Best bowler to tour England?

[Johan]

@Burgey Would you rate Richard Hadlee or Curtly Ambrose higher in Australia?

 

[subshakerz]

is Sachin Tendulkar in Australia overrated as he never even came close to winning a game for them?

Giving credit for winning games is a measure to use more with bowlers than bats. Especially if they play for stronger sides.

 

[Johan]

Winning games is a measure to use more with bowlers than bats.

what being an Asian Cricket fan does to a mf

 

[subshakerz]

I strongly disagree. If Sachin had done something in 2003-4 except on the flattest Sydney wicket, India would've won in Australia 15 years before they actually managed it.

lol that's funny because Sydney they had an ideal opportunity to win the series.

 

[Johan]

It's just baffling how you're willing to downgrade someone taking 40 wickets in 5 games on the basis of result but not willing to downgrade someone's Australia record when all his hundreds come in defeats or high scoring draws when he didn't score when he could've altered the series result like 2003 Melbourne and 2007 Sydney second inning.

 

[subshakerz]

It's just baffling how you're willing to downgrade someone taking 40 wickets in 5 games on the basis of result but not willing to downgrade someone's Australia record when all his hundreds come in defeats or high scoring draws when he didn't score when he could've altered the series result like 2003 Melbourne and 2007 Sydney second inning.

First off, I am not downgrading Warnes performance when I still call it an ATG series. Just saying that him not really actually winning games for Aus gets me to not rate it as high as others have. That is a perfectly acceptable reason.

England were ahead of Aus on Day 1 of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tests of the Ashes. Warne took 4-116, 4-99 and 4-102 in those innings. Goodish but not really ATG. Pretending that he didn't relatively underperform compared to his deadliness later in the tests, and that this didn't cede an advantage to England as Australia were under pressure for the rest of those tests, to me is ignoring the obvious.

Bats are not by definition winning games in their sole capacity. We don't have the expectation of that level of disproportionate influence from a single bat as we do for a bowler. There are meant more variables to win even if Tendulkar performed.

 

[Johan]

First off, I am not downgrading Warnes performance when I still call it an ATG series. Just saying that him not really actually winning games for Aus gets me to not rate it as high as others have. That is a perfectly acceptable reason.

England were ahead of Aus on Day 1 of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tests of the Ashes. Warne took 4-116, 4-99 and 4-102 in those innings. Goodish but not really ATG. Pretending that he didn't relatively underperform compared to his deadliness later in the tests, and that this didn't cede an advantage to England as Australia were under pressure for the rest of those tests, to me is ignoring the obvious.

Bats are not by definition winning games in their sole capacity. We don't have the expectation of that level of disproportionate influence from a single bat as we do for a bowler. There are meant more variables to win even if Tendulkar performed.

4-99 and 4-102 are good, also, Australian batting should also take big blame for constant underperformance given relative to the nature of the wickets. I think the series was close due to Warne, and if you put McGrath there it doesn't change much as he'd perform worse in second inning, even if at Edgebaston England is restricted to a score similar to Australia, without Warne and with McGrath we just make more in the second inning due to no 6/46, and set a similar target for Australia.

At Trent Bridge, even if England gets restricted for less, without having Warne to take 4/30 that lineup is getting to 230.

Nobody is winning games by their sole capacity, they can contribute to wins though, if Sachin had performed in Melbourne in 2003 India wins the series, if he performed in second inning of Sydney in 2007 India draws the series, if he performed in WACA second inning India saves the game etc.

 

[subshakerz]

4-99 and 4-102 are good, also, Australian batting should also take big blame for constant underperformance given relative to the nature of the wickets. I think the series was close due to Warne, and if you put McGrath there it doesn't change much as he'd perform worse in second inning, even if at Edgebaston England is restricted to a score similar to Australia, without Warne and with McGrath we just make more in the second inning due to no 6/46, and set a similar target for Australia.

At Trent Bridge, even if England gets restricted for less, without having Warne to take 4/30 that lineup is getting to 230.

Nobody is winning games by their sole capacity, they can contribute to wins though, if Sachin had performed in Melbourne in 2003 India wins the series, if he performed in second inning of Sydney in 2007 India draws the series, if he performed in WACA second inning India saves the game etc.

I don't think you can deny:

- Warne performed at best good in the first innings and ATG level in the second innings for all those tests

- England definitely held the advantages from Day 1 with those big scores and Australia were always fighting from behind under pressure after that. Aus batting was facing scoreboard pressure.

- Had Australia won those games, Warnes performances should logically be rated higher. But Warne couldn't prevent them from winning, and England gained the advantage precisely when Warne wasn't at his best

 

[Thala_0710]

Warne vs Murali is a futile discussion when the answer is clearly McGrath

 

[Johan]

Warne vs Murali is a futile discussion when the answer is clearly McGrath

 

[DrWolverine]

Giving credit for winning games is a measure to use more with bowlers than bats. Especially if they play for stronger sides.

Dravid scored 230 odd in Adelaide.
Sachin scored 240 odd in Sydney.
Agarkar took 6 wickets in Adelaide and India won.
No one dismissed the opposition in Sydney and hence Sachin’s knock is not considered a match winning one.

 

[Thala_0710]

View attachment 47423

Only good thing about Alderman is that he prevented Gooch from being overrated

 

[Johan]

Only good thing about Alderman is that he prevented Gooch from being overrated

Alderman made him the batsman he eventually became so

 

[Burgey]

@Burgey Would you rate Richard Hadlee or Curtly Ambrose higher in Australia?

Very tough. Hadlee's tours in the mid-late 80s in particular were crazy, Ambrose generally bowled to a stronger Aus line up. Am a bit surprised to see he only played a couple more tests here than Hadlee. I had thought he played a lot more. Such different bowlers. I really don't know which of them I would put ahead of the other.

Of the visiting bowlers I've seen in Australia, I would probably have these two and Bumrah as the quick. If not, Marshall ahead of either Hadlee or Ambrose. I cannot over state how brilliant Bumrah's tour here last summer was. I have never seen anyone bowl better than he did in Australia. That series was realistically 4-0 or 5-0 Aus if he didn't play. Genius level.

 

[Johan]

Very tough. Hadlee's tours in the mid-late 80s in particular were crazy, Ambrose generally bowled to a stronger Aus line up. Am a bit surprised to see he only played a couple more tests here than Hadlee. I had thought he played a lot more. Such different bowlers. I really don't know which of them I would put ahead of the other.

Of the visiting bowlers I've seen in Australia, I would probably have these two and Bumrah as the quick. If not, Marshall ahead of either Hadlee or Ambrose. I cannot over state how brilliant Bumrah's tour here last summer was. I have never seen anyone bowl better than he did in Australia. That series was realistically 4-0 or 5-0 Aus if he didn't play. Genius level.

Oh Yeah, I'd agree on those three as the best pacemen to tour Australia, any spinner you'd say was successful/consistently threatning in Australia in your time or nah?

 

[Johan]

Having lost his wicket seven times to the Australian swing bowler, including five times when hit on the pad in front, Gooch reportedly recorded a message on his answering machine along the lines of: "I'm not here. I'm probably out...lbw, to Terry Alderman."

 

[subshakerz]

Oh Yeah, I'd agree on those three as the best pacemen to tour Australia, any spinner you'd say was successful/consistently threatning in Australia in your time or nah?

Mushtaq Ahmed in 95 had probably the best touring series by any spinner.

 

[Burgey]

Oh Yeah, I'd agree on those three as the best pacemen to tour Australia, any spinner you'd say was successful/consistently threatning in Australia in your time or nah?

Visiting spinners usually don't do well here for whatever reason. Even the best of them in Murali has a bad record.

Underwood always struck me as tough to face, though he often really operated like a very accurate slow-medium pacer. I saw Bedi and Chandra in 77/78 when I was a kid but I was too young to really appreciate their craft.

I used to enjoy watching Saqlain and Kumble do their thing here. Kumble's 2004 series is under rated - 24 wickets at 28 on very flat decks for a visiting spinner is very good. He took another 20 in 2007/8 as well, though at a worse average. Would probably have him as the best over a decent sample size here in my time watching.

 

[Burgey]

Mushtaq Ahmed in 95 had probably the best touring series by any spinner.

Yeah he was very good in that series. I'd forgotten about him. Terrorized Greg Blewett with his wrong 'un iirc

 

[Johan]

Visiting spinners usually don't do well here for whatever reason. Even the best of them in Murali has a bad record.

Underwood always struck me as tough to face, though he often really operated like a very accurate slow-medium pacer. I saw Bedi and Chandra in 77/78 when I was a kid but I was too young to really appreciate their craft.

I used to enjoy watching Saqlain and Kumble do their thing here. Kumble's 2004 series is under rated - 24 wickets at 28 on very flat decks for a visiting spinner is very good. He took another 20 in 2007/8 as well, though at a worse average. Would probably have him as the best over a decent sample size here in my time watching.

Yeah I think Underwood and Kumble were decent because they mostly relied on accuracy and keeping things tight until a bat made a mistake or they extracted some awkward/unpredictable bounce, slower spinners naturally have a very tough time.