Lance Gibbs vs Anil Kumble

[Coronis]

Judging 15 year+ careers on being dropped for two serieses due to lack of form is...strange.

I mean c’mon. Nobody’s judging his whole career based on that. But if you’re dropped during the middle of your career based on a lack of form its (rightfully so) a negative mark against a player.

 

[Johan]

I mean c’mon. Nobody’s judging his whole career based on that. But if you’re dropped during the middle of your career based on a lack of form its (rightfully so) a negative mark against a player.

Everyone knows its a negative mark to be dropped for 2 serieses but the positive of having 10 years of averaging 24 with the ball IE an extended brilliant peak is a positive that more than makes up for the negative of being dropped for 2 meager serieses on roads.

 

[Coronis]

Everyone knows its a negative mark to be dropped for 2 serieses but the positive of having 10 years of averaging 24 with the ball IE an extended brilliant peak is a positive that more than makes up for the negative of being dropped for 2 meager serieses on roads.

No ****. Like I said, we’re not judging his whole career on it, but its a legitimate demerit on a player if they get dropped in the middle of their career, you shouldn’t need to whinge about people bringing it up.

 

[Johan]

No ****. Like I said, we’re not judging his whole career on it, but its a legitimate demerit on a player if they get dropped in the middle of their career, you shouldn’t need to whinge about people bringing it up.

I just don't think it should be such a focal point of the conversation, neither should people exaggerate it with "4 years" instead of "2 series" to make the problem seem bigger than it was, just the point being overblown and discussed way too much for something that's not even a relevant demerit.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I just don't think it should be such a focal point of the conversation, neither should people exaggerate it with "4 years" instead of "2 series" to make the problem seem bigger than it was, just the point being overblown and discussed way too much for something that's not even a relevant demerit.

Disagree. 56 average for 4 years in the middle of career is a decent demerit.

 

[Johan]

Disagree. 56 average for 4 years in the middle of career is a decent demerit.

Disgree. 24 for 10 years more than makes up for 3 years of being bad, where there are barely games in 2 of those years anyway.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Kumble was averaging 40 away from home before the 2003-04 BGT. It's some call to suggest he would outperform Gibbs on pitches that Sobers claimed "nearly killed Caribbean cricket" and encouraged Lloyd to abandon spin.

All I said was Gibbs was dropped and averages 56 for 4 years mid career. If you can't except that, fine ig. If you want to suggest Gibbs would do better than Kumble in WIndian wickets that's a different point, but suggesting Kumble will be dropped as a comeback is kinda futile and honestly, baseless really.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Disgree. 24 for 10 years more than makes up for 3 years of being bad, where there are barely games in 2 years anyway.

He sucked in FC during that time hard too. Whether his rest of career makes up for it or not is a different argument, suggesting it just doesn't counts is dishonest.

 

[Johan]

He sucked in FC during that time hard too.

Don't give a ****, question is spinner in Tests.

Whether his rest of career makes up for it or not is a different argument, suggesting it just doesn't counts is dishonest.

Nobody suggested it doesn't count, if it didn't count Gibbs would be an ATG, 4 serieses of being bad is what makes this comparable at the first place. You're just giving it too much attention given it roughly is about 11% of his test career.

 

[ma1978]

Ambrose strike rate is 54, Bumrah is 42, hence proven we should dismiss 1990s altogether.

and if Bumrah keeps it up, he will be seen as better than Ambrose. Much better. But that’s besides the point, both 42 and 54 re acceptable strike rates, 90 is not

 

[Johan]

and if Bumrah keeps it up, he will be seen as better than Ambrose. Much better. But that’s besides the point, both 42 and 54 re acceptable strike rates, 90 is not

Nah, 54-55 for a fast bowler is terrible, you should be a plumber if you're a fast bowler and that's your strike rate.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Don't give a ****, question is spinner in Tests.


Nobody suggested it doesn't count, if it didn't count Gibbs would be an ATG, 4 serieses of being bad is what makes this comparable at the first place. You're just giving it too much attention given it roughly is about 11% of his test career.

Don't pretend that only Tests matters now. He averaged 37 in CC over those 4 years.

Ummm..... The suggestions were Kumble would be dropped too and such, for no basis whatsoever. For what should had been a fair critique.

Also, on a separate note:

Other Spinners with Kumble: 1037 @40
Other Spinners with Gibbs: 545 @44


I don't think there's enough to suggest they played in vastly different conditions. That I say because Kumble played a ton with Harbi, who actually brings down the average by taking 220 odd wickets at low 30s. Shitty, but most matches a spinner played with Gibbs is Holford and he has around 50 at low 40s. Also Kumble played with better spinners more imo, namely Murali and Warne (albeit Warne sucked). Great Spinners Gibbs played with hardly sucked in those matches bar Underwood (Bedi, Chandra, Benaud).

 

[Johan]

Don't pretend that only Tests matters now. He averaged 37 in CC over those 4 years.

Thread is better test spinner, that's Gibbs, if it was just better spinner then sure, bring up CC.

Ummm..... The suggestions were Kumble would be dropped too and such, for no basis whatsoever. For what should had been a fair critique.

TBF, what @BazBall21 was actually saying was that Kumble could also look middling on flat wickets, and if out of form he could be dropped for one or two series too, infact I'd go ahead and say if Warne played for West Indies, he'd be dropped for a few series too during his downtime.

Also, on a separate note:

Other Spinners with Kumble: 1037 @40
Other Spinners with Gibbs: 545 @44


I don't think there's enough to suggest they played in vastly different conditions. That I say because Kumble played a ton with Harbi, who actually brings down the average by taking 300 odd wickets at mid 30s. Shitty, but most matches a spinner played with Gibbs is Holford and he has around 50 at low 40s.

Other spinners in India: 36.3
Other spinners in West Indies: 49.0

Other spinners abroad for AK: 42.7
Other spinners abroad for LG: 46.0

Other spinners in general for AK: 40.0
Other spinners in general for LG: 44.0

I think this has fundamentally something to do with the amount of spinners playing and such factors.

Anyway, You're welcome to declare Kumble's home wickets as flat as Gibbs's or whatever, and say the surfaces were similar but I would warn you that it would have dramatic ramifications for the Indian batsmen of the time who scored heavily on those same wickets

Also Kumble played with better spinners more imo, namely Murali and Warne (albeit Warne sucked). Great Spinners Gibbs played with hardly sucked in those matches bar Underwood (Bedi, Chandra, Benaud).

Yeah but also a comparatively stronger home batting against spin, Sobers and Sachin cancel out with Sachin having the edge, and then you just have Azharrudin, VVS, Sehwag, Sidhu, Dravid...all amazing players of spin, who'd bash the opposition spinners and raise opposition spinner average.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Thread is better test spinner, that's Gibbs, if it was just better spinner then sure, bring up CC.


TBF, what @BazBall21 was actually saying was that Kumble could also look middling on flat wickets, and if out of form he could be dropped for one or two series too, infact I'd go ahead and say if Warne played for West Indies, he'd be dropped for a few series too during his downtime.


Other spinners in India: 36.3
Other spinners in West Indies: 49.0

Other spinners abroad for AK: 42.7
Other spinners abroad for LG: 46.0

Other spinners in general for AK: 40.0
Other spinners in general for LG: 44.0

I think this has fundamentally something to do with the amount of spinners playing and such factors.

Anyway, You're welcome to declare Kumble's home wickets as flat as Gibbs's or whatever, and say the surfaces were similar but I would warn you that it would have dramatic ramifications for the Indian batsmen of the time who scored heavily on those same wickets


Yeah but also a comparatively stronger home batting against spin, Sobers and Sachin cancel out with Sachin having the edge, and then you just have Azharrudin, VVS, Sehwag, Sidhu, Dravid...all amazing players of spin, who'd bash the opposition spinners and raise opposition spinner average.

You always, and by that I mean Always, have emphasised on how we can't ignore FC for Pre 80s Cricketers. Don't backtrack now.

I think Kumble getting dropped is a bogus point since he wasn't and is baseless speculation.

Kumble actually had Harbhajan as decent at home and as I already said, Gibbs played with quite a few filth. The only good spinner who sucked in his games was Underwood, all others have pretty Great records.

WI had plenty Good batting and played with 7 pure batsmen quite often. Don't think batting cancels out the Great Spin attacks totally.

 

[Johan]

You always, and by that I mean Always, have emphasised on how we can't ignore FC for Pre 80s Cricketers. Don't backtrack now.

I think Kumble getting dropped is a bogus point since he wasn't and is baseless speculation.

Kumble actually had Harbhajan as decent at home and as I already said, Gibbs played with quite a few filth. The only good spinner who sucked in his games was Underwood, all others have pretty Great records.

WI had plenty Good batting and played with 7 pure batsmen quite often. Don't think batting cancels out the Great Spin attacks totally.

See, my logic is simple, if the question is "who is the better spinner?" then Yes, I'd bring up CC and discuss both the positives and the negatives, but the distinction here is Test thus I won't, same thing with Barry Richards topics, if it's talking about better Batsman with no distinction then First Class Cricket plays a factor, if Test then No

My view is anyone can get dropped in some context, even Shane Warne was dropped when out of form, what makes Lance Gibbs being dropped when out of form for two serieses a huge deal?

Sure, but this just leads to discussion on the reputation of wickets, India, in the 90s and even 2000s was often seen as spin friendly, and the games in India are significantly lower scoring than the West Indies until a certain Michael Holding. If one is generally considered more spinner friendly and other termed batting paradises, the latter are probably tougher.

I disagree, they had plenty good batting, but I don't think you can compete with what India had in the 2000s and even the 1990s against spin.

 

[capt_Luffy]

See, my logic is simple, if the question is "who is the better spinner?" then Yes, I'd bring up CC and discuss both the positives and the negatives, but the distinction here is Test thus I won't, same thing with Barry Richards topics, if it's talking about better Batsman with no distinction then First Class Cricket plays a factor, if Test then No

My view is anyone can get dropped in some context, even Shane Warne was dropped when out of form, what makes Lance Gibbs being dropped when out of form for two serieses a huge deal?

Sure, but this just leads to discussion on the reputation of wickets, India, in the 90s and even 2000s was often seen as spin friendly, and the games in India are significantly lower scoring than the West Indies until a certain Michael Holding. If one is generally considered more spinner friendly and other termed batting paradises, the latter are probably tougher.

I disagree, they had plenty good batting, but I don't think you can compete with what India had in the 2000s and even the 1990s against spin.

It protected his average by a couple points imo.

Fair. And WI was tougher for spinners than India over their careers, never denied so. I just feel the extent is at times overblown and Kumble had more challenges overall away.

90s was pure mid overall. And I said WI batted deeper. That makes up the stronger top order somewhat.

 

[Xix2565]

It's Kumble. The bloviating about Gibbs is sickening to read.

 

[Johan]

It protected his average by a couple points imo.

Fair. And WI was tougher for spinners than India over their careers, never denied so. I just feel the extent is at times overblown and Kumble had more challenges overall away.

90s was pure mid overall. And I said WI batted deeper. That makes up the stronger top order somewhat.

impossible to say, also it's kinda like saying if Kumble played all the games in 1990 England his average would be higher, maybe true but not what happened so who cares.

Kumble was probably more challenged away overall but Gibbs was significantly more challenged at home, overall, I think Gibbs was the more challenged spinner, and his numbers away are superior by a long, long shot.

not against spin, India's batting completely neutralised Warne and Murali on their home wickets, and Kumble tanked in Sri Lanka in a humiliating manner.

 

[Johan]

It's Kumble. The bloviating about Gibbs is sickening to read.

Aw, the horror you must feel of seeing people discuss a Cricketer you don't favour.

 

[Xix2565]

Aw, the horror you must feel of seeing people discuss a Cricketer you don't favour.

It isn't horror. It's just sick to see the hoops being jumped through to prop up a discount version of Jadeja.