Andrew Strauss - Not a bad start, chap.

[twctopcat]

Rather than debate the issue between ourselves, I think it would be more interesting to obtain quotes from those of Boycott's era (i.e. his own team-mates) - let's just say that he is not universally admired let alone liked.

And it is an indisputable fact that Boycott's attitude cost his side more than one chance of victory whilst he was in the team. Mark Waugh, on the other hand, was a proven match-winner.

He wasn't particularly valued as a person perhaps, because he was a loner. But i don't think his cricketing value was ever in doubt, unless your referring to a certain game where beefy ran him out to up the scoring!!!

 

[social]

He wasn't particularly valued as a person perhaps, because he was a loner. But i don't think his cricketing value was ever in doubt, unless your referring to a certain game where beefy ran him out to up the scoring!!!

No-one has ever questioned Boycott's ability. He was a master technician.

Problems arose on the odd occasion where the team's interest might have conflicted with his own. No prizes for guessing which route he generally took.

 

[Top_Cat]

I notice this thread seems to be talking about anyone BUT Strauss. Hands up who'll be upset if the thread is closed for running its course?

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I notice this thread seems to be talking about anyone BUT Strauss. Hands up who'll be upset if the thread is closed for running its course?

Wait till after this test has finished...will be interesting to see his average for the Series compared to Kallis.

 

[tooextracool]

I lived and trained with the guy for 12 months so probably know as much as I need to about his talent

oh because if you live with someone, you obviously know more than anyone else about the players talent. by that count bradman's maid knows more about bradman than any other cricketing expert in the world.

likely to have proven himself an all-time-great but with so few tests who can say that definitively

but of course with ponting scoring against rubbish attacks and failing in india you can. seriously there are many other players- sutcliffe, dravid, barrington, weekes, hammond etc all of whom have better averages after a considerable number of games against every team in the world and against better bowling attacks.

destroyed all credibility there

why? because you cant prove me otherwise? face it i've already destroyed every evidence that people who have far more knowledge about the game than you do have used to argue against me. you yourself have said that statistics isnt everything, lets hear it then, when has tendulkar performed on seamer friendly wickets away from home? when has tendulkar not choked and played a match winning test inning?

until proven otherwise, a great player

until proven otherwise? go ahead then, name me 1 occasion, just one occasion where hayden has even remotely succeeded on a seamer friendly track? as far as im concerned, hayden isnt even proven, let alone me having to prove him otherwise. simply because he averages over 55, it doesnt make him an all time great or even close, if you think it did, then you would be precisely what you accuse of being, you rely solely on stats.

technically wise, agreed, but let's stick with performances

which again goes down to stats, something which you;ve already accused me of being reliant upon.

hope yo're not referring to the England wicket-keeper

err obviously not.

and key

get real!

despite the fact that almost everyone whos watched pollock since 01 knows that hes been a shade of his former self on non seamer friendly wickets? and then you accuse me of not watching!

only bowler capable of getting wickets and got most through process of elimination!

and that certainly explains why he didnt take anywhere near as many wickets at anywhere near the same average in the other games doesnt it?
and if he is the only bowler capable of getting wickets, it doesnt mean that he has to get wickets, its also means that australia would score more runs, something that they clearly didnt.

Would it hurt you so much to say that Ponting is a very fine player, albeit vulnerable early in his innings, who ranks, according to almost everyone, with the best in the game!

and where exactly have i said that ponting isnt a very good player? no there is a clear difference between being a very good player and being an all time great and ponting will not be an all time great until he actually performs in india. an all time great must be capable of scoring in every condition, not just the conditions he chooses to do so. and i havent heard of anyone, including the biggest ponting fans, that say that he is 2nd only to bradman.

Lillee did not prove himself on the sub-continent.

yes because he failed in 1 series of 3 games against pakistan, which is certainly the same as playing 8 games spread out over 4 series. like it or not i said after a considerable amount of time.

Richards was ordinary in New Zealand.

read above.

Bothan was exposed vs WI.

and name me one person whos said that botham was an all time great batsman? no botham was an all time great all rounder, which is considerably different, because he was simply a good batsman and a good bowler. had he played predominantly as a batsman, he wouldnt have been considered an all time great.

If that is the case, which I doubt, then I suggest that the next time you watch cricket that you have someone there to explain it for you.

you dont need to worry about that, its quite frankly something that someone whos losing an argument would say. to blindly accept that players are brilliant, without analysing the situation and the conditions is one of the worst crimes in cricket, and a trap that people like you fall into.

 

[tooextracool]

Not really, at least not against the spinners. You will notice that he made one good score (92), and got a few starts (4 scores in the 20s). It certainly wasn't a *great* series, but an average of 33 with one good innings and some starts on turning pitches against quality spin bowling is not a failure for someone who supposedly struggles against spin.

its not a success either. its simply an average series, it doesnt prove that he is decent against spin

You will also notice that in 6 dismissals in the series Murali did not get him once, despite taking around half of Sri Lanka's wickets across the three tests. Vass got him three times, Chandana once and Herath once, indicating that he played Murali pretty well under the circumstances.

and its of course quite impossibly that he got out to vaas because murali and the rest of the spinners were bowling well at the other end?

He also handled Kumble in top form quite well during the Indian tour in 2003/04, as social pointed out.

yes he scored on pitches that barely offered turn for the spinners against kumble, well done to him for that. hardly surprising that he failed against kumble when the pitch actually turned either.

Ponting is a long way from the world's greatest player of spin bowling, but he is not hopeless against it and to suggest that someone with Ponting's wonderful record is not a great because he had a bad run in one country is ludicrous.

why is it? why should he be put in the same category as someone who has succeeded in every country? like it or not, consistency is a major part of the game, the best players are the most consistent ones, and i would think that an all time great should be capable of scoring in all conditions not just the one that he chooses. ponting in fact may not be completely hopeless against spin, but it cant be any coincidence that hes been completely hopeless and never looked like scoring in india.

 

[tooextracool]

Give me a break!

So person A averages 57 whilst Ponting averages 55.

If we're getting to this level, could you please provide me with the percentage of test matches that have been decided by 5 or less runs?

People can justifiably argue that Mark Waugh was a great player despite the fact that he averaged little above 40. Where does that fit into the staticians' equation?

only a fool would consider mark waugh an all time great. even mark waugh wouldnt consider himself an all time great, not in tests anyways.

 

[tooextracool]

And who says it's so easy to score runs. McGrath, Warne, Murali, Vaas, Kumble and Pollock would all enter into serious considerations for their respective countries' "All-Time x1s."

yes well done in finding 6 good bowlers in the entire world today and putting them on that list as opposed to the many many great bowlers that the truly all time great batsmen had to play against.
no surprise either that 2 of them are from the aussie side, and therefore ponting never got to play them. and considering that someone like vaas is on that list only shows how bad bowlers today really are. an average of 30 and hes considered as a great bowler

 

[social]

yes well done in finding 6 good bowlers in the entire world today and putting them on that list as opposed to the many many great bowlers that the truly all time great batsmen had to play against.
no surprise either that 2 of them are from the aussie side, and therefore ponting never got to play them. and considering that someone like vaas is on that list only shows how bad bowlers today really are. an average of 30 and hes considered as a great bowler

read my post again and you will see that I clearly stated that these bowlers would be in contention for THEIR OWN COUNTRIES ALL-TIME X1s.

And whilst you pull your keyboard out of your mouth, pehaps you would like to nominate 4 bowlers (Ill eliminate Australia from the equation to keep it fair) from the Bradman era that met a similar criteria.

or Hobbs

or virtually anyone else you care to choose.

People who are so disparaging towards todays cricketers really have no idea.

 

[social]

only a fool would consider mark waugh an all time great. even mark waugh wouldnt consider himself an all time great, not in tests anyways.

Sorry, you're right. 99% of the world's cricketing population are fools whilst 2xc stands alonside his cricinfo subscription as a beacon of logic.

 

[Top_Cat]