Australia the strongest batting line up??

Australia the strongest batting line up??

Post by Thomas James Jon » Thu, 01 Jul 1993 11:18:05



|>
|> ________________________________________________________________

|> >
|> >      This may be taking something way out of context but I find Mark's
|> >      comment below regarding the McDermott decision quite offensive.
|> >      Presumably Len King would not have been intimidated if the bowler
|> >      was white? What about pink, yellow, brown, green, purple etc.?
|>
|> Offensive? Why? Some facts:
|>
|> 1. Curtly Ambrose is physically intimidating, because he's big and
|>    rather ugly.
|>
|> 2. Len King is easily intimidated. I've watched him umpire over a number
|>    of years, and time & time again he's given dodgy decisions because
|>     of loud and vociferous appeals. He's not up to scratch.
|>
|> 3. Craig McDermott was not out on the last ball of the 4th test.

        Oh brilliant.  That means it was a draw.
        I'd thought we'd lost the series 2-1.

        great,

        tom

||> Mark

 
 
 

Australia the strongest batting line up??

Post by Matthew Killi » Thu, 01 Jul 1993 12:37:30


Quote:
>... "Now, what happened is that the umpires, desperate to maintain the new-found
>harmony between the teams, settled on a means of avoiding the problems that
>they had experienced in the last series. Thier policy was simple - they
>would not give LBWs for anyone. This was to result in some extraordinary
>decisions.... "

Perhaps this approach was decided after Tiny Grigg pointed out (during the last
England tour) that Border (I think, but it could have been another senior
Australian batsman) had never been given out lbw in an Australian test series.
Maybe it had something to do with Australian wickets?

 
 
 

Australia the strongest batting line up??

Post by Balakrishnan Gopalakrishn » Thu, 01 Jul 1993 07:40:10

Well, Wasim Akram is a classy bowler. But he certainly isn't genuinely quick!
He is an excellent medium pacer with nip and who moves the ball around both
ways. But having seen him bowl next to Waqar and Imran, it is pretty obvious
that he is no-where near them in as far as sheer pace goes. But with that kind
of success who needs pace?

Also, I claimed that Kuruvilla would give anyone EXCEPT Waqar and Ambrose a
run for their money as far as SHEER SPEED goes. But that doesn't mean that he
is as good as McDermott , Morrison, Akram , Bishop or Hughes. If a bowler was
to be judged just by speed, Guys like Johnathan Agnew(Anyone remember him?),
Milton Small or T.A Shekhar should have made it big. But of course it is
intelligence and talent that makes him a good bowler. A guy with a lot of
brawn and who puts in a lot of effort may be able to hurl the ball at over 80
mph. But that wont make him a Dennis Lillee or a Malcom Marshall. In short,
just because Kuruvilla is ***y fast doesn't mean he is going to be the next
Waqar Younis. One can only dream that he comes close....

-Balky

 
 
 

Australia the strongest batting line up??

Post by PVR Narasimha R » Thu, 01 Jul 1993 11:43:24


:) >Also, I followed the Australia-India series pretty closely. Though I strongly
:) >feel that final score-line(4-0) didn't reflect India's performance(Especially
:) >the bowling), I must say the Aussie top order batting made the difference. You
:) >were right about the totals being around 300. But in many cases, this was not
:) >Indicative of the performances of the top-order. The usual score-line was
:) >about 260-4 , following which they would get bundled out for 320 odd, Thanks
:) >to Prabhakar and Srinath. Could someone post the statistics of the Aussie
:)
:) It should be thanks to Kapil and Prabhakar...Srinath was'nt even in the
:) vicinity of taking wickets in that series...If I remember right Kapil had
:) taken 26 wkts, Prabhakar ~17 and Srinath just ~10 or so...
:) (Btw, Sanjay Naik are you there ? There, I tell the truth when it concerns
:) Kapil Vs Srinath...  and ofcourse, I'm more a fan of Kapil than Srinath:o)

Kapil took 25 at 25.80, Prabhakar took 19 at 35.79 and Srinath took 10 at
48.67. Kapil had two 5-wicket hauls, whereas Prabhakar had one. (Srinath had
none. In fact, he doesn't have one to date. His best was 4/33 in SA.)

Prabhakar was ok, but his average is not too good. Srinath did nothing
anywhere close to what Balky seems to think he did. Kapil's average and
strike rate were good and compare with those of McDermott, Hughes and
Whitney. Prabhakar was substandard (at the international level) and Srinath
was bad (of course, it was his first series...).

I posted some stats a few weeks back that conclusively showed that Kapil's
average and strike rate sicne Srinath's debut were far superior to
Srinath's. Even when one removes Srinath's performances on the Oz tour from
the stats (he wasn't good then), Kapil has better strike rate and average!

Unfortunately, no one notices when Kapil takes 3 wickets or 4 wickets in an
innings. Even when he takes 5 wickets in an innings twice in a series, no
one notices. OTOH, they get all e***d up when Srinath does something
decent.  Nothing wrong with being e***d about a new talent, but don't
apply different standards to Kaps! Give him the credit he deserves! He has
been India's second best bowler (statistically) in the last 2-3 years (first
being Kumble).

:) To say Aussie batting made the difference is wrong too. It was more that
:) India's batting was the difference. Throughout the series, it was the

Very true. Shastri and SRT had averages of 60 and 46, but no other top-order
bat had an average above 22. More and Prabhakar were at #3, 4 positions in
the averages list (with 28.6 and 28). Very substandard performances from
India's top-order batsmen there....

:) bowlers who bowled for India and it was the bolwers who batted for India
:) except for some stray innings from Tendulkar and Azhar and Shastri.
:) That was exactly the same story in S.Africa too. There was a funny story
:) going around in India that time. India had the best opening partnership
:) in tests (I think 4th test in SA) after quite sometime. It was said
:) that it was due to Prabhakar opening the innings and probably they should
:) continue the batting order from 7 to 11 and then come back to No1 to 6...

Actually, India's opening partnership in the 4th test in SA wasn't India's
"best after quite sometime". Here are India's `opening partnerships' on the
tours of Australia and SA:

Australia 1 : Shastri, Srikkanth     (21, 0)
Australia 2 :       -do-             (11, 13)
Australia 3 : Shastri, Sidhu         (7, -)
Australia 4 : Srikkanth, Sidhu       (30, 52)
Australia 5 :       -do-             (25, 82)      <===

SA 1        : Shastri, Jadeja        (18, -)
SA 2        :       -do-             (27, 68)
SA 3        : Shastri, Raman         (43, 1)
SA 4        : Prabhakar, Jadeja      (44, 21)      <===

India's highest opening partnership during this period was between Srikkanth
and Sidhu (82 when chasing a target of more than 400 in slightly more than a
day). However, interestingly, India collapsed from 82/1 to 141 (all out) to
lose the series 4-1. After Srikkanth and Sidhu made 38 and 35, no Indian
batsman other than Azhar (who made 24) reached 2 digits.

So, your assertion is statistically wrong.

However, if you confine to first innings, that assertion is right. But, the
partnership between Shastri and Raman in the previous match was just one run
short!

People were happy in the 4th test with Prabhakar because that 44-run
partnership came just on the heels of that loss and also because Prabhakar
had a 85-run partnership with Manjrekar in the 4th test you mentioned (for
the second wicket).

In any case, Prabhakar did well in the series with England, but some credit
for that should go to the English bowlers!

PVR

 
 
 

Australia the strongest batting line up??

Post by PVR Narasimha R » Thu, 01 Jul 1993 11:45:36


:) >Manoj Prabhakar has developed into an
:) >excellent, aggressive swing bowler with an impressive stock of wicket-taking
:) >deliveries. And as always, there is the experience of Kapil Dev to turn to. If

:)      Well, I wish Prabhakar was as much of a wicket-taker as you seem to
:) indicate ! His stats dont really confirm it.He has 72 wickets in 27 tests,
:) at an average of 40.64, and a strike rate of 84.72 - stats that were
:) surprising and disappointing to me. He did do well in Australia (about 19
:) or so wickets I think), but he has really not been sensational in tests. He

Even in Aus, his average was 35.79 (10 more than aging Kapil's!). Reid,
Whitney, McDermott, Kapil and Hughes all had averages in the twenties. So,
Prabhakar aws substandard even in the Oz series. In fact, he was good in
only that Pak series.....

He is a good batsman and, as you say, a very good ODI bowler. But, he is
nowhere near what Balky seems to believe him to be.....

:) _is_ an absolutely incredible ODI bowler, tho, especially in the slog
:) overs. A far better ODI bowler than a test bowler.
:)      I agree that SL preparing fast tracks may backfire, the Indian fast
:) bowling isnt that bad anymore. And I agree with you about Kapil, he is
:) still pretty good.
:)      However, inspite of my position of #2 Kuruvilla fan on the net :-)
:) and my crossing swords with PVR on his behalf :-) :-), I have to disagree
:) with you about him too. He _is_ quick, maybe as fast or faster than Srinath
:) (there is not that much to choose between them). But only 2 faster in the
:) world ?? Not a hope. Akram doesnt always bowl fast nowadays, but can still
:) slip in the truly fast ones - faster than anyone in India. And Bishop maybe
:) second to noone but Waqar in speed - Bishop IS faster than Ambrose.
:) McDermott also rates right up there. In other words, our guys have a ways
:) to go yet, tho they're now moving in the right direction.

Well-said. Some netters are taking all the hype about good Indian pace
bowlers too seriously. Guys, it's too premature! These new bowlers will need
time to mature. And, even after sometime, they are not necessarily going to
be like Kapil was in his prime. Don't get too e***d about things. And,
more importantly, don't delude yourself that so and so Indian pace bowler is
as fast as anyone in the world except x and y.

:)      Sadiq [ who's gonna watch Srinath take 5 tonight :-) ] Yusuf

PVR [ who's gonna watch Kumble taking 10 wickets in a match tonight :) ]

 
 
 

Australia the strongest batting line up??

Post by Mark Imisid » Thu, 01 Jul 1993 18:23:52

________________________________________________________________

Quote:

> And to think that we had dispensed with the whining Aussies months
> ago! I guess not .....

> Cheers,
> -A bored Windian

Well, I can't argue with this kind of logic. Your in-depth understanding of

cricket, your astute analysis, and your superbly structured argument has me

at a complete loss.

Mark.

 
 
 

Australia the strongest batting line up??

Post by Mark Imisid » Thu, 01 Jul 1993 18:16:44

________________________________________________________________

Quote:


> >       This may be taking something way out of context but I find Mark's
> >       comment below regarding the McDermott decision quite offensive.
> >       Presumably Len King would not have been intimidated if the bowler
> >       was white? What about pink, yellow, brown, green, purple etc.?
> >       Maybe the answer to the Aus problems is simply to find some black
> >       bowlers to put in their team so that they too can intimidate the
> >       umpires at home! :-)

> >       Nalin

> I agree. It seems that this might be the start---albeit a bit too
> late---of a flame war between WI and Aussie (*only* the sore-losers among
> them really) supporters, just like the recent one between the Pak and WI
> supporters. Yet, I doubt it.

Dear me. It seems as though I have opened a real can of worms here.

I would be extremely disappointed if an attempt at a rational analysis
of the recent Oz/WI series is interpreted as a peurile attempt to "flame"
someone who disagrees with my analysis.

Quote:
> Anyway, the way most sane, logical people would view the recent WI/Aus
> series is that honours should be shared, if not tilted slightly in favour
> of the WI for finishing strong. As far for luck, WI could consider
> themselves very unfortunate not to have wrapped up the 4th test earlier.

But they didn't - that's the point.  They only got the last wicket on an
umpiring error. If a team requires 42 runs for the last wicket to win,
and they get it, it is not luck, but either

  1. good batting, or

  2. poor bowling.

The context in which I have used the term "luck" throughout this discussion
is in the context of umpiring errors which favour a particular team, and
not
with respect to unexpectedly good or poor performances from either team.

Quote:
> Had Aus lost their last few wickets for a meagre amount of runs, then I
> would say that Aus would have the overall edge even on losing the series
> 2-1.

I don't understand this.

Quote:
> Please also consider that that WI inflicted the significantly heaviest and
> most decisive defeat that either side received.

Quite right - we got a pasting.

If points were to be

Quote:
> awarded on merit for each test, I for one can not see Aus being a
> comprehensive winner.

I do hope your memory is a little longer than that of the Australian media
and public. After the 5th test, the Aussie team was lambasted in the press
as a bunch of losers. One test does not a series make.

Quote:

> So, it was a close series, in which WI were the underdogs with their more or
> less *new* side. Aus has a powerful side, so don't feel too bad, ok. But
> give credit where it is due and leave out any insults---you should be
> grateful that you did not *insult* (even in jest) a Pakistani or Indian
> player: you would have been driven off the net :-).

Insults? I'm a little puzzled as to what you're alluding here.

Mark

 
 
 

Australia the strongest batting line up??

Post by Mark Imisid » Thu, 01 Jul 1993 18:40:40

________________________________________________________________

Quote:

> >I don't know why cricket remains the only (?) international sport where
> >neutral umpires are not involved, but it's long overdue. While ever the
> >OZ umpires persist for Australian games, they are going to be marred by
> >errors.

>    Well, thats debatable to say the least. I personally feel its not
> going to do anything at all, the quality of the umpiring will stay the
> same, while weakening the grass-roots base of umpiring. All that will
> happen is the perception of bias will be reduced (not eliminated - some
> Pakistani fans were'nt too happy with***ie Bird in the WI series either).
> I personally feel that an attempt just to reduce the perception of bias
> isnt enough of a reason to accept the problems that will arise out of
> neutral umpires.

I think it is. I'd rather see the perception of bias removed, even if it
doesn't necessarily improve the standard.

 But anyway, its not the bias you're concerned with here,

Quote:
> is it ?? Cos one would expect home umpires to be biased towards the home
> team, not the visitors :-)

Not necessarily. Often an umpire (or referee) will deliberately favour the
opposition just to be seen to _not_ favouring the home team. In my
experience
(as a rugby referee) a problem exists wherever an umpire has a disposition
towards one team winning, and the reason is that bias is often
_unintentional_.
I'm not accusing the Oz. umps (or any others) of deliberately cheating.

Quote:
> Believe me, the Oz umpires may not the best in
> the world, but they arent the worst either :-), they're just more exposed
> because Channel 9 has 13 cameras to assist in their exposure compared to 6
> in the rest of the world (a pun ! cameras, exposure. get it ? oh well, _I_
> thougt it was good :-)).

Yes.....very cute.

 Lets just say that its unlikely the presence of

Quote:
> neutral umpires would have changed the result of the series.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Part of the problem, of
course,
is that cricket, at test level, is a very hard game to umpire. With the
front
foot no-ball law, there's not much time to pick up the flight, and line, of

the ball. While ever the present system exists, there will always be errors

of some sort.

Quote:

>            Sadiq [ voting for maintaining the status quo ] Yusuf

Mark