How great was Viv Richards in Test cricket and where would he rank?

[Bewal Express]

They would have. It's just about getting used to. Some players who have never wore a helmet, if you ask them to bat with a helmet they will find it relatively harder to get used to with it.

The fear of being hit changes peoples techniques and destroys careers, its the reason Zaheer isnt highly rated as stats would justify- How many players today or in the last 20 years have feared getting hit. When Mitch Johnson turned the clock back to the 70s and 80s and look at what happened to the likes of Cook etc. These guys would have averaged at least 6-7 lower in the 70s and 80s. Plonking your foot down the wicket against the likes of IK, Lillee, Thompson, Pascoe, Hogg, Snow without even mentioning the Windies guys wasnt an option.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Were not Sachin and Lara better on bad wickers or against spin bowling?Also more proven in a crisis?Remember Lara's penchant for mammoth scores and singlehandedly turning games as well as Tendulkar's longevity.

The margins are super thin when you are comparing Tendulkar, Lara, Viv. They are all champions of the highest level along with 10-15 more batsman. That's why being a part of Top 20 is a matter of huge honour even if you are ranked 20th in the list.

Having said, we would have all liked to see Viv against 1990s spinners. Spin bowling truly revolutionized in late 1990s with emergence of Warne, Murali like extra ordinarily skilled bowlers.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Gavaskar averages 50+ as a test opener in that era. It's one hell of career given the relatively easiest bowling in his era which every other contemporary of his feasted on belonged to his own country.

Viv who was a middle order batsman averages less than Gavaskar, has lesser runs and centuries and he never had to face his own bowling lime up. A bowling line up which trashed batting record of all opposition batsman.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Viv doesn't belong to top 10 greatest test batsmen of all-time. This is the actual list:-

1. Don Bradman
2. Jack Hobbs( Father of cricket)
3. WC Grace
4. Ernest Tyldesly
5. Garfield Sobers
6. Victor Trumper
7. KS RanjitSinghji
8. George Headley
9. Sachin Tendulkar
10. Brian Lara

Viv fans must understand cricket didn't started yesterday, the game is going from 150 years now.

Also no Hobbs here.Please reply to my previous comment on post.appreciate.Why Grace,Trumper and Ranji ahead of Gavaskar.Lara,Tendulkar and Viv?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Gavaskar averages 50+ as a test opener in that era. It's one hell of career given the relatively easiest bowling in his era which every other contemporary of his feasted on belonged to his own country.

Viv who was a middle order batsman averages less than Gavaskar, has lesser runs and centuries and he never had to face his own bowling lime up. A bowling line up which trashed batting record of all opposition batsman.

Have you considered Viv's super performances in WSC supertests where he averaged 86.2 in the 1st season and Gavaskar's abstinence from it?Remember Sunny had advantage of playing lesser attacks in that team against whom he amasses 7 centuries.

 

[andy0204]

Gavaskar averages 50+ as a test opener in that era. It's one hell of career given the relatively easiest bowling in his era which every other contemporary of his feasted on belonged to his own country.

Viv who was a middle order batsman averages less than Gavaskar, has lesser runs and centuries and he never had to face his own bowling lime up. A bowling line up which trashed batting record of all opposition batsman.

Viv a middle order batsman you got to be kidding me,he played at no 3 which is basically facing a new ball and also scored a century against Lillie and Thompson in 1976 as an opener.

 

[Ab Fan]

Also no Hobbs here.Please reply to my previous comment on post.appreciate.Why Grace,Trumper and Ranji ahead of Gavaskar.Lara,Tendulkar and Viv?

Which Hobbs? I know only one and he is there at no.2. Jack Hobbs is basically the father of cricket.

They are revolutionaries of cricket. Their technical innovations and enormous influence towards a generation left a lasting legacy. They have basically invented batsmanship and were particularly admired for popularizing the game to different sections of the world by becoming an inspiration to the contemporary viewers.

 

[Ab Fan]

The fear of being hit changes peoples techniques and destroys careers, its the reason Zaheer isnt highly rated as stats would justify- How many players today or in the last 20 years have feared getting hit. When Mitch Johnson turned the clock back to the 70s and 80s and look at what happened to the likes of Cook etc. These guys would have averaged at least 6-7 lower in the 70s and 80s. Plonking your foot down the wicket against the likes of IK, Lillee, Thompson, Pascoe, Hogg, Snow without even mentioning the Windies guys wasnt an option.

The thing is these guys started playing cricket with helmet only and hence were used to with that, if there was no helmet in their generation, they would care least about it.

Now if I go the other way round bringing the helmet factor to modern era bowlers, are you also willing to accept that modern era fast bowlers like Steyn, Anderson, Johnson, Bumrah and Shami also deserve to get a pass of 5-6 average in bowling because they are bowling to batsmen wearing helmets and other protective gears compared to the 80s bowlers like Holding who had the luxury to bowl bouncers one after another to tailenders without helmet and kill them in case they are not getting out??

Does that mean a Jofra Archer, Dale Steyn, Mitchell Johnson, Mohammad Shami, Neil Wagner and Jasprit Bumrah should be considered equal or better bowlers than Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, John Snow, Imran khan, Andy Roberts and Michael Holding?

 

[Ab Fan]

Why not Brian Lara at atleast 3 if not 2 and whey below Sobers?No Gavaskar in top 10 or Viv and No Tendulkar in top 5?Very hard to accept.Anyway well done for having a diverse viewpoint.

Cricket fans who started watching the game yesterday will find it hard to accept the reality. One need to have immense understanding of cricket before making these rankings. The game is almost 150 years old and making it to top 10 batsmen is in itself a legendary achievement.

 

[Bewal Express]

The thing is these guys started playing cricket with helmet only and hence were used to with that, if there was no helmet in their generation, they would care least about it.

Now if I go the other way round bringing the helmet factor to modern era bowlers, are you also willing to accept that modern era fast bowlers like Steyn, Anderson, Johnson, Bumrah and Shami also deserve to get a pass of 5-6 average in bowling because they are bowling to batsmen wearing helmets and other protective gears compared to the 80s bowlers like Holding who had the luxury to bowl bouncers one after another to tailenders without helmet and kill them in case they are not getting out??

Does that mean a Jofra Archer, Dale Steyn, Mitchell Johnson, Mohammad Shami, Neil Wagner and Jasprit Bumrah should be considered equal or better bowlers than Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, John Snow, Imran khan, Andy Roberts and Michael Holding?

The modern fast bowlers are very skilful and deserve lost of credit for their skill levels. Whether they are good as or better than, is a matter opinion. But in cricket the fear of getting hurt plays with the mind and as Mitch Johnson showed, no batsman is safe from this fear. The likes of Lara and Tendulkar would never have been anywhere near as successful in the era of Viv but Viv would have been fine in their era. We saw that both struggled against genuine pace and that was with helmets.

 

[tyron_woodley]

The thing is these guys started playing cricket with helmet only and hence were used to with that, if there was no helmet in their generation, they would care least about it.

Now if I go the other way round bringing the helmet factor to modern era bowlers, are you also willing to accept that modern era fast bowlers like Steyn, Anderson, Johnson, Bumrah and Shami also deserve to get a pass of 5-6 average in bowling because they are bowling to batsmen wearing helmets and other protective gears compared to the 80s bowlers like Holding who had the luxury to bowl bouncers one after another to tailenders without helmet and kill them in case they are not getting out??

Does that mean a Jofra Archer, Dale Steyn, Mitchell Johnson, Mohammad Shami, Neil Wagner and Jasprit Bumrah should be considered equal or better bowlers than Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, John Snow, Imran khan, Andy Roberts and Michael Holding?

All those said bowlers are better. Sorry. Far better than Jeff, Roberts etc.

Those past era players are lucky they played in a bowling friendly era..

 

[Ab Fan]

All those said bowlers are better. Sorry. Far better than Jeff, Roberts etc.

Those past era players are lucky they played in a bowling friendly era..

Spot on. This question is for our Padosi brother, [MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION] though. I reiterate again, using helmet logic,

Can we say,

Steyn is better than Marshall?

Shami is better than Holding?

Bumrah is better than Imran?

Archer is better than Garner and Roberts?

Archer basically smashed Smith with a bouncer who was wearing helmet and he ended up getting concussion and this is the guy with a test average of 62. What do we make of this?

Varun Aaron ripped apart Stuart Broad batting career and he is not even in top 10 Indian bowler today.

 

[Bewal Express]

Spot on. This question is for our Padosi brother, [MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION] though. I reiterate again, using helmet logic,

Can we say,

Steyn is better than Marshall?

Shami is better than Holding?

Bumrah is better than Imran?

Archer is better than Garner and Roberts?

Archer basically smashed Smith with a bouncer who was wearing helmet and he ended up getting concussion and this is the guy with a test average of 62. What do we make of this?

Varun Aaron ripped apart Stuart Broad batting career and he is not even in top 10 Indian bowler today.

No, because there are other factors involved such as pitches, expectations, umpiring and injuries, with particularly pitches especially in the last 10 years being results orientated. The way i look at it is slighlty different from you. Could these guys have been just as good 30-40 years ago and could they be just as good today as they were back in their day. Would the likes of Shami and Bumrah( as i said i am dubious about his action) stood out as exceptional in those days? Not in my book, although they are good bowlers and they would have been ok back then. Would Steyn been as good as those guys, yes. But all the old bowlers you have mentioned would be the leading lights of today. And you forget to acknowledge how much extra county cricket bowling they had to do to earn a living and the injuries they suffered because of it. No doubt the bouncer rule helped them but they were much more than just bouncers.

 

[tyron_woodley]

No, because there are other factors involved such as pitches, expectations, umpiring and injuries, with particularly pitches especially in the last 10 years being results orientated. The way i look at it is slighlty different from you. Could these guys have been just as good 30-40 years ago and could they be just as good today as they were back in their day. Would the likes of Shami and Bumrah( as i said i am dubious about his action) stood out as exceptional in those days? Not in my book, although they are good bowlers and they would have been ok back then. Would Steyn been as good as those guys, yes. But all the old bowlers you have mentioned would be the leading lights of today. And you forget to acknowledge how much extra county cricket bowling they had to do to earn a living and the injuries they suffered because of it. No doubt the bouncer rule helped them but they were much more than just bouncers.

No they wouldn't dominate modern era.
Bumrah and Shami would easily be amongst the top 5 in that era. Stop being delusional and live in nostalgia.

It was a bowling friendly era back then.
All the rules favoured the bowler.

Oh how sad they had to play county lol.

What's about now? How many odi's, how may t20s, how many frnachzie cricket and then test matches. Not to mention domestic first class matches.

Bumrah Shami Steyn Cummins Hazelwood broad Anderson Boult Wagner all would be top tier Bowles in that era easily.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Spot on. This question is for our Padosi brother, [MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION] though. I reiterate again, using helmet logic,

Can we say,

Steyn is better than Marshall?

Shami is better than Holding?

Bumrah is better than Imran?

Archer is better than Garner and Roberts?

Archer basically smashed Smith with a bouncer who was wearing helmet and he ended up getting concussion and this is the guy with a test average of 62. What do we make of this?

Varun Aaron ripped apart Stuart Broad batting career and he is not even in top 10 Indian bowler today.

Agree with all.
These delusional past era nostalgia clowns will always overrate the past. Yea batting wise they may have been better talents but that's only cause modern era players focus on multiple formats.

Bowling wise current era is well ahead.

No Helmet
No Protective gearing
Bowling friendly seaming pitches
No drs
No unbiased umpire
No unlimited bouncer rule

Loool. Imagine what Shami can do with unlimited bouncer rule. Bumrah.

Just cause Imran Khan and co were good at the time in a very bowling friendly era doesn't mean their skills will translate to modern era. That's why I hate era comparison however the truth is bowlers are better, more functional and just all round better athletes now compared to past era's.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

The modern fast bowlers are very skilful and deserve lost of credit for their skill levels. Whether they are good as or better than, is a matter opinion. But in cricket the fear of getting hurt plays with the mind and as Mitch Johnson showed, no batsman is safe from this fear. The likes of Lara and Tendulkar would never have been anywhere near as successful in the era of Viv but Viv would have been fine in their era. We saw that both struggled against genuine pace and that was with helmets.

Kindly respond to my posts on your comments. appreciate . I complemented them but still had questions.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] [MENTION=291]junaid[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] please contribute here

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Sorry [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

 

[Bewal Express]

Agree with all.
These delusional past era nostalgia clowns will always overrate the past. Yea batting wise they may have been better talents but that's only cause modern era players focus on multiple formats.

Bowling wise current era is well ahead.

No Helmet
No Protective gearing
Bowling friendly seaming pitches
No drs
No unbiased umpire
No unlimited bouncer rule

Loool. Imagine what Shami can do with unlimited bouncer rule. Bumrah.

Just cause Imran Khan and co were good at the time in a very bowling friendly era doesn't mean their skills will translate to modern era. That's why I hate era comparison however the truth is bowlers are better, more functional and just all round better athletes now compared to past era's.

Shami? Really? The guy is a solid bowler but this hype of average bowlers must stop. No, PK and def no Ind can hold a candle against IK a test bowler. BTW what would Shami if they had no limits on bouncers? Nothing more than he can do. Its incredibly hard on the body to bowl effective bouncers.

 

[Bewal Express]

No they wouldn't dominate modern era.
Bumrah and Shami would easily be amongst the top 5 in that era. Stop being delusional and live in nostalgia.

It was a bowling friendly era back then.
All the rules favoured the bowler.

Oh how sad they had to play county lol.

What's about now? How many odi's, how may t20s, how many frnachzie cricket and then test matches. Not to mention domestic first class matches.

Bumrah Shami Steyn Cummins Hazelwood broad Anderson Boult Wagner all would be top tier Bowles in that era easily.

So Joel Garner, Michael Holding, Andy Roberts, IK and many others wouldnt be in the best in the world today and would be behind the likes of Bumrah, Shami etc. No chance

 

[Bewal Express]

On a bad wicket was not Lara or Tendulkar more proven?Did not Lara turn games singlehandedly more than anyone and Tendulkar more durable?

Anyway salute your comment.

Both were brilliant players and both had their strengths. Lara looked to dominate more than Tendulkar and on bad wickets he might have had a slight edge but I wouldn't say it was definitive. As good as Lara was, his failure to deal with AD on the 1st Windies test to SA in 98, has always filled with disappointment. Tendulkar greatest strength was his ability to deal with pressure of being every Indians family member. On different days, I change my mind on who was better.

 

[Ab Fan]

So Joel Garner, Michael Holding, Andy Roberts, IK and many others wouldnt be in the best in the world today and would be behind the likes of Bumrah, Shami etc. No chance

They would be great bowlers but while bowling to batsmen in a batting friendly era with reverse swing being extinct( a massive disadvantage to Shami) with two new ball rule, no freedom of chewing the ball, massive workload due to playing all formats and the need to adapt across all formats in a more professional era for fast bowling, things are far more harder for pacers in this era than in past.

Hence, modern era pacers deserve a leeway of 3-4 AVG compared to pacers of 80s and 90s.

 

[Bewal Express]

They would be great bowlers but while bowling to batsmen in a batting friendly era with reverse swing being extinct( a massive disadvantage to Shami) with two new ball rule, no freedom of chewing the ball, massive workload due to playing all formats and the need to adapt across all formats in a more professional era for fast bowling, things are far more harder for pacers in this era than in past.

Hence, modern era pacers deserve a leeway of 3-4 AVG compared to pacers of 80s and 90s.

Modern bowlers are good bowlers but no way would any of these guys be better than the guys I mentioned. Most of the guys had to bowl 4 days a week over the English summer in County cricket because that was their only income because they got bugger all playing for their countries.

 

[Ab Fan]

Both were brilliant players and both had their strengths. Lara looked to dominate more than Tendulkar and on bad wickets he might have had a slight edge but I wouldn't say it was definitive. As good as Lara was, his failure to deal with AD on the 1st Windies test to SA in 98, has always filled with disappointment. Tendulkar greatest strength was his ability to deal with pressure of being every Indians family member. On different days, I change my mind on who was better.

What sets Tendulkar apart from others was,

At age of 25, Tendulkar was averaging 58 with 6000 runs.

At same age, Ponting was averaging 43 with about 1500 runs, Kohli was averaging 45 with about 2500 runs, Babar is averaging 45, ABD was averaging 43 and while Lara was averaging 50+, he had about 2500 runs to his name at age of 25.

This means that between age 21-25, Tendulkar is giving his country an advantage of four years of insane peak while during the same period, other legends are rather being invested by their country as they are trying to establish themselves. No cricketer has ever achieved such highest peak till the time he reached age 25. Moreover, he didn't stopped right there and maintained the top standards till age 37 and in both formats.

Viv was a legend certainly but as you can see my list, I couldn't find his name in top 10. He should be there in top 15-20 for sure as the game covers almost 150 years of cricket history.

 

[Bewal Express]

What sets Tendulkar apart from others was,

At age of 25, Tendulkar was averaging 58 with 6000 runs.

At same age, Ponting was averaging 43 with about 1500 runs, Kohli was averaging 45 with about 2500 runs, Babar is averaging 45, ABD was averaging 43 and while Lara was averaging 50+, he had about 2500 runs to his name at age of 25.

This means that between age 21-25, Tendulkar is giving his country an advantage of four years of insane peak while during the same period, other legends are rather being invested by their country as they are trying to establish themselves. No cricketer has ever achieved such highest peak till the time he reached age 25. Moreover, he didn't stopped right there and maintained the top standards till age 37 and in both formats.

Viv was a legend certainly but as you can see my list, I couldn't find his name in top 10. He should be there in top 15-20 for sure as the game covers almost 150 years of cricket history.

Tendulkar was a brilliant player but for me he got hit too often to be even close to Viv. If he had played in Vivs era with limited helmets or no helmets, his career would have been ok and pretty short and we wouldn't be talking about him today.

 

[Ab Fan]

Tendulkar was a brilliant player but for me he got hit too often to be even close to Viv. If he had played in Vivs era with limited helmets or no helmets, his career would have been ok and pretty short and we wouldn't be talking about him today.

You are now making up opinions with no explanations. Viv didn't even faced his own bowlers, facing Botham and Kapil or an old past his prime Lillee who by that time was averaging 100 in Pakistan, is no legendary stuff.

No doubt Viv is a legend for any era but as per my reading of the game and I have been reading for many years now, Ernest Tyldesly is a much better batsmen than Viv.

 

[IMMY69]

For me he was quiet simply the best.
Better then anything that came before or after him.

 

[MMHS]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] [MENTION=291]junaid[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] please contribute here

He was and still the most dominating Test batsman I have seen - may not be technically most proficient (In fact among only his contemporaries, I believe Greg & BA Richrads were better batsman, may be technically Gavaskar as well), but the most effective ever. Often his batting heroics can't be measured by stats (His stats are relatively poor actually even in 1970-80s standards), but if anyone ever could change the course of a Test match with bat in a session, it has to be Viv - he would target the best bowlers, his body language was intimidating, the batting version of DK Lillee or Imran and he'll do things that opponents would like to stop. One example I can recall (probably was against Poms), Willis put a 7-2 filed with a fine leg and deep mid-wicket after his leg line with 5-4 was brutally demolished .... very next ball Viv picked a ball, out swing, at least a foot out-side off, leaving and flicked it over squire leg umpire - the best part was that, he immediately let Willis know that the fielder at back-ward squire was taken off & it was noticed ...

Viv Richards of Frank Worell Trophy 1979-80, was, is and will be the greatest batsman world has ever seen in a Test series .... at Gabba, he pulled Thompson over mid-on like a Tennis forehand, one bounce to fence (those days they didn't use ropes in AUS, otherwise it was a SIX in modern day and anywhere else outside Australia) and it reached fence before Thompson could settle and look back.....

The greatest of all time, I don't have any doubt ever ....

 

[Bewal Express]

You are now making up opinions with no explanations. Viv didn't even faced his own bowlers, facing Botham and Kapil or an old past his prime Lillee who by that time was averaging 100 in Pakistan, is no legendary stuff.

No doubt Viv is a legend for any era but as per my reading of the game and I have been reading for many years now, Ernest Tyldesly is a much better batsmen than Viv.

And you avoided the most thing of all would Tendulkar have lasted long as the evidence suggests that he got hit by medium pacers. Just imagine what would happen to a guy seen as weak against the short ball in an era of unfettered short balls.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

He was and still the most dominating Test batsman I have seen - may not be technically most proficient (In fact among only his contemporaries, I believe Greg & BA Richrads were better batsman, may be technically Gavaskar as well), but the most effective ever. Often his batting heroics can't be measured by stats (His stats are relatively poor actually even in 1970-80s standards), but if anyone ever could change the course of a Test match with bat in a session, it has to be Viv - he would target the best bowlers, his body language was intimidating, the batting version of DK Lillee or Imran and he'll do things that opponents would like to stop. One example I can recall (probably was against Poms), Willis put a 7-2 filed with a fine leg and deep mid-wicket after his leg line with 5-4 was brutally demolished .... very next ball Viv picked a ball, out swing, at least a foot out-side off, leaving and flicked it over squire leg umpire - the best part was that, he immediately let Willis know that the fielder at back-ward squire was taken off & it was noticed ...

Viv Richards of Frank Worell Trophy 1979-80, was, is and will be the greatest batsman world has ever seen in a Test series .... at Gabba, he pulled Thompson over mid-on like a Tennis forehand, one bounce to fence (those days they didn't use ropes in AUS, otherwise it was a SIX in modern day and anywhere else outside Australia) and it reached fence before Thompson could settle and look back.....

The greatest of all time, I don't have any doubt ever ....

Great post .appreciate .to confirm in your view Was Viv a better test batsman than Greg Chappel and Sunil Gavaskar?

 

[Ab Fan]

And you avoided the most thing of all would Tendulkar have lasted long as the evidence suggests that he got hit by medium pacers. Just imagine what would happen to a guy seen as weak against the short ball in an era of unfettered short balls.

He smashed a 150 kph Akhtar so much in World Cup 2003 Infront of full packed crowd that he could never recover from that and ended up with an unfulfilled career and a big let done. He has also clobbered Lee all his life who was another express pace bowler.

James Anderson is one of the most skillful medium pacer and Tendulkar was on his last legs, so SRT might have struggled against him. But given Viv's average of 19 in NZ who had Rich Had, I am not sure how he would have deal against Jimmy in England with Duke bowl in overcast conditions as he lacked a tighter technique and defence.

 

[Bewal Express]

He smashed a 150 kph Akhtar so much in World Cup 2003 Infront of full packed crowd that he could never recover from that and ended up with an unfulfilled career and a big let done. He has also clobbered Lee all his life who was another express pace bowler.

James Anderson is one of the most skillful medium pacer and Tendulkar was on his last legs, so SRT might have struggled against him. But given Viv's average of 19 in NZ who had Rich Had, I am not sure how he would have deal against Jimmy in England with Duke bowl in overcast conditions as he lacked a tighter technique and defence.

That shows your total lack of understanding of cricket if you can point to one innings. How many times did an unfit SA make him look scared, too many. Anderson hit when he was bowling when he was bowling in the early 80s. Trust me, he was hit too often and he would have bounced all day by the guys in those days. Viv had weaknesses but he would have been on the pitch to work them out, but if you in hospital, you ain't doing Jack.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Shami? Really? The guy is a solid bowler but this hype of average bowlers must stop. No, PK and def no Ind can hold a candle against IK a test bowler. BTW what would Shami if they had no limits on bouncers? Nothing more than he can do. Its incredibly hard on the body to bowl effective bouncers.

Average bowlers hahha? Average is Waqar. Go look at his abysmal average vs india and Australia.

Inran khan was a good bowler of his era. No reason why he would succeed in the current era with modern era rules.

Shame would excel in any era. He is not average. He is a world class bowler. Stop being petty.

Bouncer is hard to bowl yes but shame has a mean searing bouncer and can bowl it quite often. He has the physical tools and the skillset to do so.

Bumrah would be a top bowler in any era as long as he is injury free.

All current bowlers who are top bowlers at present would rip the past greats like Roberts, imran etf if they played in that weak era where rules were more favourable and conducive to fast bowling.

 

[tyron_woodley]

So Joel Garner, Michael Holding, Andy Roberts, IK and many others wouldnt be in the best in the world today and would be behind the likes of Bumrah, Shami etc. No chance

How do you know they would be better?
Bumrah shami rabada Cummins boult Wagner Hazelwood Anderson and broad all wipe the floor with the past greats in the current era.

They actually still have good averages for bowling in such a batting friendly era. YOU NEED to factor that it mate.

There is no guarantee your weak era bowlers of 80s would excel in current era with modern rules. They may, they may not.

But damn sure current ones would excel in that bowling friendly weak era.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Modern bowlers are good bowlers but no way would any of these guys be better than the guys I mentioned. Most of the guys had to bowl 4 days a week over the English summer in County cricket because that was their only income because they got bugger all playing for their countries.

Most of current guys do that now with domestic plus t20 Internationals, odi bilateral, tests, franchise cricket and either asia cup or champions trophy games as well. Much much harder now.

 

[Bewal Express]

Most of current guys do that now with domestic plus t20 Internationals, odi bilateral, tests, franchise cricket and either asia cup or champions trophy games as well. Much much harder now.

They don't play much 4 day cricket, if any. They bowl lots of 4 overs.

 

[Bewal Express]

How do you know they would be better?
Bumrah shami rabada Cummins boult Wagner Hazelwood Anderson and broad all wipe the floor with the past greats in the current era.

They actually still have good averages for bowling in such a batting friendly era. YOU NEED to factor that it mate.

There is no guarantee your weak era bowlers of 80s would excel in current era with modern rules. They may, they may not.

But damn sure current ones would excel in that bowling friendly weak era.

How do I know, well as all this is what if, then I saw those guys and these guys and let's be honest, most of the guys you mention wouldn't have been anywhere your Lillees, Marshall, Garners, Holdings,IKs. When you watched as much as I have, you can tell. Ultimately, its an opinion.

 

[Bewal Express]

Average bowlers hahha? Average is Waqar. Go look at his abysmal average vs india and Australia.

Inran khan was a good bowler of his era. No reason why he would succeed in the current era with modern era rules.

Shame would excel in any era. He is not average. He is a world class bowler. Stop being petty.

Bouncer is hard to bowl yes but shame has a mean searing bouncer and can bowl it quite often. He has the physical tools and the skillset to do so.

Bumrah would be a top bowler in any era as long as he is injury free.

All current bowlers who are top bowlers at present would rip the past greats like Roberts, imran etf if they played in that weak era where rules were more favourable and conducive to fast bowling.

Waqar is still better than any bowler Ind has ever produced. And that was the Waqar after his injury. Don't talk about a chucker and a swing bowler who even on green tops in 2018 was part of side that got whacked by a poor English team.

 

[tyron_woodley]

They don't play much 4 day cricket, if any. They bowl lots of 4 overs.

iPL is 4 overs per game. Ok. 16 games played very 2 days. Do you realize how taxi g that is on the body. Short format requires more explosive power. It's a gruelling setup.

On top of that many players play other comps bilateral Asia cup Champions trophy every 2yeaes, tests and first class matches.

Maybe Pakistanis don't play first class? But teams like India Australia England and n.z all play first class matches as well.

 

[tyron_woodley]

How do I know, well as all this is what if, then I saw those guys and these guys and let's be honest, most of the guys you mention wouldn't have been anywhere your Lillees, Marshall, Garners, Holdings,IKs. When you watched as much as I have, you can tell. Ultimately, its an opinion.

Your opinion lol ok. My opinion is current lot are far better as they play in a much more batting friendly era

In the 80s the rules were far more conducive to fast bowling and I believe lot of them would struggle in the modern era as many have some noticable difficiencies. They bowled to unprotected batsmen in a weak era with very bowling friendly rules.

Yet many batsmen averaged over 45. That's quite Poor from the so called greats.

They were good in their time but I am damn sure they would struggle in modern era.

My opinion.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Waqar is still better than any bowler Ind has ever produced. And that was the Waqar after his injury. Don't talk about a chucker and a swing bowler who even on green tops in 2018 was part of side that got whacked by a poor English team.

Waqar is trash. Always has been trash vs top teams. Bumrah is lightyears ahead of waqar already. You can be happy with your trash. I don't care.

Bumrah missed 2 games in that series btw.

Bumrah Shami are already greater than waqar and shoaib chucker.

Only one left. Wasim. Very soon that he will be overtaken too.

 

[Ab Fan]

That shows your total lack of understanding of cricket if you can point to one innings. How many times did an unfit SA make him look scared, too many. Anderson hit when he was bowling when he was bowling in the early 80s. Trust me, he was hit too often and he would have bounced all day by the guys in those days. Viv had weaknesses but he would have been on the pitch to work them out, but if you in hospital, you ain't doing Jack.

Atleast I have explained all my arguments over here. You don't even have a valid point with better explanation. Viv struggled Vs 30 averaging spinners like Chandra and Qadir while in comparison, Tendulkar and Lara smashed much superior quality spinners like Warne and Murali.

Also, lol at struggling vs Anderson and SA because Tendulkar averaged 50+ in England and Australia and 40+ in South Africa even after maintaining such a long career and facing the very greatest bowlers of all-time. If this was some other batsmen with such a long career, they would have probably averaged 40. There is no hiding away when you tour all the countries for 5-6 times and still end up as GOAT.

As I said earlier, Sir Ernest Tyldesly is a much better batsmen than Viv IMO.

 

[Bewal Express]

Atleast I have explained all my arguments over here. You don't even have a valid point with better explanation. Viv struggled Vs 30 averaging spinners like Chandra and Qadir while in comparison, Tendulkar and Lara smashed much superior quality spinners like Warne and Murali.

Also, lol at struggling vs Anderson and SA because Tendulkar averaged 50+ in England and Australia and 40+ in South Africa even after maintaining such a long career and facing the very greatest bowlers of all-time. If this was some other batsmen with such a long career, they would have probably averaged 40. There is no hiding away when you tour all the countries for 5-6 times and still end up as GOAT.

As I said earlier, Sir Ernest Tyldesly is a much better batsmen than Viv IMO.

You have lost. Just because in a one day game Tendulkar hit Akhtar is proof that he could handle the quick ones, when as we all know he was struggling and getting hit by medium pacers says it all. It wasn't glancing blows, these were flush on hits. No one says Tendulkar isn't a great player but do yourself a favour and at least understand why he wouldn't have been on the pitch if played on the era of no equipment or dodgy equipment.

 

[Bewal Express]

Waqar is trash. Always has been trash vs top teams. Bumrah is lightyears ahead of waqar already. You can be happy with your trash. I don't care.

Bumrah missed 2 games in that series btw.

Bumrah Shami are already greater than waqar and shoaib chucker.

Only one left. Wasim. Very soon that he will be overtaken too.

Still better than any Ind fast bowler- EVER.

 

[Bewal Express]

Your opinion lol ok. My opinion is current lot are far better as they play in a much more batting friendly era

In the 80s the rules were far more conducive to fast bowling and I believe lot of them would struggle in the modern era as many have some noticable difficiencies. They bowled to unprotected batsmen in a weak era with very bowling friendly rules.

Yet many batsmen averaged over 45. That's quite Poor from the so called greats.

They were good in their time but I am damn sure they would struggle in modern era.

My opinion.

They bowled on fair wickets. The Wickets today are more bowler friendly and average batsman are still piling up the runs.

 

[Bewal Express]

iPL is 4 overs per game. Ok. 16 games played very 2 days. Do you realize how taxi g that is on the body. Short format requires more explosive power. It's a gruelling setup.

On top of that many players play other comps bilateral Asia cup Champions trophy every 2yeaes, tests and first class matches.

Maybe Pakistanis don't play first class? But teams like India Australia England and n.z all play first class matches as well.

Do you know how taxing it is on the body to bowl 20 overs a day, and then bowl 11/12 and then 8 overs on a Sunday. I think i would take 16 in a week. And also get a pittance. Get over yourself.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Do you know how taxing it is on the body to bowl 20 overs a day, and then bowl 11/12 and then 8 overs on a Sunday. I think i would take 16 in a week. And also get a pittance. Get over yourself.

It is but modern players still play across formats so they are superior in every way. Why don't many test specialists Excell in short formats if it's so easy. You can't tuk tuk in short formats my dear Pakistani. Get a grip.

Explosive power drains your energy system more so yeah modern bowlers greater than old frauds of 90s and especially 80s and earlier by a lopsided Margin.

 

[tyron_woodley]

They bowled on fair wickets. The Wickets today are more bowler friendly and average batsman are still piling up the runs.

No they did not. Rules heavily favoured bowlers. It was also on extremely bowling friendly wickets.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Still better than any Ind fast bowler- EVER.

Not even better than Ishant post 2015. Get out of here. Wackqar is the most overrated one dimensional bowler I have ever seen.

Bumrah and Shami are already lightyears ahead of him.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Viv a middle order batsman you got to be kidding me,he played at no 3 which is basically facing a new ball and also scored a century against Lillie and Thompson in 1976 as an opener.

To be honest, with the destructive class of Greenidge and Haynes I doubt Viv walked in against the new ball that often? I’m sure there are statistics available on this somewhere.

 

[Bewal Express]

Not even better than Ishant post 2015. Get out of here. Wackqar is the most overrated one dimensional bowler I have ever seen.

Bumrah and Shami are already lightyears ahead of him.

Ask any player or pundit and you will get your answer. Didnt Ishant the great play in England when they got smashed 4-1

 

[Bewal Express]

No they did not. Rules heavily favoured bowlers. It was also on extremely bowling friendly wickets.

No they werent. The bouncer rule was there to stop the yellow bellies from getting easy runs.

 

[Bewal Express]

It is but modern players still play across formats so they are superior in every way. Why don't many test specialists Excell in short formats if it's so easy. You can't tuk tuk in short formats my dear Pakistani. Get a grip.

Explosive power drains your energy system more so yeah modern bowlers greater than old frauds of 90s and especially 80s and earlier by a lopsided Margin.

All the past great players would have been fine today, but we can say the same for people that cant handle medium pacers and get hit full on, playing in the era of fast bowlers trying to knock your block off- i dont think so. I rather bowl 4 overs over 1.5hrs than 20 overs of 6 hours. The one thing for sure is that either you havent played or not intelligent enough to understand my points. Cricket didnt start with a few Ind victories.

 

[Ab Fan]

You have lost. Just because in a one day game Tendulkar hit Akhtar is proof that he could handle the quick ones, when as we all know he was struggling and getting hit by medium pacers says it all. It wasn't glancing blows, these were flush on hits. No one says Tendulkar isn't a great player but do yourself a favour and at least understand why he wouldn't have been on the pitch if played on the era of no equipment or dodgy equipment.

Just because he smashed Akhtar is not the only proof brother. He survived for 24 years of international cricket,and yet ended with average of 50+ in Australia and England and 40+ in South Africa, I gave you all these examples, you are just circling yourself on the same Jimmy Anderson argument again and again. By repeating Jimmy again and again, you are basically insulting Jimmy Anderson, the bowler. In 1999 tour to Australia and 1992 tour to Australia, he was the best batsmen for India facing impeccable control of McGrath, spin magician Warne and sheer pace of Lee and yet he won player of the series in 1999 series.

I am no Sachinista because if I would have been one, I would have filled this thread with a few pages by now but I don't really care. I have asked several times the same question about Viv now, he struggled Vs Qadir and Chandra who were good bowlers but about 60% as good as Warne and Murali, yet SRT-Lara thrived against them.

90s-00s IMO was the most versatile era with plenty of challenges to deal with in all facets of game- pace bowling, spin, swing and seam. This wasn't the case though as much in 70s-80s.

 

[Bewal Express]

Just because he smashed Akhtar is not the only proof brother. He survived for 24 years of international cricket,and yet ended with average of 50+ in Australia and England and 40+ in South Africa, I gave you all these examples, you are just circling yourself on the same Jimmy Anderson argument again and again. By repeating Jimmy again and again, you are basically insulting Jimmy Anderson, the bowler. In 1999 tour to Australia and 1992 tour to Australia, he was the best batsmen for India facing impeccable control of McGrath, spin magician Warne and sheer pace of Lee and yet he won player of the series in 1999 series.

I am no Sachinista because if I would have been one, I would have filled this thread with a few pages by now but I don't really care. I have asked several times the same question about Viv now, he struggled Vs Qadir and Chandra who were good bowlers but about 60% as good as Warne and Murali, yet SRT-Lara thrived against them.

90s-00s IMO was the most versatile era with plenty of challenges to deal with in all facets of game- pace bowling, spin, swing and seam. This wasn't the case though as much in 70s-80s.

I agree he was a great player for the time he played but he got hit flush on by medium pacers, do you seriously think he would have scored heavily in the 70s and 80s with the fear that he was a sitting duck against guys that could bowl 4 bouncers an over with a short leg. Please stop this nonsense, your making a fool of yourself.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Ask any player or pundit and you will get your answer. Didnt Ishant the great play in England when they got smashed 4-1

Din't wackqar get blasted by India and Australia?
Ishant actually helped India win away in Australia. Who is England? We don't care about England. We have beaten England in the past. Australia is the real tests.

Any pundit? What old school pundit? Yea sure. Whatever floats your boat.
No one would pick wackqar over bumrah or Shami. Shami and bumrah would have wallpaper your star studded team had they played for India in the 90s. Would have been a carnage. Get out of here.

 

[tyron_woodley]

All the past great players would have been fine today, but we can say the same for people that cant handle medium pacers and get hit full on, playing in the era of fast bowlers trying to knock your block off- i dont think so. I rather bowl 4 overs over 1.5hrs than 20 overs of 6 hours. The one thing for sure is that either you havent played or not intelligent enough to understand my points. Cricket didnt start with a few Ind victories.

Either you actually are demented or you are pretending to be one? I am not sure.
You would rather? Have you played sports that require explosive power? No then sit down and eat your biryani.
Tests is hard no doubt but a combination of T20 and odi is far more stressful on the body than just tests and first class. Besides, back in the days there was no overrate penalty either.
They even played 4 day games ROFL. not to mention back when you guys were supposedly good you lot played for draws. it wasn't result oriented. So shut it

 

[Robert]

Viv a middle order batsman �� you got to be kidding me,he played at no 3 which is basically facing a new ball and also scored a century against Lillie and Thompson in 1976 as an opener.

Yes he did for the first half of his career, though by 1984 he had dropped to #4. After he became skipper when Lloyd retired he dropped to #5.

 

[Robert]

Either you actually are demented or you are pretending to be one? I am not sure.
You would rather? Have you played sports that require explosive power? No then sit down and eat your biryani.
Tests is hard no doubt but a combination of T20 and odi is far more stressful on the body than just tests and first class. Besides, back in the days there was no overrate penalty either.
They even played 4 day games ROFL. not to mention back when you guys were supposedly good you lot played for draws. it wasn't result oriented. So shut it

Over rate penalties were introduced because test sides in the eighties were slowing down the over rate, particularly WI. Sixteen to eighteen overs an hour used to be quite easy to achieve. Nowadays teams struggle to achieve thirteen or fourteen even with the spinners on.

 

[Bewal Express]

Either you actually are demented or you are pretending to be one? I am not sure.
You would rather? Have you played sports that require explosive power? No then sit down and eat your biryani.
Tests is hard no doubt but a combination of T20 and odi is far more stressful on the body than just tests and first class. Besides, back in the days there was no overrate penalty either.
They even played 4 day games ROFL. not to mention back when you guys were supposedly good you lot played for draws. it wasn't result oriented. So shut it

I must demented arguing with an idiot like that thinks cricket started when Ind started "winning". Viv and the guys from the 70s and 80s didnt have explosive power? They had terrible bats compared to the machines they carry today and the boundries were much longer, not the size of my back garden. Do you really think these little Ind guys like Rohit and Kohli had more power than those guys and bowling 20 overs a day is much harder than bowling 4, just look at their drop in speed when they bowl in test, its 90mph, its 84. Get over yourself, Cricket did not start with some Ind victories.

 

[Bewal Express]

Din't wackqar get blasted by India and Australia?
Ishant actually helped India win away in Australia. Who is England? We don't care about England. We have beaten England in the past. Australia is the real tests.

Any pundit? What old school pundit? Yea sure. Whatever floats your boat.
No one would pick wackqar over bumrah or Shami. Shami and bumrah would have wallpaper your star studded team had they played for India in the 90s. Would have been a carnage. Get out of here.

He helped to beat Ind in Ind in 98-98, you know the one that had the likes of Tendulkar and Dravid playing. He is rated by every player and pundit, who are you? A nobody, so your opinion on fast as Indian is worth as about as Ben Johnsons on drug cheats in Sport- Zilch

 

[tyron_woodley]

Over rate penalties were introduced because test sides in the eighties were slowing down the over rate, particularly WI. Sixteen to eighteen overs an hour used to be quite easy to achieve. Nowadays teams struggle to achieve thirteen or fourteen even with the spinners on.

I meant the game is extended for the day if weather forecast is bad as teams have finish their quotam makes it much harder to escape with a draw.

 

[tyron_woodley]

He helped to beat Ind in Ind in 98-98, you know the one that had the likes of Tendulkar and Dravid playing. He is rated by every player and pundit, who are you? A nobody, so your opinion on fast as Indian is worth as about as Ben Johnsons on drug cheats in Sport- Zilch

No dummy, that was weak India in the 90s. Yew they were strong at home but it wasn't part of a bilateral series.

Tendulkar was no where near his peak at the time you lot played him. Dravid just came onto the scene ROFL.

Pre peak baby Dravid vs prime wackqar. Dravid in his prime would exhaust him via pure attrition cricket. He will be gassed out and pass out on the field.

Wackqar is overrated. I agree Wasim was great but not wackqar. He cost Pakistan many game single handedly. Never rated that guy. He has a poor record vs India and Australia.

 

[tyron_woodley]

I must demented arguing with an idiot like that thinks cricket started when Ind started "winning". Viv and the guys from the 70s and 80s didnt have explosive power? They had terrible bats compared to the machines they carry today and the boundries were much longer, not the size of my back garden. Do you really think these little Ind guys like Rohit and Kohli had more power than those guys and bowling 20 overs a day is much harder than bowling 4, just look at their drop in speed when they bowl in test, its 90mph, its 84. Get over yourself, Cricket did not start with some Ind victories.

Batsmen only appear better in test because they din't have to play all 3 formats.

All you are doing is conjecturing about the past era's so called greatness.

I don't believe they will excel under modern rules especially the bowlers. There needs to be leeway for averages and I would say at least a minimum of 5 percentage points should be awarded to modern bowlers as they don't get to bowl in a very bowling friendly era. not to mention the favourable rules bowlers had in the past era.

Tests cricket is played on the same fields they have always been played on.
Australian pitches are still huge. So are saffer pitches. Boundaries haven't been shorteners there.

Lol faulty speedguns of past era's may show a very high reading. I don't buy that.

Yea they don't play all 3 formats and they don't have the leeway to get away with a draw as teams can't escape bad weather forecast. They will have to compensate by playing for extended period of time the day after. Result oriented era my dear Pakistani boy.

 

[Bewal Express]

No dummy, that was weak India in the 90s. Yew they were strong at home but it wasn't part of a bilateral series.

Tendulkar was no where near his peak at the time you lot played him. Dravid just came onto the scene ROFL.

Pre peak baby Dravid vs prime wackqar. Dravid in his prime would exhaust him via pure attrition cricket. He will be gassed out and pass out on the field.

Wackqar is overrated. I agree Wasim was great but not wackqar. He cost Pakistan many game single handedly. Never rated that guy. He has a poor record vs India and Australia.

So when you lose you are weak- isnt that the reason you lose. You come up with some gems. Thanks for that, i needed a laugh after a long day.
As far as Waqar is concerned, he lost his lethel pace just before the WC in 92 with a serious injury to his back, and still he came back and had a great career. Either you are too young, or too blinkered or lack any historical knowledge and context, but the Waqar that developed after Australia in 89 and upto the WC in 92, was a freak of nature.

 

[Ab Fan]

No dummy, that was weak India in the 90s. Yew they were strong at home but it wasn't part of a bilateral series.

Tendulkar was no where near his peak at the time you lot played him. Dravid just came onto the scene ROFL.

Pre peak baby Dravid vs prime wackqar. Dravid in his prime would exhaust him via pure attrition cricket. He will be gassed out and pass out on the field.

Wackqar is overrated. I agree Wasim was great but not wackqar. He cost Pakistan many game single handedly. Never rated that guy. He has a poor record vs India and Australia.

Lol, Waqar was terrible in 1998 series. He took two wickets in 4 innings. The series was drawn 1-1 and it was Saqlain who was at its peak alongside Wasim Akram who was spearhead of that pace attack.

Matlab Kuch v bol do, Waqar did nothing in that series )

Waqar basically missed out two World Cups for Pakistan, one in '92 and other in '99. In '96, he was owned by Jadeja and then they got knocked out. In '03, he got owned by Tendulkar and ultimately retired.

 

[tyron_woodley]

So when you lose you are weak- isnt that the reason you lose. You come up with some gems. Thanks for that, i needed a laugh after a long day.
As far as Waqar is concerned, he lost his lethel pace just before the WC in 92 with a serious injury to his back, and still he came back and had a great career. Either you are too young, or too blinkered or lack any historical knowledge and context, but the Waqar that developed after Australia in 89 and upto the WC in 92, was a freak of nature.

Oh ok. But see even prime waqar dint face any good batsmen though when he acculmated his frak stats in that period.

You can have a look yourself. From what I have seen he was poor so I can't rate him. Injuries suck but I believe waqar would have been figures out easier in this era especially with tapes to study him and better technology/analytics.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Lol, Waqar was terrible in 1998 series. He took two wickets in 4 innings. The series was drawn 1-1 and it was Saqlain who was at its peak alongside Wasim Akram who was spearhead of that pace attack.

Matlab Kuch v bol do, Waqar did nothing in that series )

Waqar basically missed out two World Cups for Pakistan, one in '92 and other in '99. In '96, he was owned by Jadeja and then they got knocked out. In '03, he got owned by Tendulkar and ultimately retired.

That's why I can never rate waqar. I am sorry Pakistani fans. He is just not good enough. He is like Philander imo. Stat padded.

Wasim yes is a legend. If bumrah can stay injury free, he can move ahead of him.

I never overrate Indian players. If they suck I will be th first one to chastise them. But when I see bumrah and shami's skillset, I have no doubt they would have been top tier bowlers in any era. Waqar? No. Not a chance.

Had 90s India had bumrah and Shami, I swear India could have definitely beaten Pakistan away and saffers too.

 

[szrana007]

Lol, Waqar was terrible in 1998 series. He took two wickets in 4 innings. The series was drawn 1-1 and it was Saqlain who was at its peak alongside Wasim Akram who was spearhead of that pace attack.

Matlab Kuch v bol do, Waqar did nothing in that series )

Waqar basically missed out two World Cups for Pakistan, one in '92 and other in '99. In '96, he was owned by Jadeja and then they got knocked out. In '03, he got owned by Tendulkar and ultimately retired.

So, Waqar is not an ATG as per you ? Shoaib also destroyed India in that Kolkata test 1999. Sachin got a golden duck in that much. And in the 2nd innings got run out, when the crowd rioted and stopped the match.

 

[szrana007]

That's why I can never rate waqar. I am sorry Pakistani fans. He is just not good enough. He is like Philander imo. Stat padded.

Wasim yes is a legend. If bumrah can stay injury free, he can move ahead of him.

I never overrate Indian players. If they suck I will be th first one to chastise them. But when I see bumrah and shami's skillset, I have no doubt they would have been top tier bowlers in any era. Waqar? No. Not a chance.

Had 90s India had bumrah and Shami, I swear India could have definitely beaten Pakistan away and saffers too.

Lmao. SA was too strong at home in the 90's and Pakistan owned Indian in their den in 1999, but you can continue with your delusions.

 

[Ab Fan]

So, Waqar is not an ATG as per you ? Shoaib also destroyed India in that Kolkata test 1999. Sachin got a golden duck in that much. And in the 2nd innings got run out, when the crowd rioted and stopped the match.

Sachin was given run out after Akhtar deliberately came in his way, how shameless that is. Of course, the crowds will riot after that because Tendulkar looked set for a big one. It was Tendulkar who under great spirit of game came back to cool down the crowd so that the game continues.

Waqar can be considered as an ATG, all right but he didn't helped his team drew that series in India. Also, the conditions were bowling friendly back in that era and several other advantages were there.

 

[szrana007]

Sachin was given run out after Akhtar deliberately came in his way, how shameless that is. Of course, the crowds will riot after that because Tendulkar looked set for a big one. It was Tendulkar who under great spirit of game came back to cool down the crowd so that the game continues.

Waqar can be considered as an ATG, all right but he didn't helped his team drew that series in India. Also, the conditions were bowling friendly back in that era and several other advantages were there.

Actually, Sachin was caught napping and he wasn't expecting a direct throw from the boundary. Shoaib was just there to collect the ball. Sachin had himself to blame.

 

[ziggystardust]

Lol at the sensitive Indians on this thread, spending hours on a Pak Forum bigging up India.

 

[Bewal Express]

Oh ok. But see even prime waqar dint face any good batsmen though when he acculmated his frak stats in that period.

You can have a look yourself. From what I have seen he was poor so I can't rate him. Injuries suck but I believe waqar would have been figures out easier in this era especially with tapes to study him and better technology/analytics.

Did you see Waqar before his injury or you relying on YouTube clips. He was a freak of nature before the injury.

 

[Robert]

Did you see Waqar before his injury or you relying on YouTube clips. He was a freak of nature before the injury.

He was terrifying in 1992, prodigious late swing and made Wasim look slow. As for “any good batsmen” he was up against Gooch, Stewart, Gower and Smith. Around the world he bowled at AB, Jones, Boon, Crowe, Azhar, Vengsarkar, Tendulkar, Haynes and Richardson.

 

[Bewal Express]

He was terrifying in 1992, prodigious late swing and made Wasim look slow. As for “any good batsmen” he was up against Gooch, Stewart, Gower and Smith. Around the world he bowled at AB, Jones, Boon, Crowe, Azhar, Vengsarkar, Tendulkar, Haynes and Richardson.

I remember that game against Northants in either 90 or 91, and the spell was just something to behold.When a player the quality of Allan Lamb was struggling with Waqars missiles, you realised the guy was a freak. I think after the injury his arm dropped too low and he wasn't as devastating but still good.

 

[Robert]

I remember that game against Northants in either 90 or 91, and the spell was just something to behold.When a player the quality of Allan Lamb was struggling with Waqars missiles, you realised the guy was a freak. I think after the injury his arm dropped too low and he wasn't as devastating but still good.

Had he played in the 1992 WC, I doubt Pakistan would have lost a match.

It was interesting that Stewart played him best of the England players in 1992 - having seen a lot of him at Surrey, no doubt.

 

[Bewal Express]

Had he played in the 1992 WC, I doubt Pakistan would have lost a match.

It was interesting that Stewart played him best of the England players in 1992 - having seen a lot of him at Surrey, no doubt.

I can remember the shock when he was sent home after the stress fracture.

 

[tyron_woodley]

[/B]
Lmao. SA was too strong at home in the 90's and Pakistan owned Indian in their den in 1999, but you can continue with your delusions.

Without Shami and bumrah and Ishant. Sure.

With them you guys will get pasted too. We had a crap team in 90s because of our weak *** Medicare bowing. With those they can very well beat Pakistan in the 90s.

You never won a bilateral series in India in the 90s. You won some Asia cup test series involving Lanka etc.

 

[tyron_woodley]

He was terrifying in 1992, prodigious late swing and made Wasim look slow. As for “any good batsmen” he was up against Gooch, Stewart, Gower and Smith. Around the world he bowled at AB, Jones, Boon, Crowe, Azhar, Vengsarkar, Tendulkar, Haynes and Richardson.

And what was his record vs these batsmen? How many top order wickets did he get?
I don't ever recall him performing well vs AB, boon or even tenda.