Wisden Cricketers of the Year

[C_C]

I say he he hasn't PRODUCEED anything of note againts any good attacks in his career, while Hooper ignoring his mediocre career average has scores of note againts good attacks which for me shows that he is better player than ganguly, u also just can single out just because Ganguly maybe has more runs than Hooper their are other little factors like technique, temperament, ability againts differnt bowlers which make Hooper a better batsman than Ganguly is and will ever be

Ganguly in his heydeys was one of the best ever players of spin...much better than hooper...and hooper was extremely suspect against pace as well.....more so than ganguly...ganguly looks more awkward but hooper did far little compared to ganguly.
Hooper is simply a distinctly worse player than ganguly, irrespective of how classy he looked. And it is incorrect to say that ganguly produced less than hooper against quality attacks.
Hooper averaged 26 vs the OZ....and half of that was against alsoran OZ attacks before the McGrath-Warne era.
Ganguly averages 32 vs the OZ despite playing most of his career against McGrath-Warne.
Hooper averages 45 against PAK and played them when their bowling was awesome but it is worth noting that Ganguly averaged 43.66 in the series vs Akram,Younis,Akhtar and Saqlain...even though he averages 27 against PAK, his worst series has come against the worst pak bowling lineup while he actually has done pretty well against a good/decent pak bowling lineup.
Hooper does marginally better against RSA...but Ganguly does FAR better than Hooper against NZ, SL and ENG....

So no, Hooper did NOT do better than Ganguly....categorically better against one team only-Pakistan.
While Ganguly is categorically better against ENG, NZ,SL and significantly better against OZ....Hooper narrowly better against RSA.

Ganguly also does significantly better than hooper away from home...a 44 ave compared to 34 ave.
Does better than Hooper in Australia, England, South Africa and Sri Lanka....does better than him in pakistan too but lets not count that since ganguly has only one innings in pak...
Hooper does better than Ganguly nowhere where it is overseas to both of them ( IND and WI performances dont count...too little sample points for one or the other and too big a margin).

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, tendulkar and lara cannot be compared from a statistical average standpoint...richards and ponting is another matter...they were different eras....hooper and ganguly are not....ganguly played most of his career with hoopers and consistently outperformed him.

Not really. They belong to different eras in the same way Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting do. The evolution of the game into the flat-pitch runfest that it is today began at the end of the 1990s and has hit its peak today. Hooper and Steve Waugh played from the late 80s through to just after the end of the century, meaning most of their career was played in the 80s and the early to mid 90s, when pitches largely assisted bowlers, bowling stocks were higher and so on. Ganguly and Ponting began their careers in 1996, and missed out on having to consistently play on bowler-fieldly pitches in a time when many nations had excellent bowling attacks and not just two or three. They are not of the same era, nor are they directly comparable in terms of average... not that many players are anyway, circumstances almost always differ unless you are opening partners or something, and even then a player with a lower average can be more valuable.

I am not necessarily saying that Hooper is much better (although I do rate him slightly higher), but saying X is better than Y because X has a better average is just silly.

 

[C_C]

Hooper and Steve Waugh played from the late 80s through to just after the end of the century, meaning most of their career was played in the 80s and the early to mid 90s, when pitches largely assisted bowlers, bowling stocks were higher and so on. Ganguly and Ponting began their careers in 1996, and missed out on having to consistently play on bowler-fieldly pitches in a time when many nations had excellent bowling attacks and not just two or three.

Disagree.

Hooper and Ganguly comparisons is valid because the bulk of Ganguly's career intersects with Hooper's.
As per playing better bowling attacks, i disagree. I think the 90s in general had a higher bowling standard than the 80s.
The WI and NZ were diminished and the PAKs were diminished although not by much..... Wasim,Waqar,Mushie,Saqlain and Akhtar did make an awesome bowling combo...
But the 90s saw the excellent South African attack, the 90s saw an upgrade over the english attack from the late 80s, IND had a better bowling attack in the 90s, so did SL and AUS.

No i dont think Hooper or Steve Waugh faced better bowling attacks in the 80s than in the 90s...definately not Hooper who didnt have to face his own guys.

And in 96-2000 the pitches were still tilted towards the bowlers....albeit less so than before.

Irrespective of that, It is categoric that Ganguly has a better record than Hooper almost universally and Hooper's career shouldnt have progressed beyond a dozen or two matches.
People have too short a memory....they tend to forget that Tendulkar in the 90s was a devastatingly explosive batsman who was breathtaking to watch, they forget that Ganguly had the BEST offside game in his pomp and was a worldclass bat who is now clearly past it.

 

[tooextracool]

Well i was looking at it from ALL overseas conditions....anyways....the gap between performances where Murali outstrips Warne is larger than performances where warne outstrips Murali.
Statistical analysis proves that.

clearly.....


warne away 63 2956.1 7713 296 7/165 11/229 26.05 2.60 59.9 15 3
murali away 38 2037.2 5114 190 9/65 16/220 26.91 2.51 64.3 14 3

i dont know about you, but warne has a marginally better average and a much better SR than murali.

in that case, shut up and dont butt in without understanding statistics when one is talking about statistics. Kapische ? you dont know ****-all about statistical analysis and you arnt inclined to LEARN either, so i suggest, with due respect, STFU.
This is akin to George Bush arguing with a NASA technician about superconductors and tells him 'i dont understand this, i dont care to understand this, but i am right'.
If there ever was a PhD for being a Moron, i would grant it to you with distinction..

because statistics is the be all and end all isnt it?
this clearly is why you can never be a cricketing expert. because you have absolutely you couldnt diffrentiate between 2 bowlers without statistical data.

Fine...scratch Gunaratne then. I maintain that ponting and Gilly are better players of spin apart from the big 4 of the SL lineup(Jaya,Mahela,Sangy and Atapattu) whereas Lehmann, Hayden,etc. are comparable to Mahela and Sangy.

a) you still havent explained why gilly is better than dilshan against spin. despite the fact that ive already shown you that gilchrists record against india and SL is just as abysmal as dilshans. ponting, well i dont even need to talk about his record in india. ask me and even vaas is a better player of spin than him.
b) well done in including 2 players of spin from australia, and comparing them to SL's 4. you really are a fool, your post only proves my point further.

Overall, the OZ lineup is pretty competent against spin but murali is only one bowler....the SL lineup is not nearly as confident against pace as OZ is against spin and McGrath-Gillespie exerts a lot more pressure than Vaas-noname does.

all complete garbage as has been shown earlier. the fact that murali bowls with more support might actually help him instead of the contrary.

No. That was selective stats. I showed you the stats for those nations and like i said, Murali is more successful against BETTER players of spin than Warne is.

like india for example, oh wait thats not the case. get over it, if murali was a better spinner than he would have a better average than warne against the so called 'poor players of spin', when in fact he doesnt.

It was nowhere close to being a raging turner...maybe by English standards but point is, Warne has had several shots on pitches like that in ENG as well..

yes and hes also bowled well on several wickets on non turners in england. muralis record bar that one turner(which i maintain was a raging turner) is very ordinary.

His ton against OZ in the first match in OZ.

yes against bracken, bichel, macgill and co. give him a medal. hes been absymal in pretty much every series in which hes played mcgrath and warne.

Ganguly isnt a great but he is overall a very good batsman...definately better than Butcher-Hussain-Hooper-Adams-McKenzie etc. kinda batsmen..

butcher and hussain are far better players than ganguly will ever be.they've succeeded against the best bowling attacks in the world. hooper too is better than ganguly, played better attacks during his career. adams was average after injury, every fool knows that. mckenzie is not test class and hes not even in the test side, whatever hes supposed to prove, i'll never know.

Better record against good players of spin ( IND, WI)

even though his record in india is worse than warne's......and please since when is WI good players off spin? only lara, chanderpaul and to an extent hooper are good players of spin. the rest are all extremely ordinary.

Better overall record

yes in SL, warne averages better away from home than murali. warne averages better in SL than murali himself.

Higher average, more wickets/match ratio, higher consistency than Warne DESPITE bowling in a far inferior bowling unit.
Seems quiete clear cut to me.

what part of 'murali bowls on absolute dust bowls at home while warne doesnt get the opportunity to do so on his home wickets' do you not understand?

Perhaps, but since you've already declared your ignorance and reluctance about statistics and since it is called bowling statistics i suggest you shut it and let others talk about it who arnt as ignorant about it as you are.

yes you've come up with such fabulous stats too, murali averages more than warne against poor players of spin, clearly bradmanesque. oh yes but his overall average is better than warnes' conveniently forgetting that he plays half his tests on dustbowls.

I am gonna say this once so hear it well. If you wanna talk to me like the average chaprasi, then go find that level with someone else.
The random score was to demonstrate the similar scenarios that Warne finds himself bowling in as opposed to Murali.... McGrath-Gillespie-Kaspa/Fleming are FAR more consistent in scalping the top order compaerd to Vaas-Dilshan-whatever and Warne faces fresh batsmen/defensive batsmen FAR more often than Murali, who usually has 1 or none wickets down when he comes on to bowl.

im going to say it for the 1 millionth time. maybe it might get thro to your limited brain cells this time. fact is that warne bowls to far more set batsmen than murali does, because the quality of the australian bowling attack means that hes far more likely to bowl when batsman are in a partnership, because those bowlers dont get taken off otherwise.

Yes i do. but more to the point, i think i understand it FAR better than you do..

clearly, since you know so much about how poor gunaratne has been as a test player, even though hes never played a test. add that with your fabulous understanding of how saeed anwar couldnt play quality bowling, despite his domination of australia.

Wickets falling or not falling, that is irrelvant. your body is spending energy running in and tossing the ball and after a while you are TIRED. irrespective of whether 2 wickets are down or 6, you are tired and off you go. Which is why you see captains take off bowlers after 8-9 over spells(pacers)...give or take a over or two irrespective of their record.
Nomatter how well they are bowling, you NEVER see McGrath/Ambrose/Pollock etc. bowling 25 overs on the trot.
That is why you see bowlers who have spell stat of 10-4-15-3 get replaced by another simply because they are TIRED.

seriously do you have any clue what you are talking about?
you must be an absolute fool if you thought that bowlers take wickets frequently for 25 overs. what instead happens is that they bowl 6 overs, and if they take a couple of wickets, they carry on bowling until they stop taking wickets. you can almost guarantee that if mcgrath took a wicket in his 10th over, he'll still be bowling in the 11th over, and the over after that. you dont see people bowl 25 overs on the trot, because eventually, they stop taking wickets for an extended period, which may either be because the batsmen are playing them well or because they're considerably tired. either way the batsman has got his eye in by then.

 

[tooextracool]

no no tec, i that group only Langer & symonds can be classed in the category of really poor players of spin. Not that i'm saying ponting is any great player againts spin it is his weakness, but if you look at it Ponting has had 7 different tours of the sub continent 3 vs India, 2 vs Pakistan & 2 vs Sri Lanka. If you look at it he only real horrible time againts the spinners came in that remarkable 2001 series & in 1998 were he barely averaged 20 odd other than that he had has a good series in SRI in 1999 were i remember he was the only aussie batsmen who made good scores in that series while in 2004 he made alot of starts but never got on except for the 90 odd in the 3rd test, his two tours to pakistan were good so to me regarding ponting has a a poor player of spin is a bit harsh i would say he is good enough.

Hayden just attakcs spinners he not like Lara who for me is the best player of spin i've seen who plays spinners with such ease, that attacking nature againts spinners has been successful for hayden somewhat on his 3 Tours in the Sub-Continent.

Lehmann on the other hand has always been regarded has a good player of spin bowling in Sri Lanka he was excellent while in IND he had a indiffent 3 test but overall he was by no mean a poor player of spin

i meant that lehmann, hayden and martyn are all very good players of spin, while the rest are nothing special. as far as ponting vs pakistan is concerned, pakistan havent had a quality spinner for a while, and they havent had spinner friendly wickets for quite a while too. so his scoring runs there is irrelevant. hes only had 1 successful series against spin, hes been miserable against india for all his career and he was ordinary during his last series against spin.

 

[tooextracool]

For pacers...even medium pacers like McGrath, 15-16 overs is really stretching it but have seen it done....but i dont agree with TEC's idea that bowlers just keep on bowling if wickets are falling.....
if a team crawls to 50/6 off 35 overs, you wont see the new ball bowler take mark for his 18th straight over..... most of the times, bowlers get replaced after 7-12 overs due to exhaustion.

if a team is 50/6 after 35 overs, you can almost guarantee that theres been an extended period where a bowler didnt take wickets. whenever that scenario occured, that bowler gets taken off, its as simple as that. you'd have to be a complete fool if you took mcgrath off at any point of that 16 over spell.

 

[tooextracool]

A player who is that much behind in the average CANNOT be compared. period. Punto finale.
Understand ?

I dont care how classy he looked or if he has a century against the aussies or not...>FACT is, he is a MUCH poorer batsman than ganguly because good attack or bad attack, he has NOT PRODUCED as well as Ganguly has.

And irrespective of how 'classy' you look, you are only as good as you produce. Period.

clearly, now what we need is for players to produce against bangladesh, zimbabwe and other poor attacks. get over it, the best players are the ones that produce their performances when the team needs them the most, which is something that ganguly rarely ever did.

 

[C_C]

Okay this insanely long messages are gonna stop. breakdown into threes.

------------------------------------

i dont know about you, but warne has a marginally better average and a much better SR than murali.

Read again what i said. Comprende ?

because statistics is the be all and end all isnt it?
this clearly is why you can never be a cricketing expert. because you have absolutely you couldnt diffrentiate between 2 bowlers without statistical data.

Statistics is all that MATTER because statistics is the best reflection of the bottomline- the production of a player. And FYI, i think you are yet to produce any analytical insights into the game like many here have.

a) you still havent explained why gilly is better than dilshan against spin. despite the fact that ive already shown you that gilchrists record against india and SL is just as abysmal as dilshans. ponting, well i dont even need to talk about his record in india. ask me and even vaas is a better player of spin than him.

Pitches in SL are different than pitches in IND..IND has more variable bounce(punter's nemesis) while lankan pitches turn more.
And Gilly is a better batsman than Dilshan against spin because he plays it a lot more confidently than Dilshan does.

 

[tooextracool]

No, tendulkar and lara cannot be compared from a statistical average standpoint...richards and ponting is another matter...they were different eras....hooper and ganguly are not....ganguly played most of his career with hoopers and consistently outperformed him.

in the time that hooper and ganguly's career crossed 96-02, hooper averaged 41.2, ganguly averaged 40.5 during the same period. so well done with that sherlock. 'consistently outperformed him', is it?

 

[C_C]

in the time that hooper and ganguly's career crossed 96-02, hooper averaged 41.2, ganguly averaged 40.5 during the same period. so well done with that sherlock. 'consistently outperformed him', is it?

By that definition, Ritchie richardson consistently outperformed Richards post 86...so he is better isnt it ?
THe overlap is to establish significance of direct comparisons. Dont forget that by the time 96 rolled around Hooper was a vet and Ganguly was a debutant.
Aso dont forget that entire career in perspective, Ganguly faced better attacks than Hooper has and again with entire career in perspective Ganguly outperformed hoops.

 

[tooextracool]

Read again what i said. Comprende ?

you said you were looking at all overseas conditions, i just showed you that warne has a better overall overseas average than murali. whether or not the gap is bigger in certain countries is irrelevant.

Statistics is all that MATTER because statistics is the best reflection of the bottomline- the production of a player. And FYI, i think you are yet to produce any analytical insights into the game like many here have.

thats because you cant read english. my insights about several players is far more than what you can even dream off. of course mr pathan is the next akram because akram says so knows more than me.
and as far as stats being the be all and end all is concerned, then you can tell me all about how hayden is a better player than viv richards and steve waugh.

Pitches in SL are different than pitches in IND..IND has more variable bounce(punter's nemesis) while lankan pitches turn more.
And Gilly is a better batsman than Dilshan against spin because he plays it a lot more confidently than Dilshan does.

this is absolute rubbish. how in the blue hell do you get 'he plays it more confidentally than dilshan does' as a way to prove your point i'll never know. and this comes from the guy who just said that statistics is the be all and end all. you are a real fool, if you want to prove something at least come out with facts, instead of some of the garbage that you continue to post when you know absolutely nothing about the game.
and even a fool knows that pitches in india are slow and low, while pitches in SL offer more turn and uneven bounce than any other place in the world.

 

[C_C]

b) well done in including 2 players of spin from australia, and comparing them to SL's 4. you really are a fool, your post only proves my point further.

Hayden/Lehmann = as good as any lankan player against spin.
Gilly/Ponting better than the 5th/6th ranked players in lankan lineup or comparable to say the least.
Overall the OZ lineup is just as competitive against spin as the lankan lineup is.

all complete garbage as has been shown earlier. the fact that murali bowls with more support might actually help him instead of the contrary.

The above quote is garbage. Murali bowls with more support ? dunno about you but i think practically anyone will take Pidge-Dizzy over Vaas-Dilshan/Malinga/whatever

yes against bracken, bichel, macgill and co. give him a medal. hes been absymal in pretty much every series in which hes played mcgrath and warne.

Irrespective of that, he had some good knocks against wasim-waqar etc....and his knock was an excellent knock as gillespie-mcgill arnt exactly pedestrian.

 

[tooextracool]

By that definition, Ritchie richardson consistently outperformed Richards post 86...so he is better isnt it ?
THe overlap is to establish significance of direct comparisons. Dont forget that by the time 96 rolled around Hooper was a vet and Ganguly was a debutant.
Aso dont forget that entire career in perspective, Ganguly faced better attacks than Hooper has and again with entire career in perspective Ganguly outperformed hoops.

err hooper played the same attacks that ganguly faced during that period. its extremely unfair to compare the 2 form what hooper did pre 96, given that he played better attacks than what ganguly could barely score a run against.
as far as richie vs richards is concerned, every fool whos ever watched a ball of cricket knows that richards post 86 was a shade of his former self, so whatever he did after that barely proves anything. ganguly 96-02 is infact what most people would claim was the prime of his career. as far as not including ganguly's early years to his career, you wont be doing yourself too many favors if you disclude it, given that he averaged 50 and 56 in his first 2 years,and it was before most bowlers knew how to bowl to him.

 

[C_C]

[quotemy insights about several players is far more than what you can even dream off. of course mr pathan is the next akram because akram says so knows more than me.[/quote]

Self praise is the lowest pittance really. I am reluctant to indulge in the same game but i would like to point out my analysis of sehwag and mcgrath that involve a degree of analysis that i have never seen from you. And you can stop putting words in my mouth. I said Pathan LOOKS like Akram in his bowling and Akram said so himself.... nowhere did i say Pathan is AS GOOD AS AKRAM and i categorically denied that infact.

and as far as stats being the be all and end all is concerned, then you can tell me all about how hayden is a better player than viv richards and steve waugh.

Clearly like i said and you admitted, you know diddly squat about statistical analysis.... statistical analysis is comparing the stats with proper correction levels due to different conditions...not just flat out '55.45 ave vs 51.12 ave' comparisons.

how in the blue hell do you get 'he plays it more confidentally than dilshan does' as a way to prove your point i'll never know.

how in the blue hell do you say then that blahblah is better against spin than blahblah if its not based on how they play spin bowling..DOH!

and even a fool knows that pitches in india are slow and low, while pitches in SL offer more turn and uneven bounce than any other place in the world.

A fool (like you perhaps) may think that.
But people who watch the game know that Indian pitches offer more uneven bounce as the match progresses while SL pitches offer more and more turn with fairly consistent bounce.

 

[tooextracool]

Hayden/Lehmann = as good as any lankan player against spin..

yes those are 2 players..... as opposed to 4 SLs

Gilly/Ponting better than the 5th/6th ranked players in lankan lineup or comparable to say the least.
Overall the OZ lineup is just as competitive against spin as the lankan lineup is.

conveniently forgetting jayasuriya, and jayawardhene(or whichever 2 you wanna choose) who are far better players than langer, symonds and whatever garbage player australia served up during the series bar martyn.

The above quote is garbage. Murali bowls with more support ? dunno about you but i think practically anyone will take Pidge-Dizzy over Vaas-Dilshan/Malinga/whatever.

you know what i meant. let me alter that, 'the fact that he bowls with less support actually helps him'.

Irrespective of that, he had some good knocks against wasim-waqar etc....and his knock was an excellent knock as gillespie-mcgill arnt exactly pedestrian.

gillespie was half fit and it was increasingly obvious during that series, and macgill is nothing other than pedestrian. stop being a complete moron and including poor bowlers to try and suit your argument, especiall considering that ive never said that ganguly was a poor player of spin and that his weakness lies against good pace bowling.
as far as wasim akram and waqar younis are concerned, waqar was past his prime and was a very ordinary bowler post 96. wasim wasnt anything special post 98. irrespective of all that ganguly averaged a whole 34 against those 2, again very ordinary.

 

[C_C]

given that he played better attacks than what ganguly could barely score a run against.

Incorrect. The only attack Hooper played in the 80s that was worse off in the 90s was the kiwi attack...with PAK attack extremely even...OZ were better in the 90s, so were ENG, SL,RSA enters the picture etc etc.

 

[C_C]

like india for example, oh wait thats not the case. get over it, if murali was a better spinner than he would have a better average than warne against the so called 'poor players of spin', when in fact he doesnt.

The test for the best is how you do against the best of the best. Not against mediocre alsorans.
Murali does overall better than Warne against the better players of spin. Period.

yes and hes also bowled well on several wickets on non turners in england. muralis record bar that one turner(which i maintain was a raging turner) is very ordinary.

Same for Warne then...you have the amazing knack of making the pitch 'very friendly therefore not a challenge' for players you dont like....the tendy collusion theory was hillarious to say the least.

butcher and hussain are far better players than ganguly will ever be.they've succeeded against the best bowling attacks in the world. hooper too is better than ganguly, played better attacks during his career. adams was average after injury, every fool knows that. mckenzie is not test class and hes not even in the test side, whatever hes supposed to prove, i'll never know.

Adams's injury played a part but he was found out later on due to his vulnerability outside the offstump and stuff bowled onto his body. Butcher and Hussain are not as good as ganguly...they are worse..simply because performance against one team is NOT the criteria and even then Butcher and ganguly are pretty close against OZ... virtually no difference...but he blows butcher to pieces against other attacks.
Hooper isnt as good either...simply because he didnt perform nearly as good overall.

even though his record in india is worse than warne's......and please since when is WI good players off spin? only lara, chanderpaul and to an extent hooper are good players of spin. the rest are all extremely ordinary.

note that Murali hasnt played in India for a while and Warne has improved it only recently...Murali gets his shot later this year...and i am willing to bet he will have better figures than Warne. And yes, WI are better players of spin throught he 90s and beyond than ENG, NZ, PAK(except when Ijaz-Anwar played together), RSA etc.

warne averages better in SL than murali himself

I will not repeat myself more than once. I have already said why comparing murali to warne in oz or in sl is irrelevant due to huge statistical discrepancy.

oh yes but his overall average is better than warnes' conveniently forgetting that he plays half his tests on dustbowls.

okay then. In other words, when not on dustbowls, Murali is a shade behind Warne...when On dustbowls, he is FAR FAR better than Warne. Good enough ?

what instead happens is that they bowl 6 overs, and if they take a couple of wickets, they carry on bowling until they stop taking wickets

No...they may continue on if they took a wicket but they stop their spell when they stop taking wickets or get tired.

u can almost guarantee that if mcgrath took a wicket in his 10th over, he'll still be bowling in the 11th over, and the over after that.

But you wont see McGrath bowl 20 over straight even if he has figures of 19-9-29-3 or so.

you dont see people bowl 25 overs on the trot, because eventually, they stop taking wickets for an extended period, which may either be because the batsmen are playing them well or because they're considerably tired.

There are numerous instances when bowlers ( McGrath in the past, Ambrose, Akram etc.) have stopped despite taking a wicket in their last over....simply because they are too effin tired!
If you did watch more cricket you'd know that.

 

[tooextracool]

Self praise is the lowest pittance really. I am reluctant to indulge in the same game but i would like to point out my analysis of sehwag and mcgrath that involve a degree of analysis that i have never seen from you. And you can stop putting words in my mouth. I said Pathan LOOKS like Akram in his bowling and Akram said so himself.... nowhere did i say Pathan is AS GOOD AS AKRAM and i categorically denied that infact..

oh yes, your analysis of sehwag, which even a fool could have done given what hes accomplished. seriously how many people didnt know that sehwag didnt have one of the best eyes in the game today? please those who didnt know that put your hands up.
as far as mcgrath is concerned, i have no idea which post you are referring to and again, im fairly sure that it would be nothing special.
if you want analysis read some of my quotes, i was in fact the one that said immediately after geraint jones made his 100 against NZ that he had problems with shot selection and played his strokes too early in his innings. at the time when people were comparing him to gilchrist too. and look what happened.
who predicted while fleming was scoring runs prolifically at the top of the order that fleming should be batting down the order because he would eventually be found out?
oh yes me again.
who was it that claimed that pathan had to make serious improvements without which he would be a very poor bowler?
wait me again.
simply telling me what everyone knows about a player-such as mcgrath as 'sehwag is a very good player because' doesnt tell me anymore or less than what everyone already knows. nor of course can it relate to anything brilliant. if you could however tell me that successful players would be complete failures in the future or vice versa in the midst of all their glory, i would however give you a pat on the back

Clearly like i said and you admitted, you know diddly squat about statistical analysis.... statistical analysis is comparing the stats with proper correction levels due to different conditions...not just flat out '55.45 ave vs 51.12 ave' comparisons.

even though i never once claimed that i knew nothing about statistics. i said i couldnt give a flying **** about it, which is completely different. as far as im concerned even my maid could decide pretty much how to use statistics.

how in the blue hell do you say then that blahblah is better against spin than blahblah if its not based on how they play spin bowling..DOH!.

because of their records maybe?
gilchrist averages in the low 30s against spin, which surprise surprise is exactly the same as dilshans career average. you're saying that he looks more comfortable against spin is simply opinion, it doesnt prove anything at all.

A fool (like you perhaps) may think that.
But people who watch the game know that Indian pitches offer more uneven bounce as the match progresses while SL pitches offer more and more turn with fairly consistent bounce.

no it doesnt, you clearly dont watch much cricket at all. indian wickets have for such a long time offered slow low turning wickets, its simply insane. nearly every test off late has been a slow turning wicket.

 

[tooextracool]

Incorrect. The only attack Hooper played in the 80s that was worse off in the 90s was the kiwi attack...with PAK attack extremely even...OZ were better in the 90s, so were ENG, SL,RSA enters the picture etc etc.

are you out of your mind?
do you seriously think that hooper playing imran, wasim and qadir is equivalent to ganguly playing waqar and wasim past their prime? you really are a strange person.
similarly when he scored his 178* against waqar and wasim in their pomp in 92.
and hooper played on far more seamer friendly wickets than ganguly ever will.

 

[C_C]

yes those are 2 players..... as opposed to 4 SLs

READ ON...Hayden and Lehmann are as good as the best SL players of spin.... Clarke is pretty gooddamn good against spin.....so make that 3 of the OZ as good as 4 SL.... Langer/Ponting as good as their 5th/6th player and Gilly....while not exactly GREAT against spin is better than their 7th batsman or so(if you can call him that).
Overall it balances out....The OZ lineup is about as good against spin on turners(like SL tracks) as the SL batsmen....

conveniently forgetting jayasuriya, and jayawardhene(or whichever 2 you wanna choose) who are far better players than langer, symonds and whatever garbage player australia served up during the series bar martyn.

Didnt know tht jayasurya/jayawardene = 5th/6th best SL batsmen

gillespie was half fit and it was increasingly obvious during that series, and macgill is nothing other than pedestrian. stop being a complete moron and including poor bowlers to try and suit your argument, especiall considering that ive never said that ganguly was a poor player of spin and that his weakness lies against good pace bowling.

Gillespie was half fit ? 140kph bowling from Dizzy is hardly half fit....and he played the 2nd test as well while dropping out for the 3rd... The aussie standards are pretty damn high and they dont field injured players for 2 games straight....this isnt BCCI you are talkin about.
Gilly GOT injured in the 2nd test because the IND massacred the OZ bowling and Gillespie was forced to bowl 40 overs in an innings...which is enough to make most pacers pull a muscle or three.
He was in pretty fine form in the 1st test and peppered ganguly with short pitched stuff which ganguly hammered away.You can stop altering facts for now.

waqar was past his prime and was a very ordinary bowler post 96. wasim wasnt anything special post 98. irrespective of all that ganguly averaged a whole 34 against those 2, again very ordinary.

Wasim had quiete decent in 99 ( 26 ave) and pretty good in 2000 ( 24 ave)... Saqlain was at his best and Akhtar was entering his prime ( 21,17,12 ave subsequent seasons). Would rate that attack better than any attack playing currently except the aussies and a shade or two behind them at that.
And its interesting...when we talk about ganguly we pull up overall figures against the so-n-so bowlers...but when we talk about hooper or butcher, its selective 'look at that series and this series' blahblah....
Well PAK series vs IND....gangs had 40+ ave.