So your point is discredit certain as minnows, even though they may have had some high quality batsmen and bowlers.
Azharuddin was good for opposiition lol Dravid barely started. Ganguly was good only till 2000.Then had a long barren before scoring some runs. But India didn't play a whole lot of test matches in the 90s.
But according to "stats guru buffet" being a HTB is important
They were not exactly HTbs. They lost a lot of matches at home as well. They just beat some teams.But according to "stats guru buffet" being a HTB is important
Some of the current HTBs aren't beating everyone at home either
1) No you didn't typo west indies at all, you mentioned because you are clueless, clearly didn't watch any cricket in the 90s
2) Andy flower a good player?.the guys test average was 50+, barring Australia he scored against all other sides. On of the best players of spin in that era as well. Then you make the comparison Bangladesh have good players? Bangladesh in its entire history, let alone now has never produced a batsmen on flowers level..so again your talking rubbish
3) when did I any point say waqar was an ATG? Not at any point.
So uve basically had zero clue on strength of W.I in 90s, never saw Andy flower play. Then bring waqar into a conversation, where I never mentioned him
Your absolute rubbish exposed
Delusion?
He needs support for that. Tell the other numbskulls to actually do something fir once in a test game.
Ambrose was even better than both Marshall and McGrath, just by a hair though. Ambrose was a bloody dynamite.
His performance vs india in w.indies and him avoiding Asia a bit forced to be rank him below.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Clueless to say the least. Ambrose record speaks for itself, you want to make pathetic weak excuse to belittle Ambrose?
He didn't skip Indian tours. He missed one through injury.
Bumrah doesn't face Ind who has best batting line up.Waqar unlike McGrath didn't face Pak bats who were not that dominated with bat unlike their bowling.Bumrah has one advantage over Waqar here
Aus,Eng,NZ and SA ave runs per wickets from 1990-1999,2000-2009,2010-2019 and 2020-2024 in their home condition
| Aus | Eng | NZ | SA | |
| 90-99 | 37 | 32 | 31 | 33 |
| 00-09 | 48 | 38 | 32 | 38 |
| 10-19 | 43 | 36 | 40 | 36 |
| 20-24 | 37 | 36 | 37 | 29 |
Eng was poor because of weird selection committeeThere is an article about England in the 1990s
England In The 90s: Four of the finest and four you may have forgotten
Often horrendous, occasionally hopeful... overall, Englands performance in the 90s was haphazard, as a record of 43 defeats, 38 draws and only 26 wins over the decade will testify.www.skysports.com
Often horrendous, occasionally hopeful... overall, England's performance in the 90s was haphazard, as a record of 43 defeats, 38 draws and only 26 wins over the decade will testify.
91 no balls
No database for no balls and wides in the old eras?91 no balls
How do their performance compare to their peers?
| 1980-1989 | 2020-2024 | ||
| Pak | 36 | Aus | 34 |
| Ind | 35 | NZ | 24 |
| Aus | 34 | Pak | 32 |
| NZ | 30 | Eng | 31 |
| Eng | 30 | SL | 31 |
| SL | 26 | SA | 27 |
NZ 2020-2024 is 34 not 24.
| Team | Ave runs per wickets | Bumrah ave | Teams | Ave runs per wickets | Marshall ave |
| Aus | 34 | 18 | Pak | 36 | 25 |
| Eng | 31 | 22 | Ind | 35 | 24 |
| NZ | 34 | 45 | Aus | 34 | 21 |
| SA | 27 | 21 | NZ | 30 | 18 |
| SL | 31 | 9 | Eng | 30 | 21 |
Bumrah has played 23% and 33% matches vs Aus and Eng respectively and got 18 and 22 bowling ave.
Anything else you admire of him apart from no balls brother?
I do admire the fact that he has stood out as an elite fast bowler from the least talented fast bowling nation ever. As an Indian fast bowler, the odds are always firmly against you because you don't have history on your side.
There are so many videos on my instagram feed of young Pakistanis trying to imitate and bowl like Bumrah. That itself is an indication of the greatness of Bumrah.
All the ATG disussions are initiated by Australian commies in the commentary box and English commentators in the podcast. I never thought along the lines. We only care if he is the best ever Indian fast bowler. Hell yeah he is the best ever. Surpassed Kapil Dev comfortably.
Batting became easy for batsman in later period of Wasim time yet he keep up with them.During Bunrah time test pitch are made for bowling friendly because team do not want draw for test championship.Late 90s and early 2000s were difficult to ball
Possible. I did not see his prime so hesitate to make a sure shot judgement because Wasim was very good too.
Because they know which side to butter. Generally speaking, only a fool would pick Bumrah over Wasim.
Wasim's peers rate him as the best of their generation, but Imran's not. From what I’ve observed, being considered the absolute best is often determined by one’s peers—academia is a perfect example of this.
Opening bowlers average is 27 in this era as against 28 in 1990s
I don't know about anyone else, I will surely take Bumrah over Wasim in world XI.
Bhumrah's impact is debatable. He has only won 2 test series in Aus and a few tests here and there in SA and England. That is not enough IMO.
I think global average difference of current era vs 90s of 0.66 captures all that. Some point out that batsmen were defensive and put a price to their wickets, but on other hands tails were walking wickets. So it balances out and we have just 0.66 difference in global average. You can increase curent era avg of bowler by 0.66, not going to make any difference over all.
Yea. there are so many intangible factors. Among pacers First change is far better now than 1990s. In 1990s First change fast bowler averages 33. On the contrary in current era first change fast bowler averages 28. In the 90s walsh briefly bowled as first change bowler. If you take him out the list goes like this.. Kenny Benjamin, Craig matthews, Klusner, Chris Lewis, Dion Nash, Angus Fraser, Mervy Hughes, Co. But if you look at the 2010s since 2020s is not done yet You have Mone Morkel, Ishant, Wagner, Mitchell Johnson, Mo Shami, Pat cummins, KG Rabada.
That's why downplaying an era or hyping other era is meanigless. Each era has it's own challnges for all players. If you can stand out then you can stand out.
This gives information about how defensive batsman were when they got out.There condition when they lost their wickets
Bumble is the same guy who decided to see who is best between Kohli vs Sachin by asking 4-5 indian chefs in a restaurant.They all said Kohli
Yes. For me this has to be one of the better eras given how teams are trying to produce results as against draws in that period.
Yeah.Since winning is important in Test Championship than draw.That's why bowling friendly pitches are made.
Not really. Teams have better bowling. Current Bangladesh pace attack is better than many of the 1990s fast bowling attack.
You have to also take into consideration that modern lower order batsmen are lot more equipped to bat than players from 80's and 90's. Back in those days, once a team polished off top4, the rest can barely hold the bat. Akram and Waqar made mince meat out of those woeful lower order and tailender batsmen.
so supposedly wasim Akram had little impact as test bowler in away series according to the clueless stats nerd
the lot of youI am not a fan of this criteria at all if you apply it only to bowlers
I honestly enjoyed all eras I have watched. Different challnges. May be in middle in 00s it was too flat and I enjoyed less.
100% spot on.
It is a filter more appropriate for a batsman. Batsman can score an infinite number of runs ( technically). But what can a bowler do if someone else takes a few wickets and it stops him getting 5?
