concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by P.Ganesh Murth » Fri, 03 Nov 1995 04:00:00


Hi all ,

There have a been a good many posts of late comparing Warne to the
Indian trio and qadir , and the posters in particular Joshua and
Raja J , have exercised a considerable difference of opinion.

Joshua presented for his argument a Table of averages etc , and
commented that is "easy" to compare warne to qadir right now with
warne being atleast on the same level as Qadir , and that Warne is
comparable to the Indian trio of Pras , Bedi and Chandra. One of
his points is that while the Indian trio averaged about 29 , and
Qadir ~32 , Warne has his entry marked at ~24 .

Well , its all fine to put forth a table of numbers , but let us
look at the performances of the trio comparing one of them , say,
chandrashekar with warne , on the basis of the batting lineups
confronted :

year tests opp  batting-lineup        wickets  runs  average
------------------------------------------------------------
64  4    Eng   edrich,cowdrey,barrington  9   341    37.88
65  2    Aus   Lawry,simpson,redpath      9   162     18
65  2    NZ    Congdon,Reid,Dowling       8   292    36.5
67  3    WI    Hunte,Kanhai,Lloyd,sobers  18  472    26.2
67  3    Eng   edrich,boycott,barrington
               Graveney,Oliviera,Amiss    16  405    25.3
69  2    Aus   Lawry,stackpole,Ian Chapell
               Walters,Redpath            1   174    174
71  3    Eng   Boycott,Edrich,Amiss
               Oliviera , Knott           13  379    29.1
73  2    Eng   Amiss,Knott,Boycott        2   88     44
74  4    WI    Fredricks,Greenidge,Richards
               Kallicharan , Lloyd        14  579    41.3
76  3    NZ    Turner,Congdon             11  294    26.7
76  4    WI    Fredricks,Rowe,Lloyd
               Kallicharan,Richards       21  656    31.2
77  5    Eng   Amiss,Randall,Knott        19  537    28.2
78  3    Pak   Majid ,Muddasar,Zaheer
               Miandad,Asif Iqbal,Imran   8   385    48.1
79  4    WI    Kallicharan,Gomes,Bacchus  12  431    35.9
79  1    Eng   Boycott,Gooch,Gower,Randall
                          botham           1  113    113
--------------------------------------------------------
    45                                    162
--------------------------------------------------------

If you look at the table above , you'll notice that i have
included chandra's performances only against the Great
Batting lineups , and left out , say , performances against
teams with 1 or 2 good batsmen . Just look at his performance-
 45 out of 58 tests taking two thirds of his wickets against
the great batting lineups , some probably the greatest of all
time ! . If you bother so muchas to calculate his average from
 the table above , you'll probably find them in the mid-30's.
The same holds for Pras and Bedi . Each time they set
out to bowl , the odds were that they were confronting the
great batting lineups.

Consider now the current spinners choosing , say , Warne and
Kumble for analysis . The only quality spin players they have
faced are Malik ,Haynes,R'son,Lara,Tendulkar,Gooch,Cronje,Crowe
-none of whom have shown any particular problems against them.
Take Warne - When warne toured NZ , he confornted crowe in only
1 test out of 3 (crowe scored 73 ,0) ; again crowe played
reasonably when NZ toured Aus in 93-94. During the WI tour of
Aus in 92' Warne did not get either Lara or Haynes Even once
(of course , Haynes didnt last long enough to face warne and
warne didnt have much of a go in Adelaide and Perth).When Warne
faced Tendulkar,warne was still a rookie , and in his infancy.
The African attack he priced out included other than cronje ,
only wessels among the better players of spin ; and Malik***ed him.
Kumble ran thro' the Eng batting in 93' without much ado.Even
Rajesh Chauhan tormented them ! Kumble's performances against
SA , though not in the same league as Warne , was against a
fairly ordinary Batting lineup . This brings us to the point .
In my view , the quality of a batsman , averaging over the
top order of all current teams , has gone way down compared
to the 70's and 80's . Each of the current teams in fray have
either none or just a single or two good Batsmen . Not one of
them can be compared to the quality of Batting Qadir or Chandra
had to contend with .

Let me offer a couple of reasons for the late 20's-early 30's
averages of the Indian trio . The Indian bowling setup of the
70's meant that the spin trio were in action right thro' after
the handful of overs sent down by the shine-removers Abid,solkar
and Gavaskar , against the aforementioned might battign lineups.
Every time . Also 3 great bwlers in a side meant that wickets
had to be shared - in particular , even the spin-playing-weknesses
would be equally well exploited by all the 3 . Moreover the
performances of chandra tapered off severly in the last 2-3 years.
The closing years of a career with its (possible) deteriorated
performances is quite some way from both Warne and Kumble , and
is yet to seep down into the matrix of averages.

Regarding Qadir and Warne(Kumble)...In 83' against India , Imran
got the wickets , yet the batting order that Qadir faced read
Gavaskar , Srikanth ,Amarnath,Vengsarkar,Vishvanath,Patel,shastri
and Kapil dev . He ran into essentially the same batting lineup
in 87' . Had Qadir played the Banaglore test , he would have wrought
more havoc among the Indians than Qasim and Tauseef together could
do. When he shook the WI batting apart in 87' , it was not against
a bunch of kids but against Greenidge ,Haynes,R'son,Richards,Gomes
and Dujon!Even the then English team had a different look from the
current one , having in it Gooch,Gower,Lamb,Randall and Botham .
Again , the Aussie Vanguard read Yallop, Hughes,Greg Chapell and
Border . Would today's spinners have run thro' these mighty lineups ?
Would they frequently rip apart the Pak lineup of Majid Khan ,Muddasar
Zahher Abbas , Miandad , Asif Iqbal , Wasim Raja and Imran Khan ?
Regularly run thro' them ? Averaged 20-25 ?

Lets look at the stats again . Pras,Bedi,Chandra,Qadir average
in the late 20's-early 30's . Compare them with Warne ~24 and
Kumble 24.3 ! Ahem...! Raju ~28 , better than Pras !! And Tim
May ~34 better than Venkat ! Its striking to find that the
spin 4 greats fall in a totally different average-zone from the
current spinners...

In my view , any comparison of greats on stats in their present
form will only be inconclusive . While a wicket is wicket be it
of a great player or a tail ender , simply going by stats while
making comparisons will not yield any even somewhat reliable
results . The stats are woven with innumerable factors , that
are less understood , and often intricate and intangible .Stats
cannot be viewed in isolation from these concomitant factors,
that must be juxtaposed with it . In short , stats are not
context free but context sensitive.

.None of which is to discredit/traduce Warne and Kumble . Warne
is indeed the best spinner in business today , and has some of
those qualities of a great . Personally , i think he will do
well in India on the spinning tracks . He might  get thrashed
every once a while , but that is quite natural in any contest .
A little help from the wicket makes a great bowler unplayable,
yet the same bowler may be made to look pedestrian under slightly
mutated conditions . None of which takes away any greatness from
the bowlers or the Batsmen in question . The point i am making
is that rather than classify and settle the greatness of players
by means of stats , it might be insightful to use the stats to
understand the playing conditions in different eras , quality
of wickets , and numerous other factors...

Cheers,
   ganesh.

--
Ganesh Murthy
CS dept .,Purdue university.

Article Unavailable

 
 
 

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by Dinesh Katiy » Fri, 03 Nov 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

>Hi all ,

>There have a been a good many posts of late comparing Warne to the
>Indian trio and qadir , and the posters in particular Joshua and
>Raja J , have exercised a considerable difference of opinion.

>Joshua presented for his argument a Table of averages etc , and
>commented that is "easy" to compare warne to qadir right now with
>warne being atleast on the same level as Qadir , and that Warne is
>comparable to the Indian trio of Pras , Bedi and Chandra. One of
>his points is that while the Indian trio averaged about 29 , and
>Qadir ~32 , Warne has his entry marked at ~24 .

>Well , its all fine to put forth a table of numbers , but let us
>look at the performances of the trio comparing one of them , say,
>chandrashekar with warne , on the basis of the batting lineups
>confronted :

A nice analysis deleted.

Quote:
>Cheers,
>   ganesh.

>--
>Ganesh Murthy
>CS dept .,Purdue university.

Congratulations, Ganesh, on a wonderful article. I enjoyed reading it.

Raja J.

 
 
 

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by Stephen Devau » Sat, 04 Nov 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

>Hi all ,

>There have a been a good many posts of late comparing Warne to the
>Indian trio and qadir , and the posters in particular Joshua and
>Raja J , have exercised a considerable difference of opinion.

>Joshua presented for his argument a Table of averages etc , and
>commented that is "easy" to compare warne to qadir right now with
>warne being atleast on the same level as Qadir , and that Warne is
>comparable to the Indian trio of Pras , Bedi and Chandra. One of
>his points is that while the Indian trio averaged about 29 , and
>Qadir ~32 , Warne has his entry marked at ~24 .

(Lots of good stats, analysis, and reasoned argument snipped)

Quote:
>Cheers,
>   ganesh.

Good stuff, Ganesh.  Enjoyed it a lot.  However, one thing that it
pointed to is that Warne and Kumble are spinners whose stats are
comparable to their contemporary top pacers.  That really can't be said
of the Fab Four or Qadir.  Now the question remains: is this change due
to a changed context, or better skills?

Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan

 
 
 

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by Gopal K R » Sat, 04 Nov 1995 04:00:00

: Hi all ,
: in 87' . Had Qadir played the Banaglore test , he would have wrought
: more havoc among the Indians than Qasim and Tauseef together could
: .None of which is to discredit/traduce Warne and Kumble . Warne
: is indeed the best spinner in business today , and has some of
: those qualities of a great . Personally , i think he will do
: well in India on the spinning tracks . He might  get thrashed
: every once a while , but that is quite natural in any contest .
: A little help from the wicket makes a great bowler unplayable,
: yet the same bowler may be made to look pedestrian under slightly

[cogent and insightful analysis regretfully deleted]

It was indeed a terrific article. So while we are at it I would like to point
out that it was in the '86 series vs Australia that Indian batsmen first
failed to live to their reputation against spin. The tied test and the
weakness of the batsmen against Greg Matthews' sustained off-spinners
reduced the claims of "better-batsmen-against-spin" to a vain boast.
Pakistan in '87 once again exposed this chink in the Indian batting
armour. In this context it would be a fallacy to dismiss Warne as a
pedestrian bowler against India. An improved Warne along with the batting
line-up that Australia boast of is a bigger threat than Imran's team of
'87 was.
Another point worth noting is that India has not played a quality spin
bowler at his prime since '87. Till India proves itself it would be
foolish to dismiss Warne or even Mushtaq Ahmed.

-- Gopal K. Rao

 
 
 

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by R. Bharat R » Sat, 04 Nov 1995 04:00:00

Personally, I think Warne is the best spinner in the world today.  He
has proved himself; calling him one of the all-time greats is slightly
different, IMHO.  However, I also agree that his contest with the
Indian batsmen will make for an interesting clash.  If he averages
under 25/wicket on that tour in the Tests, I think he'll silence all
doubters.  If he averages over 35 (as someone else said), then many
will dismiss him (I won't -- his figures are phenomenal, and I don't
care if they were made against Lilliput -- Test matches is Test
matches as a philosopher used to say...)

I haven't seen much of Warne -- I've seen a lot of Bedi, Chandra, and
Pras weaving their magic.  I find it hard to believe that Warne is as
good (just my bias speaking), but I can't ignore his successes.
Either way, we have to wait a little longer into his career before we
can start making such all-time comparisons.

Bharat
--

Learning Systems Department, Siemens Corporate Research,
755 College Road, Princeton, NJ 08540 Ph:(609)734-6531 Fax:-6565
<Above opinions are exclusively the author's, and don't represent SCR>

 
 
 

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by John Hal » Sat, 04 Nov 1995 04:00:00



Quote:
>The great batting lineups of the mid 60's and early 70's. What a joke.
>The mid 80's lineups were FAR stronger IMO - and I accept that Qadir
>faced these. The late 20's, early 30's England and Aus just wipe the floor
>with every lineup above.

Well, that England line-up from 1967, the Aussie one from 1969, and a
couple of the WI ones from the mid-70s, all look pretty useful, but
nevertheless on the whole I agree.

The sort of statistical comparison *I* should like to see would take an
awful lot of work. We already have for the bowlers to be compared their
total Test wickets and runs conceded, and their average. I would like to
know the total number of wickets that fell in all the Test innings in
which they bowled, and the total runs scored in all those innings.
Calculate from this the average runs per wicket. This will be a measure
of the goodness of the pitch and the strength of the batting side (and
also the strength of the other bowlers, so it isn't quite perfect for
what we want). Then you could calculate for each bowler the ratio of his
average to the overall average runs per wicket of all the innings in
which he bowled. The smaller the ratio the better the bowler, with the
conditions and strength of the opposition batting taken into account
(but still with a possible bias depending on the strength of his bowling
colleagues).
--
The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

 
 
 

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by Joshua Saunder » Sun, 05 Nov 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

> : Hi all ,

> : There have a been a good many posts of late comparing Warne to the
> : Indian trio and qadir , and the posters in particular Joshua and
> : Raja J , have exercised a considerable difference of opinion.

Well at least we've cleared up his identity.

Quote:
> : Joshua presented for his argument a Table of averages etc , and

Well no. Vishal presented the original table, which broke up Warne's
performances by country. Mr Raja then took that table and called Warne's
28 average against WI and Pakistan, "mediocre".

Quote:
> : commented that is "easy" to compare warne to qadir right now with

I said it was easy for me. Mr Raja had defined his terms so well, and
then said that Warne couldn't be compared with that company.
Demonstrably, on Mr Raja's OWN CRITERIA (the average of 28), Warne can be.

Quote:
> : warne being atleast on the same level as Qadir , and that Warne is
> : comparable to the Indian trio of Pras , Bedi and Chandra. One of
> : his points is that while the Indian trio averaged about 29 , and
> : Qadir ~32 , Warne has his entry marked at ~24 .

Indeed. I will say that Mr Raja has said that Warne can't be compared
with them. I have said only that he can be (and suggested that perhaps
they can't be compared with him - which I don't necessarily believe - you
must remember the original statement - Warne can't be compared with THEM).

Quote:
> : Well , its all fine to put forth a table of numbers , but let us
> : look at the performances of the trio comparing one of them , say,
> : chandrashekar with warne , on the basis of the batting lineups
> : confronted :

> : year tests opp  batting-lineup        wickets  runs  average
> : ------------------------------------------------------------
> : 64  4    Eng   edrich,cowdrey,barrington  9   341    37.88
> : 65  2    Aus   Lawry,simpson,redpath      9   162     18
> : 65  2    NZ    Congdon,Reid,Dowling       8   292    36.5

Congdon and Dowling. Bonzer mate. Not one of them averaged over 35.

Quote:
> : 67  3    WI    Hunte,Kanhai,Lloyd,sobers  18  472    26.2
> : 67  3    Eng   edrich,boycott,barrington
> :                Graveney,Oliviera,Amiss    16  405    25.3
> : 69  2    Aus   Lawry,stackpole,Ian Chapell
> :                Walters,Redpath            1   174    174
> : 71  3    Eng   Boycott,Edrich,Amiss
> :                Oliviera , Knott           13  379    29.1

Knott? I say Healy.

Quote:
> : 73  2    Eng   Amiss,Knott,Boycott        2   88     44

Where'd they all go if they were so good two years earlier?

Quote:
> : 74  4    WI    Fredricks,Greenidge,Richards
> :                Kallicharan , Lloyd        14  579    41.3
> : 76  3    NZ    Turner,Congdon             11  294    26.7

Congdon again.

Quote:
> : 76  4    WI    Fredricks,Rowe,Lloyd
> :                Kallicharan,Richards       21  656    31.2
> : 77  5    Eng   Amiss,Randall,Knott        19  537    28.2

Amiss Randall and Knott?? Is that the best you can do? Randall averaged
33.37 in case anyone was interested.

Quote:
> : 78  3    Pak   Majid ,Muddasar,Zaheer
> :                Miandad,Asif Iqbal,Imran   8   385    48.1

Majid 39, Asif 39, Imran 37, Mudassar 38...

Quote:
> : 79  4    WI    Kallicharan,Gomes,Bacchus  12  431    35.9

Bacchus!!!???? I realize this is probably the series he got THAT 250 in,
but considering he never reached 100 prior to, or thereafter, I don't
know that he should be included... Did he ever get to 50 again?

Quote:
> : 79  1    Eng   Boycott,Gooch,Gower,Randall
> :                           botham           1  113    113

Randall and the 70's model Gooch (who averaged 35 before he went on the
Rebel tour, and 46 after his rehabilitation).

Quote:
> : --------------------------------------------------------
> :     45                                    162
> : --------------------------------------------------------

> : If you look at the table above , you'll notice that i have
> : included chandra's performances only against the Great
> : Batting lineups

Like Reid, Dowling and Congdon. Hohoho.

 , and left out , say , performances against

Quote:
> : teams with 1 or 2 good batsmen

But included teams with no good batsmen at all (see above)

 . Just look at his performance-

Quote:
> :  45 out of 58 tests taking two thirds of his wickets against
> : the great batting lineups , some probably the greatest of all
> : time ! .

ROTFL.

Goodness knows what Hammond, Hobbs, Suttcliffe, Paynter, Leyland and
Jardine would have to say about that. Oh, and Ames.

Or Woodfull, Ponsford, Bradman, McCabe (and whoever else you ***y like
- usually Kippax and Richardson in those days).

 If you bother so muchas to calculate his average from

Quote:
> :  the table above , you'll probably find them in the mid-30's.
> : The same holds for Pras and Bedi . Each time they set
> : out to bowl , the odds were that they were confronting the
> : great batting lineups.

The great batting lineups of the mid 60's and early 70's. What a joke.
The mid 80's lineups were FAR stronger IMO - and I accept that Qadir
faced these. The late 20's, early 30's England and Aus just wipe the floor
with every lineup above.

Quote:

> : Consider now the current spinners choosing , say , Warne and
> : Kumble for analysis . The only quality spin players they have
> : faced are Malik ,Haynes,R'son,Lara,Tendulkar,Gooch,Cronje,Crowe

Well now. The poms considered Gatting to be a quality player of spin.
They don't anymore. Why is that?

Quote:
> : -none of whom have shown any particular problems against them.

Except that Gooch was out 5 times to Warne in the 93 Ashes series.

Quote:
> : Take Warne - When warne toured NZ , he confornted crowe in only
> : 1 test out of 3 (crowe scored 73 ,0) ; again crowe played
> : reasonably when NZ toured Aus in 93-94. During the WI tour of
> : Aus in 92' Warne did not get either Lara or Haynes Even once
> : (of course , Haynes didnt last long enough to face warne and
> : warne didnt have much of a go in Adelaide and Perth).When Warne

However he did get 7/52 in one innings.

Quote:
> : faced Tendulkar,warne was still a rookie , and in his infancy.
> : The African attack he priced out included other than cronje ,

Cronje he got 3 times in 10 innings. Wessels he got 3 in 8 innings.

Quote:
> : only wessels among the better players of spin ; and Malik***ed him.

Aha

Quote:
> : Kumble ran thro' the Eng batting in 93' without much ado.Even
> : Rajesh Chauhan tormented them ! Kumble's performances against
> : SA , though not in the same league as Warne , was against a
> : fairly ordinary Batting lineup . This brings us to the point .


time they got to Aus.

Quote:
> : In my view , the quality of a batsman , averaging over the
> : top order of all current teams , has gone way down compared
> : to the 70's and 80's . Each of the current teams in fray have
> : either none or just a single or two good Batsmen . Not one of
> : them can be compared to the quality of Batting Qadir or Chandra
> : had to contend with .

Except Australia and India. Name an Australian batsman who averages under
40. Healy?

Quote:
> : Let me offer a couple of reasons for the late 20's-early 30's
> : averages of the Indian trio . The Indian bowling setup of the
> : 70's meant that the spin trio were in action right thro' after
> : the handful of overs sent down by the shine-removers Abid,solkar
> : and Gavaskar , against the aforementioned might battign lineups.
> : Every time . Also 3 great bwlers in a side meant that wickets
> : had to be shared - in particular , even the spin-playing-weknesses
> : would be equally well exploited by all the 3 . Moreover the

ZZZZ. I guess Warne's performances are entirely due to the Aus selectos
not picking 3 spinners. You might be interested to learn then, that Warne
has taken most of his wickets when May has been in the side, as opposed
to when he is left out.

Quote:
> : performances of chandra tapered off severly in the last 2-3 years.

Yeah, it's the selectors fault Chandra has such ***figures. They kept
selecting him for too long. It by no means should influence ones
consideration of his bowling (if anyone wants to post Chandras figures,
say 2/3 of the way through his career, I'll happily look at them).

Quote:
> : The closing years of a career with its (possible) deteriorated
> : performances is quite some way from both Warne and Kumble , and
> : is yet to seep down into the matrix of averages.

The nature of the beast...

Quote:
> : Regarding Qadir and Warne(Kumble)...In 83' against India , Imran
> : got the wickets , yet the batting order that Qadir faced read
> : Gavaskar , Srikanth ,Amarnath,Vengsarkar,Vishvanath,Patel,shastri
> : and Kapil dev . He ran into essentially the same batting lineup
> : in 87' .

Patel I assume is Sandeep Patil... So what did Qadir average against
India in 1983? Well he took 11 wickets...

for 526 runs. At ~48 apiece...

So what's your point?

Quote:
> : Had Qadir played the Banaglore test , he would have wrought
> : more havoc among the Indians than Qasim and Tauseef together could
> : do.

Well presumably he didn't play. Which makes the above statement fantasy.

Quote:
> : When he shook the WI batting apart in 87' , it was not against
> : a bunch of kids but against Greenidge ,Haynes,R'son,Richards,Gomes
> : and Dujon!

Yes, that 6/16 was obviously an excellent bowling performance. WI all out
for 53? I'd like to see that...

But otherwise Qadir was not so hot against WI. In that series I believe
he ended up with an average of 20, and overall, it was much higher than
Warne's WI average of ~28.

Quote:
> : Even the then English team had a different look from the
> : current one , having in it Gooch,Gower,Lamb,Randall and Botham .

That Randall keeps popping up. I wonder how much better you think he is
than say Thorpe or Atherton or Gooch. Or even Hick. They all average a lot
more than him. And all have played against Warne in most (if not all) of
hte 11 tests he has played against England.
Quote:
> : Again , the Aussie

...

read more »

 
 
 

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by P.Ganesh Murth » Sun, 05 Nov 1995 04:00:00


Quote:
>out that it was in the '86 series vs Australia that Indian batsmen first
>failed to live to their reputation against spin. The tied test and the
>weakness of the batsmen against Greg Matthews' sustained off-spinners

I saw the tied test , and might i say without any reservations that
he bowled extremely well ? Under extremely hot and humid conditions
of Madras , on a fairly placid track came that performance...Yet he did
not cause any particular tremors to the Indian top order (in spite of
getting his wickets) on that occasion as also the rest of the series...

Quote:
>reduced the claims of "better-batsmen-against-spin" to a vain boast.
>Pakistan in '87 once again exposed this chink in the Indian batting

Well , it depends on how you look at it ! I wouldn't call it a "chink"
in the first place . On that Bangalore strip , an otherwise ordinary
bowler would be good , a good bowler simply great , and a great bowler
quite unplayable . A great batsman alone could succeed on mastering
the vagaries of that wicket never mind the bowlers ; it was turning
square with low and unpredictable bounce , and , as such that knock
of 96 must rank as the single best innings against spin that i have
seen !

Quote:
>armour. In this context it would be a fallacy to dismiss Warne as a
>pedestrian bowler against India. An improved Warne along with the batting
>line-up that Australia boast of is a bigger threat than Imran's team of
>'87 was.
>Another point worth noting is that India has not played a quality spin
>bowler at his prime since '87. Till India proves itself it would be
>foolish to dismiss Warne or even Mushtaq Ahmed.

You are absolutely right . It remains to be seen how the Indian batsman
negotiate warne in the forthcoming tour . In my opinion , wicket conditions
would make a crucial difference to the results of the series . On a
related note , I do not hold the Indian batting lineup as being something
of a untenable fortress against a spin attack . It is by no means isomorphic
to the Indian batting lineup of the 80's , with Tendulkar being the only
one in that class.

cheers,
  ganesh.
--
P.Ganesh Murthy
CS dept .,Purdue university.

 
 
 

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by Ram Nor » Sun, 05 Nov 1995 04:00:00

I haven't seen much of Warne, hence I am not going to make a comparison. I
watched a lot of Bedi, Chandra, Venkat and Prasanna. These guys were great.
During their time this is what was said about them.

        Prasanna  ---  Thinks and bowls
         Chandra  ---  Bowls and thinks
             Bedi ---  Bowls and lets the batsman do the thinking.

Compared to Bedi and Prasanna, Raju and Chauhan are club cricketers, may be
this is a different topic.

-- Ram Nori

 
 
 

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by P.Ganesh Murth » Sun, 05 Nov 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

> : Joshua presented for his argument a Table of averages etc , and

>Well no. Vishal presented the original table, which broke up Warne's
>performances by country. Mr Raja then took that table and called Warne's
>28 average against WI and Pakistan, "mediocre".

Lets begin with two points of a good many that remain to be clarified.
First , if you look at my earlier posting , you'll before long(unqualified
assumption , eh ?)realize that the table i am referring to is the one that
compared warne,chandra , qadir , Pras and Bedi relating as it did their
averages ,strike rate and the like . Err..., was that not posted by you ...?

Next , [I believe] you're quoting Raja out of context . Unless I am
much mistaken he has clearly stated the assumptions underlying such
a qualification . Anyway Raja is invited to clarify...

Quote:
>> : commented that is "easy" to compare warne to qadir right now with

>I said it was easy for me.

I haven't denied that !

Quote:
>> : ------------------------------------------------------------
>> : 64  4    Eng   edrich,cowdrey,barrington  9   341    37.88
>> : 65  2    Aus   Lawry,simpson,redpath      9   162     18
>> : 65  2    NZ    Congdon,Reid,Dowling       8   292    36.5

>Congdon and Dowling. Bonzer mate. Not one of them averaged over 35.

Full points to you.........- You caught me right there ! I thought
it was tacitly implicit that i was referring to "great" players of
spin ! And from what i know atleast congdon was not over-qualified
when i called him that (although what is "great" is a moot point).
You can leave out the 2 tests if you will - and one thing , if you
are quoting averages as an index of greatness , you have already
missed my point completely . Mohinder Amarnath - 42.5 - is among the
best bestman i have seen against pace and spin alike . His greatest
performances came against the greatest attacks - yet he averages
well below Azhar . Take Vishvanath - A master batsman on wet & torrid
wickets - has been priced at 41.93 ... I could go on and on...

Quote:

>> : 67  3    WI    Hunte,Kanhai,Lloyd,sobers  18  472    26.2
>> : 67  3    Eng   edrich,boycott,barrington
>> :                Graveney,Oliviera,Amiss    16  405    25.3
>> : 69  2    Aus   Lawry,stackpole,Ian Chapell
>> :                Walters,Redpath            1   174    174
>> : 71  3    Eng   Boycott,Edrich,Amiss
>> :                Oliviera , Knott           13  379    29.1

>Knott? I say Healy.

Forget Knott , as a Batsman i place Healy below both Parore and
Moin (although Healy is a better keeper than the other two) . If you
disagree , remove Knott from the above list and tell me if the truncated
one looks less menacing ?!

Quote:

>> : 74  4    WI    Fredricks,Greenidge,Richards
>> :                Kallicharan , Lloyd        14  579    41.3
>> : 76  3    NZ    Turner,Congdon             11  294    26.7

>Congdon again.

Explained above . Take him out of consideration if you can't concur.

Quote:

>> : 76  4    WI    Fredricks,Rowe,Lloyd
>> :                Kallicharan,Richards       21  656    31.2
>> : 77  5    Eng   Amiss,Randall,Knott        19  537    28.2

>Amiss Randall and Knott?? Is that the best you can do? Randall averaged
>33.37 in case anyone was interested.

From what i have seen of Randall , he was quite a classy player of spin,
and better than any one in the current English lineup (though , Thorpe
will probably become better with time).

Quote:

>> : 78  3    Pak   Majid ,Muddasar,Zaheer
>> :                Miandad,Asif Iqbal,Imran   8   385    48.1

>Majid 39, Asif 39, Imran 37, Mudassar 38...

Ha , come of it - you are now overdoing it ! Both Majid Khan and
Asif Iqbal are excellent players of spin - in my view - even better
than Zaheer Abbas . They move their feet perfectly and Majid Khan's
timing and footwork were absolutely superb - and about Asif ? - he
was quite simply one of the best players of spin on his day . The
current Pakistan team ,save Malik , does not have a player(of spin)
in that class . Inzamam Ul Haq does not move his feet against the
spin (check out how many times he got out LBW to warne and company)
though time will i think will put him in that league.

Quote:

>> : 79  4    WI    Kallicharan,Gomes,Bacchus  12  431    35.9

>Bacchus!!!???? I realize this is probably the series he got THAT 250 in,
>but considering he never reached 100 prior to, or thereafter, I don't
>know that he should be included... Did he ever get to 50 again?

I wont even bother as much to check that out . Leave him out if you
dont like - and tell me the same of Gomes and Kallicharan ! Hmmm...
what were their averages ...Ah .. poor :-)

Quote:

>> : 79  1    Eng   Boycott,Gooch,Gower,Randall
>> :                           botham           1  113    113

>Randall and the 70's model Gooch (who averaged 35 before he went on the
>Rebel tour, and 46 after his rehabilitation).

See the havoc that a mere look at stats are playing ! Repeat after me
- "Gooch aint any good" thrice . Done ? Now , silently remove the above
entry from the table - its doing there more harm than good !

Lets now recompute after all your objections...
40 tests - 149 wickets ! The remaining 18 tests against the peddlers
(aptly fits most of the spin palying Bats today , doesnt it ?).

Quote:

>> : If you look at the table above , you'll notice that i have
>> : included chandra's performances only against the Great
>> : Batting lineups

>Like Reid, Dowling and Congdon. Hohoho.

Heh .. count that out and now look at the 40 tests - 70% of his
tests ! BTW , if the "Hohoho" is what you call that ,i wonder what
word you have kept reserved for Hartland,Harris,Dipak Patel,Fleming
GreatBatch,Blain - the lineup that current spinners polish off ?!

Quote:
>>Goodness knows what Hammond, Hobbs, Suttcliffe, Paynter, Leyland and
>Jardine would have to say about that. Oh, and Ames.

>Or Woodfull, Ponsford, Bradman, McCabe (and whoever else you ***y like
>- usually Kippax and Richardson in those days).

I see. So the lineup Nurse,Hunte,Kanhai,Lloyd,Sobers is not comparable
to the ones you describe ?! Or for that matter Greenidge,Haynes,
Richards,Kallicharan,Lloyd,Gomes . Let me become Joshua Saunders
for a moment (though i will not to borrow that coveted name for
any more than a moment :-) and look at the averages - hey ! -are we
taking of "48.22" Ponsford , "46.00" Woodfull and the "48.21" McCabe ?!
Mighty devaluation if you ask me that !!

Quote:

>The great batting lineups of the mid 60's and early 70's. What a joke.
>The mid 80's lineups were FAR stronger IMO - and I accept that Qadir
>faced these. The late 20's, early 30's England and Aus just wipe the floor
>with every lineup above.

My good Sir , the floor remains , and stronger than ever if we choose
to look at  it all standing on your pedestal of averages !
That lineup of Woodfull,McCabe , and Ponsford pales into
eternal insignificance before BarryRichards,Graeme Pollock,Colin
Bland, and Nourse ! (note-i have kept out the great man from it all).
To be explicit , the point i am making is far from a ridiculous
comparison between these aforementioned Batsman...

Quote:
>> : Consider now the current spinners choosing , say , Warne and
>> : Kumble for analysis . The only quality spin players they have
>> : faced are Malik ,Haynes,R'son,Lara,Tendulkar,Gooch,Cronje,Crowe

>Well now. The poms considered Gatting to be a quality player of spin.
>They don't anymore. Why is that?

Gatting built that reputation in the 84' tour of India where
he made thick his gains playing Siva,shastri,etal. Though he
has successfully negotiated Qadir a few times , there are a
good many other facors we are leaving out in the analysis
of Gatting . And yes , the hopes they had on Gatting have been
belied - thanks to the debilitating picture Warne and Kumble
have made out of him - Ah yes ! , and lets not forget that the
"better than Pras" bowler Raju has had his hand in that too !

Quote:

>> : -none of whom have shown any particular problems against them.

>Except that Gooch was out 5 times to Warne in the 93 Ashes series.

No kidding ! Not also to forget that Gooch hammered Warne and co for
673 RUNS in 6 TESTS - 2 100's , 4 50's at 56.08 and all that ...

Quote:

>> : Take Warne - When warne toured NZ , he confornted crowe in only
>> : 1 test out of 3 (crowe scored 73 ,0) ; again crowe played
>> : reasonably when NZ toured Aus in 93-94. During the WI tour of
>> : Aus in 92' Warne did not get either Lara or Haynes Even once
>> : (of course , Haynes didnt last long enough to face warne and
>> : warne didnt have much of a go in Adelaide and Perth).When Warne

>However he did get 7/52 in one innings.

Of course he did , and the delivery that bowled Richardson virtually
decided the course of the match after the initial *** with Simmons
in full cry

Quote:
>> : Kumble ran thro' the Eng batting in 93' without much ado.Even
>> : Rajesh Chauhan tormented them ! Kumble's performances against
>> : SA , though not in the same league as Warne , was against a
>> : fairly ordinary Batting lineup . This brings us to the point .


>time they got to Aus.

I have myself conceded , if you look above , that Kumble's performance
against warne are not "in the same league" . BTW , will you excuse my

SA , warne was nothing short of devastative...

Quote:

>> : In my view , the quality of a batsman , averaging over the
>> : top order of all current teams , has gone way down compared
>> : to the 70's and 80's . Each of the current teams in fray have
>> : either none or just a single or two good Batsmen . Not one of
>> : them can be compared to the quality of Batting Qadir or Chandra
>> : had to contend with .

>Except Australia and India. Name an Australian batsman who averages under
>40. Healy?

Ah , these averages are getting the better of you my boy ! While I
will say that the Australian ...

read more »

 
 
 

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by P.Ganesh Murth » Sun, 05 Nov 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

> : Joshua presented for his argument a Table of averages etc , and

>Well no. Vishal presented the original table, which broke up Warne's
>performances by country. Mr Raja then took that table and called Warne's
>28 average against WI and Pakistan, "mediocre".

Lets begin with two points of a good many that remain to be clarified.
First , if you look at my earlier posting , you'll before long(unqualified
assumption , eh ?)realize that the table i am referring to is the one that
compared warne,chandra , qadir , Pras and Bedi relating as it did their
averages ,strike rate and the like . Err..., was that not posted by you ...?

Next , [I believe] you're quoting Raja out of context . Unless I am
much mistaken he has clearly stated the assumptions underlying such
a qualification . Anyway Raja is invited to clarify...

Quote:
>> : commented that is "easy" to compare warne to qadir right now with

>I said it was easy for me.

I haven't denied that !

Quote:
>> : ------------------------------------------------------------
>> : 64  4    Eng   edrich,cowdrey,barrington  9   341    37.88
>> : 65  2    Aus   Lawry,simpson,redpath      9   162     18
>> : 65  2    NZ    Congdon,Reid,Dowling       8   292    36.5

>Congdon and Dowling. Bonzer mate. Not one of them averaged over 35.

Full points to you.........- You caught me right there ! I thought
it was tacitly implicit that i was referring to "great" players of
spin ! And from what i know atleast congdon was not over-qualified
when i called him that (although what is "great" is a moot point).
You can leave out the 2 tests if you will - and one thing , if you
are quoting averages as an index of greatness , you have already
missed my point completely . Mohinder Amarnath - 42.5 - is among the
best bestman i have seen against pace and spin alike . His greatest
performances came against the greatest attacks - yet he averages
well below Azhar . Take Vishvanath - A master batsman on wet & torrid
wickets - has been priced at 41.93 ... I could go on and on...

Quote:

>> : 67  3    WI    Hunte,Kanhai,Lloyd,sobers  18  472    26.2
>> : 67  3    Eng   edrich,boycott,barrington
>> :                Graveney,Oliviera,Amiss    16  405    25.3
>> : 69  2    Aus   Lawry,stackpole,Ian Chapell
>> :                Walters,Redpath            1   174    174
>> : 71  3    Eng   Boycott,Edrich,Amiss
>> :                Oliviera , Knott           13  379    29.1

>Knott? I say Healy.

Forget Knott , as a Batsman i place Healy below both Parore and
Moin (although Healy is a better keeper than the other two) . If you
disagree , remove Knott from the above list and tell me if the truncated
one looks less menacing ?!

Quote:

>> : 74  4    WI    Fredricks,Greenidge,Richards
>> :                Kallicharan , Lloyd        14  579    41.3
>> : 76  3    NZ    Turner,Congdon             11  294    26.7

>Congdon again.

Explained above . Take him out of consideration if you can't concur.

Quote:

>> : 76  4    WI    Fredricks,Rowe,Lloyd
>> :                Kallicharan,Richards       21  656    31.2
>> : 77  5    Eng   Amiss,Randall,Knott        19  537    28.2

>Amiss Randall and Knott?? Is that the best you can do? Randall averaged
>33.37 in case anyone was interested.

From what i have seen of Randall , he was quite a classy player of spin,
and better than any one in the current English lineup (though , Thorpe
will probably become better with time).

Quote:

>> : 78  3    Pak   Majid ,Muddasar,Zaheer
>> :                Miandad,Asif Iqbal,Imran   8   385    48.1

>Majid 39, Asif 39, Imran 37, Mudassar 38...

Ha , come of it - you are now overdoing it ! Both Majid Khan and
Asif Iqbal are excellent players of spin - in my view - even better
than Zaheer Abbas . They move their feet perfectly and Majid Khan's
timing and footwork were absolutely superb - and about Asif ? - he
was quite simply one of the best players of spin on his day . The
current Pakistan team ,save Malik , does not have a player(of spin)
in that class . Inzamam Ul Haq does not move his feet against the
spin (check out how many times he got out LBW to warne and company)
though time will i think will put him in that league.

Quote:

>> : 79  4    WI    Kallicharan,Gomes,Bacchus  12  431    35.9

>Bacchus!!!???? I realize this is probably the series he got THAT 250 in,
>but considering he never reached 100 prior to, or thereafter, I don't
>know that he should be included... Did he ever get to 50 again?

I wont even bother as much to check that out . Leave him out if you
dont like - and tell me the same of Gomes and Kallicharan ! Hmmm...
what were their averages ...Ah .. poor :-)

Quote:

>> : 79  1    Eng   Boycott,Gooch,Gower,Randall
>> :                           botham           1  113    113

>Randall and the 70's model Gooch (who averaged 35 before he went on the
>Rebel tour, and 46 after his rehabilitation).

See the havoc that a mere look at stats are playing ! Repeat after me
- "Gooch aint any good" thrice . Done ? Now , silently remove the above
entry from the table - its doing there more harm than good !

Lets now recompute after all your objections...
40 tests - 149 wickets ! The remaining 18 tests against the peddlers
(aptly fits most of the spin palying Bats today , doesnt it ?).

Quote:

>> : If you look at the table above , you'll notice that i have
>> : included chandra's performances only against the Great
>> : Batting lineups

>Like Reid, Dowling and Congdon. Hohoho.

Heh .. count that out and now look at the 40 tests - 70% of his
tests ! BTW , if the "Hohoho" is what you call that ,i wonder what
word you have kept reserved for Hartland,Harris,Dipak Patel,Fleming
GreatBatch,Blain - the lineup that current spinners polish off ?!

Quote:
>>Goodness knows what Hammond, Hobbs, Suttcliffe, Paynter, Leyland and
>Jardine would have to say about that. Oh, and Ames.

>Or Woodfull, Ponsford, Bradman, McCabe (and whoever else you ***y like
>- usually Kippax and Richardson in those days).

I see. So the lineup Nurse,Hunte,Kanhai,Lloyd,Sobers is not comparable
to the ones you describe ?! Or for that matter Greenidge,Haynes,
Richards,Kallicharan,Lloyd,Gomes . Let me become Joshua Saunders
for a moment (though i will not to borrow that coveted name for
any more than a moment :-) and look at the averages - hey ! -are we
taking of "48.22" Ponsford , "46.00" Woodfull and the "48.21" McCabe ?!
Mighty devaluation if you ask me that !!

Quote:

>The great batting lineups of the mid 60's and early 70's. What a joke.
>The mid 80's lineups were FAR stronger IMO - and I accept that Qadir
>faced these. The late 20's, early 30's England and Aus just wipe the floor
>with every lineup above.

My good Sir , the floor remains , and stronger than ever if we choose
to look at  it all standing on your pedestal of averages !
That lineup of Woodfull,McCabe , and Ponsford pales into
eternal insignificance before BarryRichards,Graeme Pollock,Colin
Bland, and Nourse ! (note-i have kept out the great man from it all).
To be explicit , the point i am making is far from a ridiculous
comparison between these aforementioned Batsman...

Quote:
>> : Consider now the current spinners choosing , say , Warne and
>> : Kumble for analysis . The only quality spin players they have
>> : faced are Malik ,Haynes,R'son,Lara,Tendulkar,Gooch,Cronje,Crowe

>Well now. The poms considered Gatting to be a quality player of spin.
>They don't anymore. Why is that?

Gatting built that reputation in the 84' tour of India where
he made thick his gains playing Siva,shastri,etal. Though he
has successfully negotiated Qadir a few times , there are a
good many other facors we are leaving out in the analysis
of Gatting . And yes , the hopes they had on Gatting have been
belied - thanks to the debilitating picture Warne and Kumble
have made out of him - Ah yes ! , and lets not forget that the
"better than Pras" bowler Raju has had his hand in that too !

Quote:

>> : -none of whom have shown any particular problems against them.

>Except that Gooch was out 5 times to Warne in the 93 Ashes series.

No kidding ! Not also to forget that Gooch hammered Warne and co for
673 RUNS in 6 TESTS - 2 100's , 4 50's at 56.08 and all that ...

Quote:

>> : Take Warne - When warne toured NZ , he confornted crowe in only
>> : 1 test out of 3 (crowe scored 73 ,0) ; again crowe played
>> : reasonably when NZ toured Aus in 93-94. During the WI tour of
>> : Aus in 92' Warne did not get either Lara or Haynes Even once
>> : (of course , Haynes didnt last long enough to face warne and
>> : warne didnt have much of a go in Adelaide and Perth).When Warne

>However he did get 7/52 in one innings.

Of course he did , and the delivery that bowled Richardson virtually
decided the course of the match after the initial *** with Simmons
in full cry

Quote:
>> : Kumble ran thro' the Eng batting in 93' without much ado.Even
>> : Rajesh Chauhan tormented them ! Kumble's performances against
>> : SA , though not in the same league as Warne , was against a
>> : fairly ordinary Batting lineup . This brings us to the point .


>time they got to Aus.

I have myself conceded , if you look above , that Kumble's performance
against warne are not "in the same league" . BTW , will you excuse my

SA , warne was nothing short of devastative...

Quote:

>> : In my view , the quality of a batsman , averaging over the
>> : top order of all current teams , has gone way down compared
>> : to the 70's and 80's . Each of the current teams in fray have
>> : either none or just a single or two good Batsmen . Not one of
>> : them can be compared to the quality of Batting Qadir or Chandra
>> : had to contend with .

>Except Australia and India. Name an Australian batsman who averages under
>40. Healy?

Ah , these averages are getting the better of you my boy ! While I
will say that the Australian ...

read more »

 
 
 

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by P.Ganesh Murth » Sun, 05 Nov 1995 04:00:00

Sorry for posting my previous article twice - some trivial problem
with my mailer.

ganesh.
--
P.Ganesh Murthy
CS dept .,Purdue university.

 
 
 

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by Joshua Saunder » Sun, 05 Nov 1995 04:00:00

Quote:


> : >
> : > : Joshua presented for his argument a Table of averages etc , and
> : >
> : >Well no. Vishal presented the original table, which broke up Warne's
> : >performances by country. Mr Raja then took that table and called Warne's
> : >28 average against WI and Pakistan, "mediocre".

> : Lets begin with two points of a good many that remain to be clarified.
> : First , if you look at my earlier posting , you'll before long(unqualified
> : assumption , eh ?)realize that the table i am referring to is the one that
> : compared warne,chandra , qadir , Pras and Bedi relating as it did their
> : averages ,strike rate and the like . Err..., was that not posted by you ...?

Yes it was, but in response to the tables posted by Vishal and analysed
by Mr Raja in the following way:

1. Averages of 28 are mediocre.
2. Averages of 28 are mediocre even if they are made against good teams.
3. Warne can not be considered a great bowler.

All this with none of the other analysis or detailed analysis that you
and others have put into it. Finally, Mr Raja said that Warne couldn't be
compared with Qadir and the Indian spin trio. All I did was suggest that
if Warne is mediocre against WI and Pakistan, those four were worse than
mediocre over their whole career. An understanding of what I was ACTUALLY
saying, as opposed to what you think I was saying (certainly I was not
attacking those four, rather defendign Warne from what IMO was a pretty
silly attack), should help you deal with what I have said subsequently.

I KNOW raw stats are perhaps not the best way of determining these
things. But by Mr Raja's own analysis, a 28 average is mediocre, with no
qualifications or analysis of the series needed. Thus BY HIS CRITERIA
(and NOT mine) those 4 bowlers were mediocre (or worse).

Having (for what feels like the millionth time) made that clear, I'll try
and chop some of this post...

(much chopping)

(in reply to talk of Randall and Congdon et al as great against spin).

I merely say that for a batsman to be considered great against spin, yet
average less than 40 overall is to me at least, strange. I would not
consider Hooper (for example) "great" in any sense of the word, even
though he is undoubtedly among the most proficient against spin. The
answer for players like these, seems obvious to me. Bowl the medium
pacers and quicks (or in India's case in the mid 60's, should this be find
some?).

Quote:
> : Lets now recompute after all your objections...
> : 40 tests - 149 wickets ! The remaining 18 tests against the peddlers
> : (aptly fits most of the spin palying Bats today , doesnt it ?).

> : >
> : >> : If you look at the table above , you'll notice that i have
> : >> : included chandra's performances only against the Great
> : >> : Batting lineups
> : >
> : >Like Reid, Dowling and Congdon. Hohoho.

> : Heh .. count that out and now look at the 40 tests - 70% of his
> : tests ! BTW , if the "Hohoho" is what you call that ,i wonder what
> : word you have kept reserved for Hartland,Harris,Dipak Patel,Fleming
> : GreatBatch,Blain - the lineup that current spinners polish off ?!

I don't know what Fleming has done to you to be thrown in with that lot :-)
Also, I wonder about the statement about spinners polishing them off.
Waqar has a third of his wickets against NZ.  Let's be clear about
just how good he is against them. He has taken 58/802 in 7 tests against
them (at 13.8 runs each). Overall he has 191 wickets from 34 tests.

58/191 = 30.3% of wickets
7/34 = 20.5% of tests

Don't tell me how these spinners rip through NZ. Most every bowler of
quality does.

Quote:
> : >>Goodness knows what Hammond, Hobbs, Suttcliffe, Paynter, Leyland and
> : >Jardine would have to say about that. Oh, and Ames.
> : >
> : >Or Woodfull, Ponsford, Bradman, McCabe (and whoever else you ***y like
> : >- usually Kippax and Richardson in those days).

> : I see. So the lineup Nurse,Hunte,Kanhai,Lloyd,Sobers is not comparable
> : to the ones you describe ?!

No it isn't.

Quote:
> : Or for that matter Greenidge,Haynes,
> : Richards,Kallicharan,Lloyd,Gomes . Let me become Joshua Saunders
> : for a moment (though i will not to borrow that coveted name for
> : any more than a moment :-) and look at the averages - hey ! -are we
> : taking of "48.22" Ponsford , "46.00" Woodfull and the "48.21" McCabe ?!
> : Mighty devaluation if you ask me that !!

You forgotten someone? Tell me, just how many of the above apparently
legendary WI lineups averaged over 50? I'll tell you. Richards (by a
small margin) and Sobers. That's both lineups.

And these high 40's averages you are so contemptuous of when owned by
McCabe et al, you do realise that McCabe and Woodfull averaged higher
than each of:

Nurse
Hunte
Kanhai
Lloyd

from your first lineup;

And
Greenidge
Haynes
Gomes,
Lloyd
Kalli

from your second lineup.

I haven't even needed to touch on Don.

Quote:
> : >The great batting lineups of the mid 60's and early 70's. What a joke.
> : >The mid 80's lineups were FAR stronger IMO - and I accept that Qadir
> : >faced these. The late 20's, early 30's England and Aus just wipe the floor
> : >with every lineup above.

> : My good Sir , the floor remains , and stronger than ever if we choose
> : to look at  it all standing on your pedestal of averages !
> : That lineup of Woodfull,McCabe , and Ponsford pales into

Looks like I do need to touch on Don here. You've left him out.

Quote:
> : eternal insignificance before BarryRichards,Graeme Pollock,Colin
> : Bland, and Nourse ! (note-i have kept out the great man from it all).
> : To be explicit , the point i am making is far from a ridiculous
> : comparison between these aforementioned Batsman...

Rubbish. Pollock and Richards were extraordinary talents, sure. But to
start saying they surpass a lineup with Bradman and 3 othe high 40's
guys, is just beyond the pale. I notice you haven't addressed the late
20's early 30's English team:

Hobbs (replaced by Jardine after retirement)
Suttcliffe
Hammond
Hendren
Leyland
(again, whoever you like at #6)
Ames w/k

averaging in order, 56.9,60.7,58.4,47.6,46.1, and ~40 for Ames.

Quote:
> : >> : Consider now the current spinners choosing , say , Warne and
> : >> : Kumble for analysis . The only quality spin players they have
> : >> : faced are Malik ,Haynes,R'son,Lara,Tendulkar,Gooch,Cronje,Crowe
> : >
> : >Well now. The poms considered Gatting to be a quality player of spin.
> : >They don't anymore. Why is that?

> : Gatting built that reputation in the 84' tour of India where
> : he made thick his gains playing Siva,shastri,etal. Though he
> : has successfully negotiated Qadir a few times , there are a
> : good many other facors we are leaving out in the analysis
> : of Gatting . And yes , the hopes they had on Gatting have been
> : belied - thanks to the debilitating picture Warne and Kumble
> : have made out of him - Ah yes ! , and lets not forget that the
> : "better than Pras" bowler Raju has had his hand in that too !

So Gatting was able to negotiate Qadir, but not Warne or Kumble? I hope
you aren't suggesting that Warne and Kumble could be as good (or better)
than Qadir! That would be revolutionary!

Quote:
> : >
> : >> : -none of whom have shown any particular problems against them.
> : >
> : >Except that Gooch was out 5 times to Warne in the 93 Ashes series.

> : No kidding ! Not also to forget that Gooch hammered Warne and co for
> : 673 RUNS in 6 TESTS - 2 100's , 4 50's at 56.08 and all that ...

Yep, really mastered Warne didn't he. Just couldn't stop getting out to him.

(chop the RSA bit - we almost agree :-))

Quote:

> : >
> : >> : In my view , the quality of a batsman , averaging over the
> : >> : top order of all current teams , has gone way down compared
> : >> : to the 70's and 80's . Each of the current teams in fray have
> : >> : either none or just a single or two good Batsmen . Not one of
> : >> : them can be compared to the quality of Batting Qadir or Chandra
> : >> : had to contend with .
> : >
> : >Except Australia and India. Name an Australian batsman who averages under
> : >40. Healy?

> : Ah , these averages are getting the better of you my boy ! While I
> : will say that the Australian Batsman are very consistent , I wouldn't
> : put anyone of them in the class of Greg Chapell , Kim Hughes or Border.

Not in the class of Kim Hughes? Eh? Not only are they all in the class of
Kim Hughes, they all far surpass him. Oh, but you mean in terms of
playing spin. Three names, who put Hughes to shame, even in those terms:

Boon
Steve Waugh
Mark Waugh

Does anyone else remember the Pakistan tour of 83/4, with Qadir doing
pretty well nothing except make Hughes look like a goose?

wrt to Chappell and Border, well no there isn't a batsman in the team to
rival them. There is however, 5 batsmen who would be more than a measure
for ANY batsmen in ANY Australian team from 1980-92, (except of course GC
and Border themselves). Graeme Wood fans need not write back. Nor Greg
Ritchie fans.

Quote:
> : >> : Let me offer a couple of reasons for the late 20's-early 30's
> : >> : averages of the Indian trio . The Indian bowling setup of the
> : >> : 70's meant that the spin trio were in action right thro' after
> : >> : the handful of overs sent down by the shine-removers Abid,solkar
> : >> : and Gavaskar , against the aforementioned might battign lineups.
> : >> : Every time . Also 3 great bwlers in a side meant that wickets
> : >> : had to be shared - in particular , even the spin-playing-weknesses
> : >> : would be equally well exploited by all the 3 . Moreover the
> : >

> : >not picking 3 spinners. You might be interested to learn then, that Warne
> : >has taken most of his wickets when May has been in the side, as opposed
> : >to when he is left out.

> : This has got to be your best joke ! Whoever bothered to rate Tim May as

...

read more »

 
 
 

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by John Hal » Sun, 05 Nov 1995 04:00:00


writes

Quote:

>>Congdon and Dowling. Bonzer mate. Not one of them averaged over 35.

>Full points to you.........- You caught me right there ! I thought
>it was tacitly implicit that i was referring to "great" players of
>spin ! And from what i know atleast congdon was not over-qualified
>when i called him that (although what is "great" is a moot point).
>You can leave out the 2 tests if you will - and one thing , if you
>are quoting averages as an index of greatness , you have already
>missed my point completely .

But if you go on what of necessity has to be your subjective opinion of
who the best players of spin were, then doesn't the intended objective
statistical analysis that you were aiming for in turn become subjective?

--
Wit is educated insolence.  
 Aristotle (284-322 B.C.)

 
 
 

concerning Warne,Kumble,Qadir,Chandra...

Post by John Hal » Sun, 05 Nov 1995 04:00:00


writes

Quote:
>Now , I of all people will be most willing to peruse thru' any
>cogent reason being forwarded in defense of the English and Aus
>lineups of the 20's-30's as the greatest of all time . Dont bother
>to just say "WoodFull,McCabe,Ponsford" or use averages out of context
>- i have already pointed it out in another post why that lineup would
>be inferior to that of Barry Richards (av.72),Pollock(60),Nourse(56)  
>and Bland(52)

Unfortunately Nourse played some 20 years before the other 3, but you
could substitute Eddie Barlow for him with little damage to your
argument.

Quote:
> - and certainly incomparable to the lineup consisting of
>Azhar(46),Tendulkar(52) and Kambli(57) - greatness decided on the
>basis of averages ALONE . I would welcome more objective "tables"
>or any subjective opinion on the issue , since ,for one thing , I have
>never seen any of these greats , and am unable to place them relative
>to our contemporary greats (not that i am dying to , though) - though i
>have heard remarkable things about them . Also such a presentation will be
>a (unique) oppurtunity for others who haven't seen them to better appreciate
>their abilities.

>cheers,
>   ganesh.

>--
>P.Ganesh Murthy
>CS dept .,Purdue university.

--
Wit is educated insolence.  
 Aristotle (284-322 B.C.)