somewhere. Ah, just spotted that I missed out his first two tests v Australia where he took 17 wickets at 14.6 apiece. Ah well

    I'm not sure it was so much batsmen "working out" Waqar's reverse swing as it was Waqar lacking the extreme pace in his later years to make it an effective tactic.
    Last edited by Bahnz; 09-05-2013 at 09:19 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    I can think of a list of Sydney Grade posters who would contribute a better average post than Bahnz.
    Maow like no one can hear you maowing.

  2. #32
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,117
    I remember watching those tests in 1990. Akram was at his best in those 2 games. Aust won the series though (woohoo!)

    Akram did better against Oz while Waqar was a menace for Kiwi. That can part way explain why we're split on which one of the 2 is the better bowler.

  3. #33
    Cricketer Of The Year Bahnz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    On top of a pile of money, surrounded by many beautiful women
    Posts
    7,840
    Agreed.

  4. #34
    Cricketer Of The Year Agent Nationaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    Based on what I have read, and his stats. I haven't seen much, if any footage of Akram bowling either. So I guess I'm not allowed an opinion of him either.
    Both completely different types of bowlers. Barnes was a spinner, whereas Akram was a quick.

    And so stats tell you that Akram is the one you would rather face.

    And big baby, I was not being biased against Barnes. After reading about him from SJS's account on him I was in awe of the way he bowled.
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Yeah, look, it gives me a pain deep inside my uterus to admit it, but it's Ajmal until such time as we get a working throwing law again.
    Never in a million years would I have thought Brumby to admit this!!!!!!


  5. #35
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,117
    Big baby

  6. #36
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux View Post
    Both completely different types of bowlers. Barnes was a spinner, whereas Akram was a quick.

    And so stats tell you that Akram is the one you would rather face.

    And big baby, I was not being biased against Barnes. After reading about him from SJS's account on him I was in awe of the way he bowled.
    Big baby? Really?

    If you had actually read about Barnes you would know he wasn't just a spinner, he also bowled fast-medium pace, when the occasion called for it. In my opinion, from what I've read, heard, and seen (from limited footage) I'd say both were extremely dangerous due to their variations, but, Barnes had more variation, was statisically far superior, and was considered by pretty much everybody who played with or against him the greatest bowler of them all and so yes, I'd rather face Akram.
    ATG World XI
    1. J.B Hobbs 2. H. Sutcliffe 3. D.G Bradman 4. W.R Hammond 5. G.S Sobers 6. M.J Procter 7. A.C Gilchrist 8. M.D Marshall 9. S.K Warne 10. M. Muralitharan 11. G.D McGrath

  7. #37
    Cricketer Of The Year Agent Nationaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    Big baby? Really?

    If you had actually read about Barnes you would know he wasn't just a spinner, he also bowled fast-medium pace, when the occasion called for it. In my opinion, from what I've read, heard, and seen (from limited footage) I'd say both were extremely dangerous due to their variations, but, Barnes had more variation, was statisically far superior, and was considered by pretty much everybody who played with or against him the greatest bowler of them all and so yes, I'd rather face Akram.
    His name is big baby (bambino in Italian is baby).

    But so did people who played with or against Marshall, Akram, Lillee, etc.

  8. #38
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux View Post
    His name is big baby (bambino in Italian is baby).

    But so did people who played with or against Marshall, Akram, Lillee, etc.
    Sorry, I thought you were calling me a baby

    No, everybody who played with/against Barnes considered him to be the best. Really I think you just don't want to compare players from different eras.. but hey, thats your opinion that you can't compare them.

  9. #39
    International Vice-Captain kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    4,226
    I think that Barnes record againts an overmatched South African team massively inflates his numbers , while againts Australia his numbers were merely very good. For me his record againts Australia would be more indicative of his abilities than his numbers vs S.A.

    That being said, I also find Wasim to be over rated and not the best of his era, while Barnes certainly was.
    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 | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

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

  10. #40
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,330
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    I think that Barnes record againts an overmatched South African team massively inflates his numbers , while againts Australia his numbers were merely very good. For me his record againts Australia would be more indicative of his abilities than his numbers vs S.A.

    That being said, I also find Wasim to be over rated and not the best of his era, while Barnes certainly was.
    Actually, South Africa was pretty strong at the time. Herb Taylor actually scored 508 runs in that series @ 50.80. Not too shabby. iirc they also had Faulkner, Nourse. By 1913-14 they weren't the minnows they formerly were.

  11. #41
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,117
    SA were improving at the time. I think a fair measure of their strength was the 10/11 series against a top Aussie side. They lost but competed well enough to take a test. Not bad for an away series. Taylor was an excellent bat and they had others who were good. Their bowling was innovative and strong as well. Based on 4 googly bowlers with the best being Schwarz and Vogler. Faulkner wasn't far behind them plus he was almost as good a bat as Taylor. So all up not a bad side but below the strength of Aus and Eng.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Surrey 2002: A Cricket Captain Diary
    By SIX AND OUT in forum General
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17-02-2005, 08:25 AM
  2. Fitness tips from Alec Stewart and Yuvraj Singh
    By Salamuddin in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-12-2003, 09:53 AM
  3. The Beach Cricket World Cup 2003 (story)
    By Samuel_Vimes in forum General
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 30-11-2003, 02:24 PM
  4. Alec Stewart Retires
    By Andre in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 25-07-2003, 03:55 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
  •