Is Vernon Philander going to be recognised as a great of the game? [Retires after England series]

[Ab Fan]

Actually it's 30 and 32 respectively against good opposition of pace bowling.

Here

Yet they are rated higher. As said, a consistent run of 7-8 years playing in all conditions and longevity will always be rated higher over so called impact performances for shorter terms.

 

[Ab Fan]

And for particular conditions!

 

[soso_killer]

Firstly to clarify things, I don't rate AB highly either in tests. So it is better if we put him out of these comparisons. I didn't brought him either. Obviously,when talking of Philander ,those three names can be given as comparisons because they all played in same era and are elite cricketers.

You did

The cricketing world won't rate him along the lines of Steyn, Amla and *ABD*and among young ones, Qdk and Rabada will take all the limelight afterwards.

Now you don't care about the cricketing world but I do care about that and I dont care what you think but it's a fact that Philander won't be rated along the same lines as those three overall ( I never mentioned test only either although even there it is true).

No I don't. I remember at one stage how Kallis was not going to be remembered and what not. That's always the case with our players I guess. But pretty there'll remember Philander tearing them apart. Especially the Aussies who called a special AGM.

Now you can continue with your subjective illogical points which can be shattered too easily because using same logics, some one like Kallis can also be put under questions. The guy never led and contributed in any series win away from home while in contrast his captain was winning it for fun without him showing up in those big series. Using your logics , impact wise Kallis don't stand a chance.

Kallis won a series in Pakistan and India on his own. Smith was definitely tougher than him too though.

And BTW on 400 chase, who was MOM? All of a sudden, a 50 have become useful in a 400 chase now on a 5th day pitch.Just talking of that match.

Why wasn't Tendulkar the man of the match against England? That's because intelligent people knew who changed the game. Or do you think Sachin should have been awarded ahead of Sehwag's 90?

My point is not that AB didn't play a good knock, he did. When he went in the platform was laid.
Smith, Amla and Kallis had laid the platform and the occupied the crease to tire the Australian attack. That pitch didn't deteriorate, just like the Wanderers pitch didn't deteriorate against India.
In fact Smith scored at 70, which gave us two days to chase without pressure.

 

[soso_killer]

Yet they are rated higher. As said, a consistent run of 7-8 years playing in all conditions and longevity will always be rated higher over so called impact performances for shorter terms.

Longevity doesn't make anyone better.

Who's had a bigger impact for his country in Tests? AB or Steve Smith?
Is AB a better bat for his "longevity"? Or do we have different parameters?

 

[soso_killer]

Interesting quote at the end of day 4 in Perth.

Indeed anything is possible, as India proved last week when they chased down what appeared to be an insurmountable 387 against England in Chennai. Virender Sehwag's brutal 83 set them on the path, and in this match Smith's innings will have proved the decisive factor if South Africa achieve their task.

 

[jnaveen1980]

INteresting civil discussion. Good going. For what its worth i would really love to have a steady bowler like Vernon in my team

 

[New Yorker]

Longevity doesn't make anyone better.

Who's had a bigger impact for his country in Tests? AB or Steve Smith?
Is AB a better bat for his "longevity"? Or do we have different parameters?

Of course it does. Quite a few batsmen have scored more centuries per innings than Sachin, while also managing to squeeze in a triple hundred. But he got the record for most runs and hundreds because he played, and mostly played very well, for so long. Had it not been for this feat it would have strained credulity to compare him to Bradman.

Philander has everything, has performed most everywhere where he has had a decent chance; and has taken big heaps of wickets to win matches and series against the best opposition. He is just missing longevity and pace, that's the X excitement factor for most fans.

For the sake of argument, it would be interesting to see how many ATG bowlers really managed to excel everywhere? McGrath, arguably the greatest Test pace bowler ever, only averaged around 30 in Pakistan and Sri Lanka and never took a 5 fer in India, which according to some would be the only criterion by which to judge a fast bowler.

 

[Ab Fan]

You did



No I don't. I remember at one stage how Kallis was not going to be remembered and what not. That's always the case with our players I guess. But pretty there'll remember Philander tearing them apart. Especially the Aussies who called a special AGM.


Kallis won a series in Pakistan and India on his own. Smith was definitely tougher than him too though.



Why wasn't Tendulkar the man of the match against England? That's because intelligent people knew who changed the game. Or do you think Sachin should have been awarded ahead of Sehwag's 90?

My point is not that AB didn't play a good knock, he did. When he went in the platform was laid.
Smith, Amla and Kallis had laid the platform and the occupied the crease to tire the Australian attack. That pitch didn't deteriorate, just like the Wanderers pitch didn't deteriorate against India.
In fact Smith scored at 70, which gave us two days to chase without pressure.

There is no comparison between the two test matches. Sehwag's knock was clearly a lot superior but this wasn't the case with the match played in Perth2008. With 179-3, that match could have gone anywhere as Smith , the set batsmen was already out. It required lot of efforts to chase down 406 from there.

It can be understandable with the fact that in the former one ,Sehwag was given MOM and rightfully.

In latter, Smith wasnt given MOM even though not only he scored runs but he was the one who led the side. The MOM was AB in that game and rightly so.

There is a reason why when we talk about some great knocks by overseas batsmen in Australia, that knock does get mention instead of Smith's knock. It is not a similar comparison at all.

Now if we go by impact , VVS will be rated as bigger test cricketer than Kallis who in his first 12 years mostly bashed weaker teams and weaker attacks but when it was time to face the great Australians, his team was beaten both home and away.

In contrast , Smith was winning series for fun against Aus and Eng away without their best batsmen Kallis making any major contributions. Having said that, yet nobody in their right mind would rate VVS over Kallis as a bigger cricketer in tests.

The same is the case with Philander. Nobody in their right mind would rate a guy with 7 wkts in Asia over a guy with two double hundreds and plenty of 50+ knocks in Asia.

As already mentioned, it is a fact that Philander doesn't really belong alongside those three Saffers no matter whatever subjective views you put up.

 

[Ab Fan]

Longevity doesn't make anyone better.

Who's had a bigger impact for his country in Tests? AB or Steve Smith?
Is AB a better bat for his "longevity"? Or do we have different parameters?

Smith wins hands down. No questions about it. Its not longevity but lack of ability too for Philander in Asian conditions or on a pitch which is a road.

 

[Ab Fan]

And you are rating Philander ahead of James Anderson?

Anderson is easily the second best test bowler of his era. He has failed only in SA.

 

[New Yorker]

Smith wins hands down. No questions about it. Its not longevity but lack of ability too for Philander in Asian conditions or on a pitch which is a road.

What Asian conditions are you talking about? He's been excellent in India and the UAE. And Australian pitches are not roads these days? He's only blemish is Lanka.

 

[New Yorker]

And you are rating Philander ahead of James Anderson?

Anderson is easily the second best test bowler of his era. He has failed only in SA.

Philander ahead of Anderson for sure. Anderson was quite middling for much of his career, before Asif sat him down. Philander is one of the fastest bowlers ever to reach no 1 in the ICC rankings after his debut. Consistency of performance across countries tells the rest of the story.

 

[Ab Fan]

What Asian conditions are you talking about? He's been excellent in India and the UAE. And Australian pitches are not roads these days? He's only blemish is Lanka.

With 7 wickets, how the hell is anyone excellent. It is like if one plays 1 test and scores 50 & 15*, his avg is 65 but that doesn't make him excellent.

Australian pitches weren't roads when SA and Eng tour them except the dead rubber ones recently. You have to watch matches to know things. You can't use general consensus and rate on that basis.

 

[Ab Fan]

Philander ahead of Anderson for sure. Anderson was quite middling for much of his career, before Asif sat him down. Philander is one of the fastest bowlers ever to reach no 1 in the ICC rankings after his debut. Consistency of performance across countries tells the rest of the story.

I disagree. Anderson is well ahead of Philander as a bowler when we take their career into consideration.

 

[Ab Fan]

Longevity doesn't make anyone better.

Who's had a bigger impact for his country in Tests? AB or Steve Smith?
Is AB a better bat for his "longevity"? Or do we have different parameters?

Smith age is 28.He has 6-7 years of career left. He will put AB into dust even in terms of longevity. Philander age is what?

 

[soso_killer]

There is no comparison between the two test matches. Sehwag's knock was clearly a lot superior but this wasn't the case with the match played in Perth2008. With 179-3, that match could have gone anywhere as Smith , the set batsmen was already out. It required lot of efforts to chase down 406 from there.

There's no comparisons between the two matches? How so? I'm really baffled. When Sehwag was dismissed India were 117/1 requiring 270 odd to win. When Smith left the wicket South Africa was 172/2 requiring 240 odd with our 3 best bats not out.

In the first innings SA had lost 5 wickets for 7 runs, Mitchell Johnson had run through us (like he would in 2014). Smith didn't just score a hundred, he scored an attacking one. That meant the match would be decided in just two sessions in day 5 without South Africa having to over extend themselves. Smith took the Johnson factor out of the equation.
How was his innings inferior against a very strong opposition who hadn't lost a series at home in 20 years? Did you watch that innings by the way?

It can be understandable with the fact that in the former one ,Sehwag was given MOM and rightfully.

In latter, Smith wasnt given MOM even though not only he scored runs but he was the one who led the side. The MOM was AB in that game and rightly so.

What for? India still required 270 odd runs.. The match could have gone either way as per your logic

There is a reason why when we talk about some great knocks by overseas batsmen in Australia, that knock does get mention instead of Smith's knock. It is not a similar comparison at all.

Who doesn't mention that knock? South Africans and cricinfo editors were waxing lyrically about that knock. Even did a numbers game on Smith after that game. AB was given the MOM as a relief of a boy coming of age.

Now if we go by impact , VVS will be rated as bigger test cricketer than Kallis who in his first 12 years mostly bashed weaker teams and weaker attacks but when it was time to face the great Australians, his team was beaten both home and away.

In contrast , Smith was winning series for fun against Aus and Eng away without their best batsmen Kallis making any major contributions. Having said that, yet nobody in their right mind would rate VVS over Kallis as a bigger cricketer in tests.

Kallis won matches and series away for SA India, Pakistan, NZ you name them. Bowled well in England (lost his father in the 2002 tour. Had a poor 2008 all round). Even in the 414 chase he played his hand and was our best bowler in the match. Don't think we can compare him to a Laxman really. He stood up against a strong Australian attack to earn a draw in Australia at a very young age 108*.
He doesn't have Smith iconic knocks (then again no one does in the history of the game), but has stood up against quality bowlers including Ambrose and co.

The same is the case with Philander. Nobody in their right mind would rate a guy with 7 wkts in Asia over a guy with two double hundreds and plenty of 50+ knocks in Asia.

I never ran away from the fact that Philander has work to do in Asia, but has done decently so far. No point in preempting his failures there, let him fail first.
It is a fact, not random speculation that Philander has shaped more games for South Africa than AB ever will. He's is an out and out match winner. For that there can be no debate.

As already mentioned, it is a fact that Philander doesn't really belong alongside those three Saffers no matter whatever subjective views you put up.

That's not a fact that is your opinion. I could easily list matches Philander has won for South Africa in just 48 matches (and series for that matter). They will easily outnumber AB's.
There's little debate here as to who has had a greater impact on South African cricket. Heck when AB had to step up he took a sabbatical, what kind of a leader and senior figure does that?

 

[soso_killer]

Smith wins hands down. No questions about it. Its not longevity but lack of ability too for Philander in Asian conditions or on a pitch which is a road.

there's no evidence to support that. He's done well in two countries there. Let him play first before jumping to conclusions.

 

[soso_killer]

And you are rating Philander ahead of James Anderson?

Anderson is easily the second best test bowler of his era. He has failed only in SA.

Yes I am. Anderson is not "easily" anything. Feel free to visit the link I gave you.
Against SA, NZ and Australia he averages Aus 30+ even when we include his home country.

In Australia and NZ he averages 35 in each country, 40 in "easy" bowling conditions of South Africa. How is that "easily" the best when he can't turn up against good opposition of fast bowling? These are the same opposition Philander has destroyed either home or away. How is he fit enough to lace Philander's boots.

Only one bowler was anywhere near Steyn (and yes he was better than Philander), he went by the name of Ryan Harris. Now that was a world class bowler, won a series for his country against a very strong opposition in their own backyard on one leg. That's just world class, no amount of longevity is going to convince me Anderson was a better bowler than Harris. Not in a million years.

 

[soso_killer]

Philander ahead of Anderson for sure. Anderson was quite middling for much of his career, before Asif sat him down. Philander is one of the fastest bowlers ever to reach no 1 in the ICC rankings after his debut. Consistency of performance across countries tells the rest of the story.

And the only bowler to displace Steyn as the number one bowler when he wasn't injured. Remember Steyn was bowling in the same conditions as Philander. Nothing stopped him from replicating Vernon's form. In fact Steyn highest ratings is 909, Philander 912. That takes some doing. Even Ashwin playing on doctored pitches against Western nations (poor players of spin) couldn't match Steyn's rating of 909. That should put into perspective what a monster Philander is.

 

[soso_killer]

Smith age is 28.He has 6-7 years of career left. He will put AB into dust even in terms of longevity. Philander age is what?

I'm struggling to see relevants to my point.

 

[New Yorker]

I disagree. Anderson is well ahead of Philander as a bowler when we take their career into consideration.

Uhu. Reasons please?

 

[New Yorker]

And the only bowler to displace Steyn as the number one bowler when he wasn't injured. Remember Steyn was bowling in the same conditions as Philander. Nothing stopped him from replicating Vernon's form. In fact Steyn highest ratings is 909, Philander 912. That takes some doing. Even Ashwin playing on doctored pitches against Western nations (poor players of spin) couldn't match Steyn's rating of 909. That should put into perspective what a monster Philander is.

Excellent point.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Outside Asia, Philander > Anderson (Anderson is better in pure swing conditions but outside Asia as a whole Philander is better).

In Asia, Philander doesn't have sample set.

Overall, if I gotta bet, I would say Philander would be better than Anderson.

 

[Lefthanded]

Anderson's longevity and the fact he's played more than twice as many Tests than Philander will make it difficult to compare the two.

Purely on where Anderson was around the 50 Test mark, where Philander will be if he plays the next Test, there's no contest. Anderson was rubbish for at least half of his career and debuted around 8 years before Philander as 20 year old.

No one can dispute that Anderson has been so extraodinary in England during the second half of his career, that few bowlers could match his home record.

He's the Michael Hussey of bowling. Touched by divinity at home, but underwhelming in most countries abroad.

I wouldn't pick Anderson in my XI outside England and if anyone picks him over Philander in most countries, the team has a lesser chance of winning.

 

[Tusker]

And the only bowler to displace Steyn as the number one bowler when he wasn't injured. Remember Steyn was bowling in the same conditions as Philander. Nothing stopped him from replicating Vernon's form. In fact Steyn highest ratings is 909, Philander 912. That takes some doing. Even Ashwin playing on doctored pitches against Western nations (poor players of spin) couldn't match Steyn's rating of 909. That should put into perspective what a monster Philander is.

SA, Eng and most other countries also Doctor pitches to suit hem .. quite openly infact. Just the other day Faf was on record asking for Green pitches and Graeme Smith was outraged at not getting one. I learly remember all hell breaking lose on PP when Indian mgmt did the same.

 

[Dark Magician]

Bloody good discussion this. This is what a cricket forum should resemble IMO. Now on to business. Philander will not run through a side in the sub continent but I can assure you he'll keep one end tight. ATG? I'll reserve my judgment after he retires. Top top player though. Decisive player.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

Philander is comfortably better than Anderson.

 

[Chrish]

He is a very good bowler in the conditions that are suitable to his bowling and no I don’t think he would become even SA great much less ATG; but that doesn’t mean he can’t win games for his teams.

And he isn’t too shabby with the bat either. Very valuable player to have.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

SA, Eng and most other countries also Doctor pitches to suit hem .. quite openly infact. Just the other day Faf was on record asking for Green pitches and Graeme Smith was outraged at not getting one. I learly remember all hell breaking lose on PP when Indian mgmt did the same.

What's funny is that part is inaccurate too.

And the only bowler to displace Steyn as the number one bowler when he wasn't injured. Remember Steyn was bowling in the same conditions as Philander. Nothing stopped him from replicating Vernon's form. In fact Steyn highest ratings is 909, Philander 912. That takes some doing. Even Ashwin playing on doctored pitches against Western nations (poor players of spin) couldn't match Steyn's rating of 909. That should put into perspective what a monster Philander is.

Is 2015 series the only Indian series you watched mate?

Ashwin reached 904 when he was playing against England (late 2016) on some pretty flat pitches that aided turn a bit. Only Mumbai turned big in that series. Even English commies were ruing the fact that England lost 0-4 on pitches that hardly turned.

Ashwin destroyed SL in SL in 2015 enroute to getting that rating.

By the time, he had a crack at rank turners again Vs aus in 2017, his ratings had dipped due to injury that became too big to ignore.

If he hadn't got injured in late 2016, he would have cleared Vernon's record easily.

Also...he did great against SL in SL in 2017 (after rehab) who then went to uae and played well and won 2-0.

So the whole rank turners Vs western teams angle is getting old.

 

[soso_killer]

What's funny is that part is inaccurate too.



Is 2015 series the only Indian series you watched mate?

Ashwin reached 904 when he was playing against England (late 2016) on some pretty flat pitches that aided turn a bit. Only Mumbai turned big in that series. Even English commies were ruing the fact that England lost 0-4 on pitches that hardly turned.

Ashwin destroyed SL in SL in 2015 enroute to getting that rating.

By the time, he had a crack at rank turners again Vs aus in 2017, his ratings had dipped due to injury that became too big to ignore.

If he hadn't got injured in late 2016, he would have cleared Vernon's record easily.

Also...he did great against SL in SL in 2017 (after rehab) who then went to uae and played well and won 2-0.

So the whole rank turners Vs western teams angle is getting old.

He was still playing in home conditions mate and against a weak Sri Lanka side away from home. There's no excuse really. The "injury" came at a convenient time when people were criticising Indian pitches and away tours looming. What would Philanders rating be if he played Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India in home conditions consistently? Probably more than the 912.

 

[soso_killer]

SA, Eng and most other countries also Doctor pitches to suit hem .. quite openly infact. Just the other day Faf was on record asking for Green pitches and Graeme Smith was outraged at not getting one. I learly remember all hell breaking lose on PP when Indian mgmt did the same.

When has SA doctored pitches to the point runs scored were below national average with our players struggling to manage 50's?

I looked at decade to decade comparison, that was the lowest India has ever averaged in their own conditions since they started playing cricket. That is doctoring. I don't remember SA or England having a pitch rated as poor, but feel free to remind me.

 

[Ab Fan]

I'm struggling to see relevants to my point.

[MENTION=139754]New Yorker[/MENTION] ,Philander's age is 34 not 28. Hence, he doesnt have age backing him to play enough games in Asia to be considered a successful player in Asian conditions. In comparison, James Anderson has performed really well across series in India( contributed in a series win) and UAE. 500+ wickets are too much to be ignored.

 

[Ab Fan]

What's funny is that part is inaccurate too.



<B>Is 2015 series the only Indian series you watched mate?</B>

Ashwin reached 904 when he was playing against England (late 2016) on some pretty flat pitches that aided turn a bit. Only Mumbai turned big in that series. Even English commies were ruing the fact that England lost 0-4 on pitches that hardly turned.

Ashwin destroyed SL in SL in 2015 enroute to getting that rating.

By the time, he had a crack at rank turners again Vs aus in 2017, his ratings had dipped due to injury that became too big to ignore.

If he hadn't got injured in late 2016, he would have cleared Vernon's record easily.

Also...he did great against SL in SL in 2017 (after rehab) who then went to uae and played well and won 2-0.

So the whole rank turners Vs western teams angle is getting old.

It was the only series SA didn't competed well ever in India.

 

[soso_killer]

[MENTION=139754]New Yorker[/MENTION] ,Philander's age is 34 not 28. Hence, he doesnt have age backing him to play enough games in Asia to be considered a successful player in Asian conditions. In comparison, James Anderson has performed really well across series in India( contributed in a series win) and UAE. 500+ wickets are too much to be ignored.

Not 32?

 

[soso_killer]

And the Indian team Anderson bullied was on its last legs. England do time their away tours well. Did the same with SA when they should have toured December 2012.

(averaged 30 IIRC in any case)

 

[Ab Fan]

And the Indian team Anderson bullied was on its last legs. England do time their away tours well. Did the same with SA when they should have toured December 2012.

(averaged 30 IIRC in any case)

I agree with this. They also won the series in Australia in 2010 when they were at their weakest.

 

[Ab Fan]

Not 32?

Aah, he is nearing to 33.

 

[Tusker]

When has SA doctored pitches to the point runs scored were below national average with our players struggling to manage 50's?

Just look at the 1st test. No Testmatch finishes in 2.5 days unless the pitch is overtly supporting bowlers. If the same testmatch was played in India and the spinners ruled instead of fast bowlers then this forum would be boiling over. Thats just blatant hypocrisy.

And then are public statements by captain , commentators and anyone having access to press openly asking for favorable pitches.

I looked at decade to decade comparison, that was the lowest India has ever averaged in their own conditions since they started playing cricket. That is doctoring. I don't remember SA or England having a pitch rated as poor, but feel free to remind me.

please post the stats you are talking about. Yes there are pitches from Eng, Aus that have been rated as poor but I wouldnt be relying on that stat as it is hugely biased against Asian pitches.

 

[cricketjoshila]

He was still playing in home conditions mate and against a weak Sri Lanka side away from home. There's no excuse really. The "injury" came at a convenient time when people were criticising Indian pitches and away tours looming. What would Philanders rating be if he played Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India in home conditions consistently? Probably more than the 912.

Who were criticising Indian pitches?

Ashwin bowled well vs SL both home and away.

Ashwins performance vs Asian teams is comparable to Philanders performance vs England and Aus.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

He was still playing in home conditions mate and against a weak Sri Lanka side away from home. There's no excuse really. The "injury" came at a convenient time when people were criticising Indian pitches and away tours looming. What would Philanders rating be if he played Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India in home conditions consistently? Probably more than the 912.

My main point wasn't about Philander but about the comment that Ashwin has only taken wickets against Western nations on rank turners.

 

[soso_killer]

Just look at the 1st test. No Testmatch finishes in 2.5 days unless the pitch is overtly supporting bowlers. If the same testmatch was played in India and the spinners ruled instead of fast bowlers then this forum would be boiling over. Thats just blatant hypocrisy.

And then are public statements by captain , commentators and anyone having access to press openly asking for favorable pitches.



please post the stats you are talking about. Yes there are pitches from Eng, Aus that have been rated as poor but I wouldnt be relying on that stat as it is hugely biased against Asian pitches.

The Cape Town Test was ruined by rain, the pitch had settled on day two. It was a good wicket in any case, South Africa scored at 4.5 an over. Don't remember India scoring at that tempo in their home series. And we've had half centuries in both Tests so far.

Back to India.

India average 32 runs per wicket at home, in the last 40 years that jumps to 37.
Against South Africa they averaged 26, well below the national average.

Link

It was India's lowest runs per wicket in a won series as well.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=series;home_or_away=1;host=6;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;team=6;template=results;type=team

Last 40 years here

 

[soso_killer]

Who were criticising Indian pitches?

Ashwin bowled well vs SL both home and away.

Ashwins performance vs Asian teams is comparable to Philanders performance vs England and Aus.

Australia and England are far stronger than Sri Lanka in their home conditions imo (especially the current one). The only opposition of note was Misbah's team, which India refuse to play.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Australia and England are far stronger than Sri Lanka in their home conditions imo (especially the current one). The only opposition of note was Misbah's team, which India refuse to play.

Sri Lanka white washed Australia at home. They white washed Pakistan in UAE. How many test series have SL lost at home? Beating a Asian team at home is very difficult.

And Ashwin did well againist SL when Sanga was playing as well.

 

[soso_killer]

Sri Lanka white washed Australia at home. They white washed Pakistan in UAE. How many test series have SL lost at home? Beating a Asian team at home is very difficult.

And Ashwin did well againist SL when Sanga was playing as well.

South Africa and Australia won there (before Australia was whitewashed). I think England drew 1-1 the last time they toured.
England have also won in Australia, India and South Africa in the last 8 years (these are very strong teams at home). I consider the English stronger than Sri Lanka in general. Because Pakistan is in tatters, and taking into account that SENA countries are stable in general I'm inclined to say they are stronger than Pakistan as well. SENA countries beat each other home or away. It's not the case with Asian sides because either they don't play each other frequently enough thus each team misses out in its best years or they don't play each other at all. Don't think Philander's record is comparable to Ashwin imo.

 

[Tusker]

The Cape Town Test was ruined by rain, the pitch had settled on day two. It was a good wicket in any case, South Africa scored at 4.5 an over. Don't remember India scoring at that tempo in their home series. And we've had half centuries in both Tests so far.

Rain is not supposed to ruin any tests by affecting pitches . Thats the whole point of covering pitches.

Back to India.

India average 32 runs per wicket at home, in the last 40 years that jumps to 37.
Against South Africa they averaged 26, well below the national average.

Link

It was India's lowest runs per wicket in a won series as well.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=series;home_or_away=1;host=6;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;team=6;template=results;type=team

Last 40 years here

I see plenty of other series in that vicinity and lower ... and Iam pretty sure I can find similar stats for other countries ... not sure what this stat proves.

 

[soso_killer]

Rain is not supposed to ruin any tests by affecting pitches . Thats the whole point of covering pitches.

The whole of day 3 was washed out, it's not surprising that affected the pitch, which had a bit moisture already.

I see plenty of other series in that vicinity and lower ... and Iam pretty sure I can find similar stats for other countries ... not sure what this stat proves.

All other series were lost (bar 1996).

 

[Adijazz1706]

200 wickets at <22 in this batting era, McGrathesque

 

[WengerOut]

Disparity between home and away records is Ashwinesque

 

[Ab Fan]

In conditions he isn't good, he is highly economical and hence doesn't give away lots of runs. Still a brilliant bowler.

He needs to continue for SA for some more years to confirm his greatness in test cricket.

 

[Ab Fan]

Disparity between home and away records is Ashwinesque

19 vs 26.

 

[WengerOut]

19 vs 26.

Wickets?

 

[Ab Fan]

Wickets?

123 vs 75.

What is it for Ashwin??

 

[barah_admi]

Terrific bowler but he does not play across format, which all great bowlers do/did. Having said that, who cares? I mean, let's enjoy him while he is around.

 

[Ab Fan]

Wickets?

Ashwin's away record is boosted by wickets against inferior sides, WI and SL, in their backyard and Australia too but his average is poor there.

Philander away record, includes balanced number of wickets. Like I pointed out in one of my previous post, there are pitches where Philander is not a deadly wicket-taker but he will be economical in such situations. In those conditions, someone like, say, Rabada will take 4-5 wickets and give up 80 runs but Philander won't give more than 40-50 runs and will take 1-2 wickets.

 

[New Yorker]

Lovely to see Vernon toying with the batsmen. An Asif-esque performance. Every bit as destructive as any spell bowled by Mitchell Starc or Rabada. It is not just that Philander is good when conditions are right - a platitude if there ever was one, because for which bowler worth their salt is this not true? - it's that he may well be the best around. Comprehensively outbowled the no 1 bowler in the world Rabada.

 

[WengerOut]

Ashwin's away record is boosted by wickets against inferior sides, WI and SL, in their backyard and Australia too but his average is poor there.

Philander away record, includes balanced number of wickets. Like I pointed out in one of my previous post, there are pitches where Philander is not a deadly wicket-taker but he will be economical in such situations. In those conditions, someone like, say, Rabada will take 4-5 wickets and give up 80 runs but Philander won't give more than 40-50 runs and will take 1-2 wickets.

I don't care about keeping it tight. On helpful wickets , both are deadly and if there is no help they are benign. A strike bowler should not depend heavily on conditions.

 

[New Yorker]

I don't care about keeping it tight. On helpful wickets , both are deadly and if there is no help they are benign. A strike bowler should not depend heavily on conditions.

Good for you, but in Test cricket everyone else does. In Tests time does not matter as much as runs. A bowler who can bottle up one end while taking wickets at a SR of 48, (Ashwin 53) is worth their weight in gold. A bowler who leaks runs when not effective quickly becomes a liability, like Starc without sandpaper in the last two Tests of the series.

More fundamentally, "helpful wickets" is not actually a very helpful term, is it? Certain wickets will be helpful for some bowlers, less so for others. But why Philander take 6 wickets in the last innings of the series, not Rabada? Where was Mitchell Starc, the kind of bowler who supposedly has everything needed to make conditions irrelevant - in the last two Tests of the series?

 

[Ab Fan]

I don't care about keeping it tight. On helpful wickets , both are deadly and if there is no help they are benign. A strike bowler should not depend heavily on conditions.

Ashwin is nowhere near Philander now. He has put him into dust.

 

[soso_killer]

Line and length bowlers will never run through sides in all conditions, history suggests that unless the said bowler is Ambrose.

All Vern has to do now is play the supporting role in non conducive wickets, McGrath was an expect at that. Even in his own conditions he never ran through the best opposition of fast bowling. He has an average of 35 striking at 80 against SA. In Asia he has a single five-for.

Vern has to ensure he gets cheap wickets and bowl miserly in as well, 2/45 and 1/28. That's 24 for the match.
On a good Test something like 3/55 and 2/50. That's 21 runs a wicket and 5 wickets for the match. If he can pick a five-for against weak opposition along the way, all the better, that's non of his business.
Pollock and McGrath had height which worked in their favour. Vern has his work cut out for him in that regard. But an average of 30 there will be decent, he won't be a first tier great but will be up there with the greats of the game.

 

[ManFan]

Big Vern is only out-classed by Rabada in this decade.

Very underrated.

 

[Sam99]

Line and length bowlers will never run through sides in all conditions, history suggests that unless the said bowler is Ambrose.

All Vern has to do now is play the supporting role in non conducive wickets, McGrath was an expect at that. Even in his own conditions he never ran through the best opposition of fast bowling. He has an average of 35 striking at 80 against SA. In Asia he has a single five-for.

Vern has to ensure he gets cheap wickets and bowl miserly in as well, 2/45 and 1/28. That's 24 for the match.
On a good Test something like 3/55 and 2/50. That's 21 runs a wicket and 5 wickets for the match. If he can pick a five-for against weak opposition along the way, all the better, that's non of his business.
Pollock and McGrath had height which worked in their favour. Vern has his work cut out for him in that regard. But an average of 30 there will be decent, he won't be a first tier great but will be up there with the greats of the game.

He has avg of 27 against South Africa. In Asia mcgrath averages better than wasim and waqar's carrier average.

 

[shaz619]

Excellent all round cricketer, very underated

 

[soso_killer]

He has avg of 27 against South Africa. In Asia mcgrath averages better than wasim and waqar's carrier average.

Check his average in Australia against SA. Even in SA his five-for consisted of tail enders IIRC. He never ran through us, whereas Philander has ran through Australia home and away.
I know what McGrath averages in Asia, it's no different to Pollock. He never ran through anyone there, was economical and took cheap wickets. Don't know what you want to contradict there.

 

[hk031992]

He can end up as a second tier atg bowler

First tier: Marshall, Steyn, McGrath, Akram, Donald, Waqar, Holding, Lillee, Hadlee etc

Second tier: Walsh, Pollock, Anderson, Mitch, and probably Philander by the time his career ends

 

[soso_killer]

Just curious why is Pollock a second tier great when he has a similar record to McGrath in Asia and two 5-fors?

Won his country a series in Pakistan and India and drew in Lanka. SA never had any renowned spinners as a support cast to pile on the pressure. Yet Pollock averages under 30 in every country in Asia.

What's the criteria for being great? I think that will help steer a debate in the right direction. Would it have helped if he was English perhaps?

 

[Ab Fan]

Just curious why is Pollock a second tier great when he has a similar record to McGrath in Asia and two 5-fors?

Won his country a series in Pakistan and India and drew in Lanka. SA never had any renowned spinners as a support cast to pile on the pressure. Yet Pollock averages under 30 in every country in Asia.

What's the criteria for being great? I think that will help steer a debate in the right direction. Would it have helped if he was English perhaps?

Pollock has 16 5-fers compared to McGrath's 29 over some lesser matches.

5-fers tells us the ability of the bowler to run the side. Ntini has 2 more 5-fer than Pollock in around same matches. Stuart Broad has same 5-fers as Pollock over same number of matches. These two are much inferior bowlers to Pollock.

This tells us that although Pollock was great but he played second fiddle many times. I think he doesn't have a single 5-fer after 2001 and he retired in 2008.

 

[Ab Fan]

^ Being a English does helps though.

 

[Chrish]

Went missing the series while cashed in when the victory was guaranteed.

Don’t get me wrong, a brilliant player but a rung below guys like Steyn or Rabada in terms of impact.

 

[soso_killer]

Pollock has 16 5-fers compared to McGrath's 29 over some lesser matches.

5-fers tells us the ability of the bowler to run the side. Ntini has 2 more 5-fer than Pollock in around same matches. Stuart Broad has same 5-fers as Pollock over same number of matches. These two are much inferior bowlers to Pollock.

This tells us that although Pollock was great but he played second fiddle many times. I think he doesn't have a single 5-fer after 2001 and he retired in 2008.

Pollock played about 20 Tests fewer than McGrath, that should explain.
Ntini was incredible in SA conditions, often the leader of the attack once Pollock's knees gave up in 2001. But he still soldiered on, was never the same bowler but was still brilliant. Was above McGrath until his knees gave up.
McGrath himself was led by Gillespie in Asia, Pollock led himself.

Stuart Broad has played more matches than Pollock too, not sure what's the point.

 

[Ab Fan]

Pollock played about 20 Tests fewer than McGrath, that should explain.
Ntini was incredible in SA conditions, often the leader of the attack once Pollock's knees gave up in 2001. But he still soldiered on, was never the same bowler but was still brilliant. Was above McGrath until his knees gave up.
McGrath himself was led by Gillespie in Asia, Pollock led himself.

Stuart Broad has played more matches than Pollock too, not sure what's the point.

Alright then let us calculate a percentage of 5-fers:-

McGrath 29 in 124 matches(24%)
Pollock 16 in 108 matches(15%)
Ntini 18 in 101 matches(18%)
Broad 16 in 115 matches(14%)

Anderson 25 in 136 matches(18%)

So, with this I think my point must be clear. The percentage of taking 5-fers for Pollock is comparable to Broad and slightly lower than Ntini and Anderson. McGrath is ahead by quite a distance.

When you add the fact that McGrath has been one of the best players in World Cup, leading his team to three successful World Cup win and is one of the finest limited over bowler, it sets him well apart of the rest.

 

[Ab Fan]

To clarify things more, my point is that Pollock has got stats of a top-tier ATG( avgs 23) just like McGrath, Steyn, Donald, Wasim and Waqar.

However, when it comes to running through the sides and being the leader of the attack, the percentage of 5-fers for Pollock has gone down so low that it is inferior to Ntini, Anderson and comparable to Broad. These guys are country greats but aren't mentioned in the same league as Pollock is.

Hence, this is why Pollock isn't in same league as McGrath, Steyn and Donald IMO. However, to his credit, he is still an ATG but not a top tier one.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Alright then let us calculate a percentage of 5-fers:-

McGrath 29 in 124 matches(24%)
Pollock 16 in 108 matches(15%)
Ntini 18 in 101 matches(18%)
Broad 16 in 115 matches(14%)

Anderson 25 in 136 matches(18%)

So, with this I think my point must be clear. The percentage of taking 5-fers for Pollock is comparable to Broad and slightly lower than Ntini and Anderson. McGrath is ahead by quite a distance.

When you add the fact that McGrath has been one of the best players in World Cup, leading his team to three successful World Cup win and is one of the finest limited over bowler, it sets him well apart of the rest.

McGrath 23.4 % vs Vern 24.1% puts Vern slightly ahead in this stat, he needs to play a couple of Asia tours before retiring in 3 years or so to improve his stats there

 

[introvert]

Philander and broad are best seam bowlers of last decade.there ability to run through sides with magical figures of fivefor for just 20 or 30 is amazing.
Philander's lower economy rate deserves praise here even in subcontinent conditions he is able to keep it tight. And that's the reason of his amazing bowling avrage.
I would like to see him in more subcontinent tours before classified him atg.

 

[Ab Fan]

[MENTION=139190]Adijazz1706[/MENTION] mate, Let Vern play enough. Too early it is. Asia tours are coming ahead. Let us stick on retired players.

I included Anderson and Broad because they have already played more tests than Pollock and if that % hurts, it is a longevity factor.

 

[Dark Magician]

I suspect we'll find it hard to produce another philander type of bowler. Perhaps If only Dwaine Pretorius was slightly faster.

 

[CricketTruth]

Went missing the series while cashed in when the victory was guaranteed.

Don’t get me wrong, a brilliant player but a rung below guys like Steyn or Rabada in terms of impact.

A rung below Steyn or Rabada in terms of impact??!

What more do you expect from him?

He's destroyed teams so many times even when the pressure has been on, starting from his debut when he bowled SA out for 47.

There are many examples but off the top of my head, what about that crucial test where SA were going for number 1 against England in 2012.

He has taken 200 wickets at under 22, which is amazing! And he can bat...arguably the most valuable player in the world.

He also has 8 man of the match awards in 54 matches ie 15% of matches.

By comparison Steyn has 9 in 85 ie 10.5% and Anderson has 8 in 136 matches! Shane warne got 17 in 145 ie 11.7%.

He's not a rung below anyone.

 

[soso_killer]

Alright then let us calculate a percentage of 5-fers:-

McGrath 29 in 124 matches(24%)
Pollock 16 in 108 matches(15%)
Ntini 18 in 101 matches(18%)
Broad 16 in 115 matches(14%)

Anderson 25 in 136 matches(18%)

So, with this I think my point must be clear. The percentage of taking 5-fers for Pollock is comparable to Broad and slightly lower than Ntini and Anderson. McGrath is ahead by quite a distance.

When you add the fact that McGrath has been one of the best players in World Cup, leading his team to three successful World Cup win and is one of the finest limited over bowler, it sets him well apart of the rest.

Broad has 116 matches.

Like I said After 2000 Pollock was never the same bowler, only picked up 6 five-fors.

And McGrath has one five-for in Asia. My point still stands he didn't run through sides. Whereas a guy like Pollock was winning there with second rate spinners.

 

[soso_killer]

To clarify things more, my point is that Pollock has got stats of a top-tier ATG( avgs 23) just like McGrath, Steyn, Donald, Wasim and Waqar.

However, when it comes to running through the sides and being the leader of the attack, the percentage of 5-fers for Pollock has gone down so low that it is inferior to Ntini, Anderson and comparable to Broad. These guys are country greats but aren't mentioned in the same league as Pollock is.

Hence, this is why Pollock isn't in same league as McGrath, Steyn and Donald IMO. However, to his credit, he is still an ATG but not a top tier one.

I agree Pollock isn't in the same league as Donald, Steyn, Ambrose and Marshall. Never ran through sides enough, especially on placid decks.
Same goes for McGrath, he's a wrung below players who ran through sides on their own in Asia.
I club them together with Pollock, line and length bowlers.

 

[soso_killer]

McGrath 23.4 % vs Vern 24.1% puts Vern slightly ahead in this stat, he needs to play a couple of Asia tours before retiring in 3 years or so to improve his stats there

Lol, guess that makes Vern a better bowler than McGrath.

 

[soso_killer]

A rung below Steyn or Rabada in terms of impact??!

What more do you expect from him?

He's destroyed teams so many times even when the pressure has been on, starting from his debut when he bowled SA out for 47.

There are many examples but off the top of my head, what about that crucial test where SA were going for number 1 against England in 2012.

He has taken 200 wickets at under 22, which is amazing! And he can bat...arguably the most valuable player in the world.

He also has 8 man of the match awards in 54 matches ie 15% of matches.

By comparison Steyn has 9 in 85 ie 10.5% and Anderson has 8 in 136 matches! Shane warne got 17 in 145 ie 11.7%.

He's not a rung below anyone.

Yep, that was the Lords Test.
SA needed to win in NZ to narrow the gap in order to challenge the English for the #1. Guess who was missing in that tour? Steyn gun.
Who was humiliating Australia in Australia when Steyn broke down?