Instagram


The Cricket Paper

Sohail Speaks Yasir's Blog Fazeer's Focus

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 81 to 90 of 90
  1. #81
    Debut
    Jul 2013
    Venue
    Canada
    Runs
    1,773
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Courtney Walsh, Because Walsh had to operate in Shadow of greats like Malcolm Marshall, Curtly Ambrose etc Who would take bulk of the wickets. But he still managed to out last them and went on to get 519 wickets The most by any West Indian Bowler.

  2. #82
    Debut
    Jan 2017
    Runs
    616
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sensible-indian-fan View Post
    If a desi has Pollock stats and is not rated ATG, there would be riots. lol.

    Pollock is an ATG bowler and ATG allrounder and MILES better than any current AR we have now.

    Ben Stokes, Shakib, Ashwin, Jadeja, Moeen - BIG LOL.
    It's insanely disrespectful to compare current lolrounders to the great Pollock, that dude could get into any team with just bowling alone. He's MILES better than any present day bowler bar Steyn. Pollock is criminally underrated

  3. #83
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    5,454
    Mentioned
    212 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Gomes View Post
    It's insanely disrespectful to compare current lolrounders to the great Pollock, that dude could get into any team with just bowling alone. He's MILES better than any present day bowler bar Steyn. Pollock is criminally underrated
    If you exclude just Australia from his record, he has taken 381 wickets in 95 tests at an average of 21.67. His highest bowling against any team is 23.73 which is England. His highest average in any country is 28.75 in WI and 27.38 in India. He averages 22.55 in Pakistan and 25.13 in SL.

    These are insanely good numbers, far better than majority of top tier ATG fast bowlers.

    The only team against which he completely failed was Australia but it does not matter because all great players had one or two bogey teams. Warne is still the GOAT spinner even though he was pedestrian in India. The same applies to Pollock who was a beast against all other teams.

    Especially, in the 90s Pollock was one of the best bowlers I have ever watched.

  4. #84
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    5,454
    Mentioned
    212 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Odd_One View Post
    If you exclude just Australia from his record, he has taken 381 wickets in 95 tests at an average of 21.67. His highest bowling against any team is 23.73 which is England. His highest average in any country is 28.75 in WI and 27.38 in India. He averages 22.55 in Pakistan and 25.13 in SL.

    These are insanely good numbers, far better than majority of top tier ATG fast bowlers.

    The only team against which he completely failed was Australia but it does not matter because all great players had one or two bogey teams. Warne is still the GOAT spinner even though he was pedestrian in India. The same applies to Pollock who was a beast against all other teams.

    Especially, in the 90s Pollock was one of the best bowlers I have ever watched.
    After his first 75 tests, Pollock had 303 wickets at 20.87 average. If these numbers alone do not make him an ATG bowler, then I am not sure what else will.

    Highest ICC ranking #1, highest rating 909 point, spent majority of his career over the 750 mark.

  5. #85
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    21,940
    Mentioned
    593 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Gomes View Post
    Pollock is criminally underrated
    It's because he was always playing second fiddle to Donald.

  6. #86
    Debut
    Jun 2010
    Runs
    8,280
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo23 View Post
    few months back someone made an interesting argument and no one was able to make a convincing reply

    i am not sure but i think it was @Mamoon or @Tusker

    basically if we agree that modern batsmen have boosted averages because of flat pitches and big bats then that means that the impact has been the opposite on the modern bowlers

    so if a 50 average batsman would average 35 20 years ago than that means that a 27 average bowler like anderson would be averaging 20-21 in previous era which makes him as good as the best bowlers in history like marshall,wasim,mcgrath,imran etc

    similarly considering it is a batsman's era now the great bowlers of the 70s and 80s would have higher bowling averages and strike rates today

    imo it is a very solid argument that bridges the gap between modern and past players and shows that the old is gold notion is a myth

    @New Yorker

    your views?
    It is a solid argument. Some observations.

    1. Batting has become easier today, but this does not automatically revise batting averages in a linear fashion. It means more batsmen are able to make soft runs, the biggest beneficiaries being the less gifted ones who have narrowed their gap with the more gifted ones. But best batsmen of this era or of any era would not average 75 or even 65 now.

    2. Bowling is a hard job in this era. Because more runs are scored - partly because wickets are a bit more flatter and partly because the batsmen are more positive and score faster. Tail resistance is a bigger issue today than in the past, and this does seriously affect bowling averages. Many teams bat deep, sometimes as far down as #10. So running through the tail, which was one of the major reasons for low 20 averages in the past is generally not sustainable today.

    3. In the past these were the tentative benchmarks for batsmen and bowlers. (of course exceptions apply). Only talking about guys who have durability and play atleast 100 tests or somewhere close. (Maybe 75 tests is good enough sample size for earlier eras)

    Batsmen(averages)
    50+ - ATG batsman
    45-50 - Great
    40-45 - Good
    Bowlers:
    <25 - ATG
    25-30 -- Great
    30-35 -- Good

    But now, this is not the case. It is more like
    Batsmen
    55+ - ATG
    50 - 55 - Great
    45-50 -' Good

    Bowlers
    <30 - ATG
    30-35 - Great
    35-40 - Good

    Regarding performance in overseas conditions, we need to make a bit more relaxation while comparing players across eras. During this decade we are seeing too many overseas whitewashes and thrashings on a scale not witnessed in earlier decades. I dont know the exact reason but I think it has a lot to do with the hurried nature of tours today (due to the proliferation of IPL like windows?), with fewer practice matches for the visiting side to become familiar with alien conditions.

  7. #87
    Debut
    Nov 2015
    Runs
    2,467
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianWillow View Post
    I was only pointing to the fact that athletes in general, only improve over time. Records are broken in every olympics. So why not in cricket? Why should ATGs suddenly disappear in this decade when cricket enjoys much patronage and when there is much more at stake for the players to show intent.

    Players continue to get fitter and more skilful due to better training methods and this is why we see new records getting broken in various sports. Modern cricketers benefit too. It is somehow a fashion to say "Old is gold". Every earlier generation likes to boast that their generation players were somehow superior to the current generation. So we hear comments like Bradman would average 100 even today. Or that Walsh would average 24 today with the 'mighty' support of 'Ambrose' Broad at the other end, even in overseas conditions. Unless we try to properly try to measure the direction of evolution of the game over time, we may not be able to compare players who played across different eras.

    Game priorities have changed dramatically since the T20s came along. Test matches are played at a faster clip and always result oriented - draws are becoming less common, more runs are scored, even tailenders these days are no pushovers and cant always be dismissed cheaply. This has resulted in both bowlers and batsmen playing the game with a different mindset and goals than in the past. Batsmen are more attacking and bowlers a bit more defensive this decade( for example, even a 4th innings target of 350-400 is no longer considered safe and could be chased down in 75 overs by a motivated team - not at all normal in the past), compared to the previous eras. Stats based comparisions across eras have to be done very carefully.
    I don't think anyone has much invested in the idea that he would average precisely the same.

    What is quite remarkable is the proposition that he would do no better than 50. It is literally not believable.

  8. #88
    Debut
    Nov 2015
    Runs
    2,467
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo23 View Post
    few months back someone made an interesting argument and no one was able to make a convincing reply

    i am not sure but i think it was @Mamoon or @Tusker

    basically if we agree that modern batsmen have boosted averages because of flat pitches and big bats then that means that the impact has been the opposite on the modern bowlers

    so if a 50 average batsman would average 35 20 years ago than that means that a 27 average bowler like anderson would be averaging 20-21 in previous era which makes him as good as the best bowlers in history like marshall,wasim,mcgrath,imran etc

    similarly considering it is a batsman's era now the great bowlers of the 70s and 80s would have higher bowling averages and strike rates today

    imo it is a very solid argument that bridges the gap between modern and past players and shows that the old is gold notion is a myth

    @New Yorker

    your views?
    I have made that argument a few times. It applies also to the common habit of PPers to devalue domestic performance. People are entitled to skepticism, but they should not get away with devalue domestic batsmen *and* bowlers at the same time. If it is ridiculously easy to bat then it should be fiendishly difficult to bowl.

    Old is gold is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. There are too many contingencies at play to
    make broad generalizations like that. Players like Sobers and Viv were extraordinary, and as of yet unsurpassed
    in their skill, but that does not mean that everyone of that era was a great.

    What we can observe is that for all the changes that cricket has undergone, standards, in terms of averages i both batting and bowling, have remained remarkably constant, internationally, and domestically across countries. It is incredibly rare to find batsmen who breach the 55-60 limit in any context, or bowlers who go below 20.

    I don't think this argument has much to bear on Anderson's case, however. Only late in his career has Anderson
    become a truly top notch bowler. He regularly averages 20 something per year these days, which means that as far as he is concerned, it has not become difficult to bowl, on the contrary. He has a high career average because of his middling performances in the years following his debut; a time when other bowlers were outperforming him by a margin of 10 points or more .Thus also giving lie to the notion that his standard was the gold standard of the time.

  9. #89
    Debut
    Jan 2017
    Runs
    616
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    It's because he was always playing second fiddle to Donald.
    Not in the 90s. Pollock was the second best after Ambrose

  10. #90
    Debut
    Jun 2017
    Runs
    1,275
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Gomes View Post
    Not in the 90s. Pollock was the second best after Ambrose
    Statistically maybe but 90s was all about donald

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •