The bowler of the 90s and 00s

[smash84]

Nothing you've posted here relates to virya's post at all.

He said he'd pick Marshall and Holding ahead of Gillespie and Lee FFS, so unless you want to argue Garner/Roberts/Croft > McGrath then he's agreeing with you completely

Furthermore, the attempts being made to compare an ATG fast bowler to an ATG spinner as if they are somehow equivalent is really, really pointless.

My argument is that time and again fast bowlers do show that they can be more effective than spinners even on spinning tracks. Just because you are a flashy spinner doesn't automatically guarantee you a place in the side.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why do you say that?

Well you're the one who said Holding>Warne. Why don't you give reasons for that? It's a silly comparison anyway.

 

[viriya]

Langer was a tough nut and I rate him for that. Greenidge fell away towards the end of his career but if you had seen him bat you wouldn't hav3 said Hayden is comfortably better than Greenidge. Btw you might want to look up Hayden vs Ambrose for seeing Hayden exposed

I'm pretty sure Greenidge didn't have to face Ambrose either. Either way, it's unfair to rate a player just by how he did early in his career. I don't think Hayden of the 2000s would've struggled the same way vs Ambrose.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Greenidge the better opener for me too... Not by much, though.

 

[akilana]

My argument is that time and again fast bowlers do show that they can be more effective than spinners even on spinning tracks. Just because you are a flashy spinner doesn't automatically guarantee you a place in the side.

What you have said here is probably right but Holding was not better than Warne.

 

[smash84]

Yeah, you are right in that sense but what I meant was purely as a bowling option I get more out of fast bowlers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

My argument is that time and again fast bowlers do show that they can be more effective than spinners even on spinning tracks. Just because you are a flashy spinner doesn't automatically guarantee you a place in the side.

Well they can be more effective, yes, but describing Warne as a "flashy spinner" is ridiculous. Maybe West Indies would've won 16 tests in a row like Australia did if they had a great spinner on day 5.

 

[smash84]

Well they can be more effective, yes, but describing Warne as a "flashy spinner" is ridiculous. Maybe West Indies would've won 16 tests in a row like Australia did if they had a great spinner on day 5.

Or maybe Aus wouldn't have lost a single series in 15 years if they had that kind of a pace battery

 

[Dan]

My argument is that time and again fast bowlers do show that they can be more effective than spinners even on spinning tracks. Just because you are a flashy spinner doesn't automatically guarantee you a place in the side.

Look, if you can give me meaningful proof that Michael Holding is a better spin bowler than Shane Warne, I'll concede that "Holding > Warne" is a meaningful comparison in this argument. Irrespective of whatever stats you want to dig up about effectiveness of bowler types on subsets of pitches, you're still trying to compare an apple to a fruit loop.

The West Indies having stacks of fast bowling depth does not change the fact that 2002 Australia has complete dominance when it comes to spin bowling in this comparison. You can't spin that as a point to the West Indies in the team vs. team comparison; it's just dishonest to compare the two.



And let's face it, if you've got a hypothetical attack of Marshall--McGrath--Holding on the park already, do you want to pick one of the sixteen trillion 1980s WI quicks who were better than Gillespie and Lee, or do you want Warne?

If you're not going for Warne in that situation, I think you're utterly insane.

 

[Dan]

Or maybe Aus wouldn't have lost a single series in 15 years if they had that kind of a pace battery

Given that in the 15ish years between the 1993 Ashes and the 2008/09 India series, Australia lost a grand total of 6 series (the 2005 Ashes, 3 away tours to India, 1 each away to Pakistan and Sri Lanka), I don't think having a bonus ATG pace bowler would have been the crucial difference.


I'm looking through these overseas tours and man we turned out some **** bowling attacks.

Jo Angel, Brad Hogg, Peter McIntyre, Gavin Robertson, Paul Wilson, Adam Dale all got gigs on those tours. Damn, we were meant to actually be good in those days.

 

[Spark]

And let's face it, if you've got a hypothetical attack of Marshall--McGrath--Holding on the park already, do you want to pick one of the sixteen trillion 1980s WI quicks who were better than Gillespie and Lee, or do you want Warne?

If you're not going for Warne in that situation, I think you're utterly insane.

This so much. Pick teams on how they're actually picked, not on some arbitrary scale of bowling goodness.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ideal combination of the two attacks would be Marshall-McGrath-Garner-Warne.

An aggressive strike bowler with pace and swing, a metronome capable of taking wickets on any deck, another brilliant quick with the deadliest bouncers and yorkers in the business and the greatest leg spinner ever. Has absolutely everything

 

[Slifer]

So we can all conclude that neither the WI of the 80s nor the Oz team of the 2000's was much better than the other. I consider them more or less equal. Oz IMO had the better batting and WI had the more effective/better bowling attack. Both teams set unheard of records. For Oz it would be their two 16 in a row wins that stand out for me + their white washing of all the other cricket nations (seriously that is one hell of an achievement). For the WI it would be their 15 year unbeaten run home and away but an even less known fact is that the WI also went 27 tests without defeat.

 

[ankitj]

I'm looking through these overseas tours and man we turned out some **** bowling attacks.

Jo Angel, Brad Hogg, Peter McIntyre, Gavin Robertson, Paul Wilson, Adam Dale all got gigs on those tours. Damn, we were meant to actually be good in those days.

Who are these guys? Golf players?

EDIT: This Gavin Robertson guy did better than Warne on the 1998 tour to India. How has the name completely faded in my memory. That was the time when I used to have cricket for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

 

[Burgey]

Look, if you can give me meaningful proof that Michael Holding is a better spin bowler than Shane Warne, I'll concede that "Holding > Warne" is a meaningful comparison in this argument. Irrespective of whatever stats you want to dig up about effectiveness of bowler types on subsets of pitches, you're still trying to compare an apple to a fruit loop.

The West Indies having stacks of fast bowling depth does not change the fact that 2002 Australia has complete dominance when it comes to spin bowling in this comparison. You can't spin that as a point to the West Indies in the team vs. team comparison; it's just dishonest to compare the two.



And let's face it, if you've got a hypothetical attack of Marshall--McGrath--Holding on the park already, do you want to pick one of the sixteen trillion 1980s WI quicks who were better than Gillespie and Lee, or do you want Warne?

If you're not going for Warne in that situation, I think you're utterly insane.

There weren't 16 trillion WI quicks in the 80s better than Dizzy. Dizzy was a top shelf quick for most of his (injury plagued) career. He wasn't in the Marshall-Garner-Holding-Roberts-Ambrose class, but he was as good or better than Croft, Patterson, Walsh (80s version), Davis, Gray lot. And significantly better than most of them.

There were, however, 17 trillion WI pacers in the 80s who were better than Lee. Lee had a spectacular debut 18 months and then another good 18 months after McGrath & Warne retired. The rest of the time he largely bowled brain-dead pap, as you'd expect from a Tony Abbott supporter.

 

[watson]

Is someone able to SIM the two teams?

 

[bagapath]

since we whacked the aussies thrice on the head - once each under taylor, s.waugh and ponting - it is impossible for me to rank them above the west indians under richards and lloyd who were unbeaten by anybody, anywhere for 15 years. all this talk about aussie teams taking more risks is bull****. west indies won most of the series they competed in. pakistan drew with them thrice and each one of those series was magnificent. a depleted windies team drew with india once and that was pretty much it. they won everthing else. some were blackwashes and many were won with wide margins. of course, both were wonderful wonderful teams. but west indies were better because they couldn't be beaten at all.

 

[harsh.ag]

Both the Windies and the Aussies were equally dominant in many respects, including their attitudes for winning game after game after game.

I think a factor in the Aussies having a better run of wins might have been the demise of "home umpiring"

 

[viriya]

So we can all conclude that neither the WI of the 80s nor the Oz team of the 2000's was much better than the other.

I still think they were much better when it came to results. They were better as a team too but not much better.

 

[Slifer]

I still think they were much better when it came to results. They were better as a team too but not much better.

If u mean in terms of test wins and series wins then yeah Oz was better. But at the same time they also lost more tests and more series than the WI did. WI for example lost zero series between 1980 and 1995. They played 27 multi test series. Oz on the other hand between dethroning WI in 1995 and let's say til around '07/08 lost to India numerous times, Sri Lanka and England. What one can therefore conclude is that the Oz team were probably more likely to beat u and beat u decisively (all those white washes) but were vulnerable from time to time (the handful of series losses). The WI were less likely to defeat u (relative to Oz) but were much tougher to defeat (especially over the course of a series).