dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
His record is nothing to be laughed at.
Definitely isn't, but comparisons with Imran, Sobers and Miller seem wrong. Usually we see names like Botham, Dev and Hadlee come up next.dontcloseyoureyes said:His record is nothing to be laughed at.
Duke said:Interesting selections, Bagapath. I was focusing on post WWII players, hence my omission of both Trumper and O'Reilly. I like your team.
The only point of disgreement I have is your selection of Arthur Morris over Hayden (or Mark Taylor or Bill Lawry or Bob Simpson for that matter). Morris averaged 46.48 in test cricket, compared to Hayden's 53.08. The argument that Morris faced better bowling attacks is, in my opinion, wrong. Ok, England were strong in the 1950s when Morris played the majority of his test cricket (think of bowlers such as Bedser, Trueman, Statham, Tyson, Laker and Lock), but the other teams in international cricket at that time were relatively weak (compared to now). In comparison, Hayden has made runs against high and low quality attacks from every test-playing nation in the world. Some people like to point out that his struggles in the Ashes series of 2005 showed a weakness against top-quality fast bowling, particularly against (reverse) swing. That's just a load of rubbish. Firstly, although he struggled, he did make 138 in the fifth test under a lot of pressure. A few of Australia's other batsmen (Martyn, Gilchrist, Katich, Clarke) struggled even more. Also, every batsman has a poor series at some stage (Morris in 1950/51, despite a double century). The fact that Hayden has bounced back so emphatically points to his talent, his commitment and his temperament.
The pitches in the WI in those days were probably just as seamer friendly as the ones in England or Australia. Certainly doesnt say much about his quality, especially when you consider that he took them at an average of 28 which is again not very special.aussie said:Well he did take a wicket in the WI, in World Series Cricket 1979 in the West Indies he took 23 wicket @ 28 if you do the maths, and even though its not part of his test record that series was definately played at a very competitive level.
Or he might have failed miserably. It really is like me picking Shane Bond as the best bowler of all time. Fact is that he isnt proven in all conditions. And unlike Lillee at least he hasnt failed in the subcontinent when he has played there.aussie said:Yea his record in the sub-continent is poor for such a great bowler but he only played 4 test, due to World series cricket as well he missed 9 test in 1979 & 1980 on tours to India & Pakistan and being such a great bowler he could have well and done well if he had played in those series.
Yet Mcgrath has the better SR despite playing in more batter friendly conditions and actually bowling in more than 4 tests in the subcontinent. Really the logic behind that argument is ludicrous.aussie said:But overall i guess why some would have Lille over McGrath is probably that he was more lethal at his best the Pigeon..
tooextracool said:Really i cant believe that so many people have Lillee in their top 5 ahead of Mcgrath? How on earth is someone who bowled primarily in batter friendly conditions and still ended up with a superior bowling record inferior to Lillee? Further how can someone who never took a wicket in the WI or India and took 3 wickets in Pakistan at an average of 101 be considered amongst the top 5 players ever?
Mcgrath has a much better strike rate, better average and wicket per match ratio. Pollock indeed is a great bowler but with all due respect Mcgrath is just simply better!!PhoenixFire said:Right, here it is. I see McGrath as a good bowler, but not great or immortal. What do some people see in him that I don't. Pollock is just as consistent, but I have never heard him labelled great. Pollock has a better economy rate than McGrath too.