What's new

Which bowler's statistics did him the greatest injustice in Test cricket history?

H

Harsh Thakor

First Class Star
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Runs
3,521
Post of the Week
2
My list of bowlers whose statistical record did least justice to their true merit.Ranked in order of merit considering the difference between their moral performance and statistical record.



1.Andy Roberts
2.Gary Sobers
2.Subhash Gupte
4.Wes Hall
5.Kapil Dev
6.Mitchelle Johnson
7.Abdul Qadir
8.Wasim Akram
9.Sarafraz Nawaz
10.Erapalli Prasanna




Andy Roberts at the top because he was morally on par with Imran ,Hadlee or Lillee and still averaged 25.61 .Close to the most complete paceman of them all with his verstality and craft.Gavaskar,Barry Richards and both Chappell brothers rated Roberts was the most difficult paceman they ever faced,with Lillee regarding him the most complete of all fast bowlers.


Gary Sobers was considered to be the most versatile of all if you take into account he bowled pace,spin and chinaman.Almost as lethal as Alan Davidson and still averaged 34.03.


Subhash Gupte was considered to be more penetrative than even Shane Warne and averaged around 32 .No spinner was more complete,with Sobers ranking Gupte above Warne.



Wes Hall was in the Trueman class but averaged around 26.A demon amongst bowlers.





Kapil Dev who averaged 29.64 with 434 scalps was unfortunate to bowl mostly on flat pancakes and have no supporting role.May well have averaged under 25 had he played for England or Australia.Few paceman ever had such reserves of stamina or such ability to move the ball away.


Mitchelle Johnson averaged around 28 at his best could have been part of the top 5 paceman ever in test history blending pace,movement,bounce and control in perfect proportion.He was more threatening than Dale Steyn at his best with his prodigious seam movement and bounce.


Abdul Qadir averaged 32 who was arguably more lethal than even Shane Warne bowling the googly with more wizardry than any spinner ever.


Wasim Akram who averaged 23.62 was he most complete paceman of them all arguably more impactful than even Mcgrath and as lethal as Marshall.


Sarafraz Nawaz who averaged around 33 could bowl as well as Lilllee or Hadlee on his day with his mastery of swing and seam movement.




Prasanna mastered off spin like no none else being rated by Ian Chappell as the best spinner he ever faced.
 
Kapil Dev's name quickly comes to mind. Suffered heavily due to not having much support from the other end. Credit to him being a freak athlete to have sustained all the physical stress of leading the Indin attack on his shoulders alone for 2 decades almost and still averaging below 30.

In a well balanced bowling attack he would have easily been a below 25 averaging bowler
 
Andrew Flintoff. He got just 3 5-fers in his whole career. Can you believe it??

Should have taken 10 5-fers over a course of 75 tests he played.
 
Wahab Riaz

Born in the wrong era. Played for the wrong team under the wrong captain in wrong pitches.

A mark-V level talent

In another era he is an ATG
 
Ab Fan said:
Andrew Flintoff. He got just 3 5-fers in his whole career. Can you believe it??

Should have taken 10 5-fers over a course of 75 tests he played.
Click to expand...

5fers are never going to come by easy for a 1st or 2nd change bowler - which is what Flintoff was all his life.

It's like wondering why a no 6/7 batsman doesn't have enough centuries.
 
Ind the last 15-20 years:

J.Srinath, Ind
M.Shami, Pak
Gillespie, Aus

Prior to that,
Kapil Dev, Ind
Darren Gough, Eng
Phil DeFreitas, Eng
Patrick patterson, WI
 
the_outsider said:
5fers are never going to come by easy for a 1st or 2nd change bowler - which is what Flintoff was all his life.

It's like wondering why a no 6/7 batsman doesn't have enough centuries.
Click to expand...

Good point but still 3 5-fers is too low for a bowling all-rounder like Flintoff. Botham batted at 6-7 and had 14 hundreds. Stokes has 6 hundreds in 46 tests.

Remember Chris Cairns. He has 13 5-fers in 62 tests.

Flintoff should be having 10 5-fers for the career he had with bowl or he is known to have.
 
DK has to be in that list. His stats like 355 wickets in 70 Tests at 23.62, with 23/7 (5/10 for), doesn’t tell what he was. He lost his best 2-3 years to WSC, otherwise that stats would have been 450+ wickets at ~20 with 35/12. Even then, Dennis Keith Lillee will always be beyond stats.

Gupte is a great choice indeed, probably the best ever conventional leggi. Don’t think Sir Gary merits in this list, let alone that high. His bowling stats are dominated by ENG tours, where his typical medium pace was effective, but not much else where. In that regard, you have to keep Anderson in this list as well. Kapil will be in my top 10 for sure.
 
Last edited:
MMHS said:
DK has to be in that list. His stats like 355 wickets in 70 Tests at 23.62, with 23/7 (5/10 for), doesn’t tell what he was. He lost his best 2-3 years to WSC, otherwise that stats would have been 450+ wickets at ~20 with 35/12. Even then, Dennis Keith Lillee will always be beyond stats.

Gupte is a great choice indeed, probably the best ever conventional leggi. Don’t think Sir Gary merits in this list, let alone that high. His bowling stats are dominated by ENG tours, where his typical medium pace was effective, but not much else where. In that regard, you have to keep Anderson in this list as well. Kapil will be in my top 10 for sure.
Click to expand...

very good analysis .disagree on Sobers if you consider variety and impact.What about Qadir and Wasim or even Sarafraz?
 
Harsh Thakor said:
very good analysis .disagree on Sobers if you consider variety and impact.What about Qadir and Wasim or even Sarafraz?
Click to expand...

This list should contain most names from your previous 12, therefore A Qadir & Wasim should be in this list definitely. Wasim, in his career has conceded probably 1200+ no balls, which takes his average 3 higher, while Qadir definitely should have been in late 20s, if not mid 20s. Sarfraz I think had to do the donkey job in some of the dullest wickets around, hence he ended as the pioneer of reverse swing. He was indeed a far better bowler than his stats.

Sobers brought versatility in amateurish days of cricket when his versatility of spin (conventional & Chinaman), medium pace, fast medium ... earned him lots of millage; but these sort of eye catching versatility won't have worked much 20 - 30 years later - once Manoj tried bowling off-spin, and Sanath showed him that it was a wrong era for fantasy. He had 0/77 in PAK on matting wickets (but at an economy of 1.16), which doesn't look good for versatility. Any way, my point is if Sobers is picked in this list, Jimmy Anderson should be among top names - 368 wickets @ 23.76 with 21/3 and a SR of <50 should put him among ATGs.
 
Kapil and Shoaib, shaoib should be averaging around wasim/waqar range
 
Kapil Dev and Javagal Srinath for sure. Srinath has to be the most unluckiest fast bowler ever.
[MENTION=132062]Harsh Thakor[/MENTION], you mentioned Wasim Akram to be more impactful than Mcgrath. That's completely incorrect. Wasim Akram has one of the lowest top order wickets and is below Srinath in that list. Not saying at all that Akram was not one of the greatest the world has seen. However, in tests, he couldnt perform what he should have.
 
Wasim, Dev, Lillee, Akhtar & Steyn
 
Rightarmfast said:
Kapil Dev and Javagal Srinath for sure. Srinath has to be the most unluckiest fast bowler ever.
[MENTION=132062]Harsh Thakor[/MENTION], you mentioned Wasim Akram to be more impactful than Mcgrath. That's completely incorrect. Wasim Akram has one of the lowest top order wickets and is below Srinath in that list. Not saying at all that Akram was not one of the greatest the world has seen. However, in tests, he couldnt perform what he should have.
Click to expand...

Great choice of Srinath.A class act on his day.
 
Harsh Thakor said:
Showing lacked control,accuracy and movement of Wasim or Waqar.Anyway fine selection.Akhtar had tear away pace but not sufficient all round skill.
Click to expand...

I think we often forget that Akhtar was not just about pace. He had skill to move it both ways and add his pace to that. He could do reverse as well. I disagree that he didn't have skills. His main problem was fitness, otherwise he would have ended as an ATG bowler. He played very little cricket despite having a long career.

I haven't seen Lillee much so just going by what I have read. He was perfect fast modern fast bowler. Pretty much the first one.
 
Buffet said:
I think we often forget that Akhtar was not just about pace. He had skill to move it both ways and add his pace to that. He could do reverse as well. I disagree that he didn't have skills. His main problem was fitness, otherwise he would have ended as an ATG bowler. He played very little cricket despite having a long career.

I haven't seen Lillee much so just going by what I have read. He was perfect fast modern fast bowler. Pretty much the first one.
Click to expand...
I so agree. Akhtar had more skill with the balm than Lee. Also had a phenomenal slower ball!

His stats are destroyed by him having to bowl on the flattest pitches known to mankind in more than half of his career.
 
Ab Fan said:
Andrew Flintoff. He got just 3 5-fers in his whole career. Can you believe it??

Should have taken 10 5-fers over a course of 75 tests he played.
Click to expand...

For the first half of his career he averaged well into the forties because he was there to bowl short and block an end up.

Latterly he pitched it up more but never quite often enough to regularly rim through sides. Other bowlers benefited from his hostile though.
 
Robert said:
For the first half of his career he averaged well into the forties because he was there to bowl short and block an end up.

Latterly he pitched it up more but never quite often enough to regularly rim through sides. Other bowlers benefited from his hostile though.
Click to expand...

One of the best example of rythm bowler?
 
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] can you tell me about Jon Snow,
I heard that he was greatest English bowler after Trueman.
Despite he averages 26.
 
Daniel Vettori's bowling average was in low-30's (both Test and ODI). I think it could've been better had he played more games in helpful conditions.
 
statistics dosent do injustice to anyone. Its just a reflection of one's actual performance. If you the bowlers who didnt quite matched their talent with performances then my picks are
1. Flintoff( im surprised looking at his stats. When he was on, he was something else)
2. Gillespie (should've done better than his stats. was unfortunate with injuries)
4. johnson( had the potential to be among the bests of all time. was too inconsistent
 
MMHS said:
DK has to be in that list. His stats like 355 wickets in 70 Tests at 23.62, with 23/7 (5/10 for), doesn’t tell what he was. He lost his best 2-3 years to WSC, otherwise that stats would have been 450+ wickets at ~20 with 35/12. Even then, Dennis Keith Lillee will always be beyond stats.

Gupte is a great choice indeed, probably the best ever conventional leggi. Don’t think Sir Gary merits in this list, let alone that high. His bowling stats are dominated by ENG tours, where his typical medium pace was effective, but not much else where. In that regard, you have to keep Anderson in this list as well. Kapil will be in my top 10 for sure.
Click to expand...

Dennis Lillie would've had an inferior average if he played more on SC & West Indies. generally bowled in a very strong bowling era too
 
ishtiaq_ctg said:
statistics dosent do injustice to anyone. Its just a reflection of one's actual performance. If you the bowlers who didnt quite matched their talent with performances then my picks are
1. Flintoff( im surprised looking at his stats. When he was on, he was something else)
2. Gillespie (should've done better than his stats. was unfortunate with injuries)
4. johnson( had the potential to be among the bests of all time. was too inconsistent
Click to expand...

I kind of disagree. Pitch plays a factor very often.

For example, BD pacers have extremely poor averages because they generally play on spin-friendly pitches. I am sure their averages would've been slightly better had they played in SENA countries more.

Same goes for SENA spinners. Their spinners average in 30's or 40's because they mostly play in pacer-friendly conditions.
 
MMHS said:
DK has to be in that list. His stats like 355 wickets in 70 Tests at 23.62, with 23/7 (5/10 for), doesn’t tell what he was. He lost his best 2-3 years to WSC, otherwise that stats would have been 450+ wickets at ~20 with 35/12. Even then, Dennis Keith Lillee will always be beyond stats.

Gupte is a great choice indeed, probably the best ever conventional leggi. Don’t think Sir Gary merits in this list, let alone that high. His bowling stats are dominated by ENG tours, where his typical medium pace was effective, but not much else where. In that regard, you have to keep Anderson in this list as well. Kapil will be in my top 10 for sure.
Click to expand...

A guy who averages over 30 is the goat leggie. Wow
 
sweep_shot said:
I kind of disagree. Pitch plays a factor very often.

For example, BD pacers have extremely poor averages because they generally play on spin-friendly pitches. I am sure their averages would've been slightly better had they played in SENA countries more.

Same goes for SENA spinners. Their spinners average in 30's or 40's because they mostly play in pacer-friendly conditions.
Click to expand...

BD pacers are pathetic all around the world. they conceded 600-700 runs for maybe 3/4 wickets against SA in SA in the test series. Greats will be greats everywhere
 
ishtiaq_ctg said:
BD pacers are pathetic all around the world. they conceded 600-700 runs for maybe 3/4 wickets against SA in SA in the test series. Greats will be greats everywhere
Click to expand...

I shouldn't have used BD pacers as an example but you get my point. Pitch is often a factor.
 
sweep_shot said:
I shouldn't have used BD pacers as an example but you get my point. Pitch is often a factor.
Click to expand...
It definitely is but you gotta draw the line. Yaseer shah conceding 200+ runs in Australia isnt down to just pitch, it's just that he isnt good enough bowler to succeed everywhere. By success I dont even mean he has to pick 5ers. A great bowler without the help of the pitch might not have great figures but wont also have tanked figures. Look at Mcgraths average in India in 01. He took regular wickets & when he didnt took wickets he hardly conceded any runs. Also was the best bowler after harbhajan in that series. Also look at Warne. was great everywhere but in india which had supposedly the best spin friendly pitches, he failed miserably(Warne & Ponting cost Aus that series which otherwise would've been 3-0 to australia. The worst possible series any ATGs had)
 
ishtiaq_ctg said:
It definitely is but you gotta draw the line. Yaseer shah conceding 200+ runs in Australia isnt down to just pitch, it's just that he isnt good enough bowler to succeed everywhere. By success I dont even mean he has to pick 5ers. A great bowler without the help of the pitch might not have great figures but wont also have tanked figures. Look at Mcgraths average in India in 01. He took regular wickets & when he didnt took wickets he hardly conceded any runs. Also was the best bowler after harbhajan in that series. Also look at Warne. was great everywhere but in india which had supposedly the best spin friendly pitches, he failed miserably(Warne & Ponting cost Aus that series which otherwise would've been 3-0 to australia. The worst possible series any ATGs had)
Click to expand...

it would never have been 3 0 to australia. like ever. They were extremely lucky to win in 2004. That's about it. they deserved to lose every other series in 90s and 2000 era.
India thoroughly outplayed them.
 
Roberts averaged 25- that is excellent. Lillee was 23.9 (24.4 if you include WSC supertests, which imo should be). Still in the ballpark for a great fast bowler. Numbers aren't everything when it comes to fast bowling, otherwise someone can try & tell me Vernon Philander or Mohammad Abbas are ATG bowlers (they are good, but not great). My point is that plenty of great quick bowlers avg around the same mark so I don't think it's some big injustice on Roberts.

You can put Wasim in the same category above. Nothing to me suggests he should have averaged lower. He had great support in spin & pace his whole career so he didn't need to be bowled into the ground. He played at a time when bowlers were allowed a little more leeway in affecting a ball to reverse & his figures are excellent. If, in fact, they are not as excellent as they could be then the mirror would tell him why, according to the Qayum report.

Mitchell Johnson's numbers are right where they should be. About 28- same as Thommo. Johnson had two astonishing career peaks where he was almost unplayable. He just destroyed SA, SL & England across entire series, not just memorable matches. But in between, when his confidence or rhythm was poor then he played some really poor series too where he bowled some innaccurate, low pace trundler stuff again & again. Breathtaking at his best but he had a 10 year career with probably 3 years of greatness, 3 years if rubbish & 3 years ok/mix & match/hot & cold. Fair average imo.


From players I saw I'd say Kapil Dev's numbers are the harshest. As others have said, he was the lone act on tough wickets so often. He was a really talented & wholehearted bowler. These days it wouldn't seem so far fetched but if you had told anyone in the 1970s/80s that India would one day have the world record holder for most test wickets & he'd be a quick bowler their eyebrows would have reached the moon.

Qadir is an interesting one. Spinners generally avg a bit higher than pacers. But his reputation & esteem is far better than his stats (good, but far from excellent stats really). Didn't see him play myself so not sure, but he is highly regarded by past players in Oz.

Sobers was a handy bowler, no more than that & his figures reflect that. His skill in variety was astonishing, to bowl all those styles effectively, but he wasn't devastating at any single one style. Great for team balance but not to lead an attack. The fact his batting was ATG status, added to his remarkable versatility makes him arguably the most talented player overall but he wasn't a great bowler in any one role, just a good swing bowler, who was also a good Chinaman, who was also a good left arm fingerspin.
 
tyron_woodley said:
it would never have been 3 0 to australia. like ever. They were extremely lucky to win in 2004. That's about it. they deserved to lose every other series in 90s and 2000 era.
India thoroughly outplayed them.
Click to expand...

Hmm they thoroughly outplayed India in 2004 & were deserved winners. As the winning margins on 200+ runs & 300+ runs will attest to. Pretty thumping wins actually mate, even if they were good games. The drawn test was on a knifes edge too- India needing 220 or so on the final day with Warne already having 6 wickets in the match & troubling all batsmen. Yes- he was, I was there.

He had 14 wickets at 30 in that series from 3 Tests, which everyone seems to overlook. He broke his thumb before the 4th Test, with the series already wrapped up. Missed a chance to cash in on a spinning minefield where Michael Clarke even took 6fer 9 runs.
 
wrongun said:
Hmm they thoroughly outplayed India in 2004 & were deserved winners. As the winning margins on 200+ runs & 300+ runs will attest to. Pretty thumping wins actually mate, even if they were good games. The drawn test was on a knifes edge too- India needing 220 or so on the final day with Warne already having 6 wickets in the match & troubling all batsmen. Yes- he was, I was there.

He had 14 wickets at 30 in that series from 3 Tests, which everyone seems to overlook. He broke his thumb before the 4th Test, with the series already wrapped up. Missed a chance to cash in on a spinning minefield where Michael Clarke even took 6fer 9 runs.
Click to expand...

what I meant was that tendulkar and ganguly missed important games in that series. Made a difference.

Just like how smith and warnee not playing affected australia in 2018.
 
wrongun said:
Roberts averaged 25- that is excellent. Lillee was 23.9 (24.4 if you include WSC supertests, which imo should be). Still in the ballpark for a great fast bowler. Numbers aren't everything when it comes to fast bowling, otherwise someone can try & tell me Vernon Philander or Mohammad Abbas are ATG bowlers (they are good, but not great). My point is that plenty of great quick bowlers avg around the same mark so I don't think it's some big injustice on Roberts.

You can put Wasim in the same category above. Nothing to me suggests he should have averaged lower. He had great support in spin & pace his whole career so he didn't need to be bowled into the ground. He played at a time when bowlers were allowed a little more leeway in affecting a ball to reverse & his figures are excellent. If, in fact, they are not as excellent as they could be then the mirror would tell him why, according to the Qayum report.

Mitchell Johnson's numbers are right where they should be. About 28- same as Thommo. Johnson had two astonishing career peaks where he was almost unplayable. He just destroyed SA, SL & England across entire series, not just memorable matches. But in between, when his confidence or rhythm was poor then he played some really poor series too where he bowled some innaccurate, low pace trundler stuff again & again. Breathtaking at his best but he had a 10 year career with probably 3 years of greatness, 3 years if rubbish & 3 years ok/mix & match/hot & cold. Fair average imo.


From players I saw I'd say Kapil Dev's numbers are the harshest. As others have said, he was the lone act on tough wickets so often. He was a really talented & wholehearted bowler. These days it wouldn't seem so far fetched but if you had told anyone in the 1970s/80s that India would one day have the world record holder for most test wickets & he'd be a quick bowler their eyebrows would have reached the moon.

Qadir is an interesting one. Spinners generally avg a bit higher than pacers. But his reputation & esteem is far better than his stats (good, but far from excellent stats really). Didn't see him play myself so not sure, but he is highly regarded by past players in Oz.

Sobers was a handy bowler, no more than that & his figures reflect that. His skill in variety was astonishing, to bowl all those styles effectively, but he wasn't devastating at any single one style. Great for team balance but not to lead an attack. The fact his batting was ATG status, added to his remarkable versatility makes him arguably the most talented player overall but he wasn't a great bowler in any one role, just a good swing bowler, who was also a good Chinaman, who was also a good left arm fingerspin.
Click to expand...

Sobers sometimes did lead the attack, opening with Wes Hall and taking five wickets against a powerful England side.

Even when Johnson was in Sloop John B mode, he was still striking every 55 balls, but was bowling a lot of four balls as well.

I would nominate Gillespie who looked as good as McGrath to me. He beat the bat a massive number of times and seemed to have a lot of catches dropped. Maybe he was half a yard short in England and didn’t get the nicks.
 
ishtiaq_ctg said:
Dennis Lillie would've had an inferior average if he played more on SC & West Indies. generally bowled in a very strong bowling era too
Click to expand...

How do you know? Australia never went to India in those days so you might as well say that Chappell and Border couldn’t play spin.
 
andy0204 said:
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] can you tell me about Jon Snow,
I heard that he was greatest English bowler after Trueman.
Despite he averages 26.
Click to expand...

Never saw him except in WC 1975 footage. Very similar action to Alan Donald.

Ian Chappell said he was the best fast bowler he ever faced. He was very hostile and beat up Australia in their yard.

I think he was a bit of an awkward type who had a lot of off days when he didn’t really try. Bob Willis ended up with better numbers - he didn’t have Snow’s raw ability but worked very hard and was highly motivated, seeing a hypnotherapist to keep him in the ‘zone’.
 
Robert said:
Sobers sometimes did lead the attack, opening with Wes Hall and taking five wickets against a powerful England side.

Even when Johnson was in Sloop John B mode, he was still striking every 55 balls, but was bowling a lot of four balls as well.

I would nominate Gillespie who looked as good as McGrath to me. He beat the bat a massive number of times and seemed to have a lot of catches dropped. Maybe he was half a yard short in England and didn’t get the nicks.
Click to expand...

Gillespie was a good quick but maybe not quite out of the top drawer atg's. Yeah perhaps a fraction short like Freddie often was, that "macho length" that looks great thudding into the keepers gloves but doesn't quite get the batsman close enough to nick it.

Just on Sobers- there may have been series or matches where he did open the bowling but it still wasn't his role to lead the attack in general. He bowled 2nd, 3rd or even 4th change far, far more often than he ever opened bowling or was even first change.
 
Phil DeFreitas. The stats are not great but he beat the bat too much, and never got the reward. You could argue he was a few CM short but I felt the stats don't tell the whole story.
 
tyron_woodley said:
it would never have been 3 0 to australia. like ever. They were extremely lucky to win in 2004. That's about it. they deserved to lose every other series in 90s and 2000 era.
India thoroughly outplayed them.
Click to expand...

As another poster pointed out, Australia won by the margin of 200+ & 300+ runs in 2004. Not sure how they were lucky. Sachin played half the series & Ganguly played probably all but 3rd test.
In 2001 Australia wasnt outplayed. They won the first test by an innings, made India follow on in the second, lost the third test by two wickets. Not sure anyone can lebel it as outplayed.Australia only lost that series because of Warne & Ponting. Australia virtually played with 9 players in that series
 
tyron_woodley said:
what I meant was that tendulkar and ganguly missed important games in that series. Made a difference.

Just like how smith and warnee not playing affected australia in 2018.
Click to expand...

Ganguly missed a game with a tantrum over a pitch iirc. Hardly bad luck. We didn't have Bradman & Warne had his bung shoulder every other tour of India- see my point? There's no point playing ifs & buts with series, you win or lose them with who you have on hand. India lost games that series with Tendulkar in the team, they lost games that series with Ganguly in the team. Pretty weak team if it can't handle a missing player or two at home isn't it?

I've never posted saying India didn't deserve a win in the last series. If we didn't have Smith & Warner it's their own stupid fault. Every team has some fortune, good & bad throughout a tour, it's about what you make with the chances.
 
ishtiaq_ctg said:
As another poster pointed out, Australia won by the margin of 200+ & 300+ runs in 2004. Not sure how they were lucky. Sachin played half the series & Ganguly played probably all but 3rd test.
In 2001 Australia wasnt outplayed. They won the first test by an innings, made India follow on in the second, lost the third test by two wickets. Not sure anyone can lebel it as outplayed.Australia only lost that series because of Warne & Ponting. Australia virtually played with 9 players in that series
Click to expand...

Sure Ponting and Shane Warne didn't perform but biggest disappointment from Australian side was Mark Waugh who was their best player of spin during that time and didn't performed well until last test [MENTION=129939]wrongun[/MENTION] am I right?
 
andy0204 said:
Sure Ponting and Shane Warne didn't perform but biggest disappointment from Australian side was Mark Waugh who was their best player of spin during that time and didn't performed well until last test [MENTION=129939]wrongun[/MENTION] am I right?
Click to expand...

Depends who you ask as to how they expected players to fare I think. Honestly I expected S Waugh to make more runs than M Waugh because of how big the series was, you just knew S Waugh would fight tooth & nail & manufacture a way to score runs no matter what he encountered. He'd tough it out. Mark Waugh I never expected a regular output from.

Ponting was given nightmares by Harbajan. Just could not handle him at all. He was still a bit young & I guess had never encountered an offie who could trouble him before- offies in Shield cricket are cannon fodder mostly. So yes, we expected more from Ponting, he was our biggest talent. Then again Hayden surprised everyone by outscoring the lot, just sweeping India into oblivion or driving when he couldn't sweep.

Warne was given humpty by Sidhu in particular. Warne claims his shoulder was wrecked. Maybe he mentally gave up. Not sure but he wasn't efffective at all. What was interesting about Warne in those days it how much it was all an act, a show. He had huge crises of confidence & doubts & was very insecure behind the scenes believe or not. India as a tour, a nation was so different & the cricketers could play him & it may just have been all too much for him.

I don't really see it like players performance made us lose the series. I always remember that series as being won by VVS and that innings.

I listened to that series mostly on the radio at night. It was riveting. We had the first test, we were crushing India again in the second, we were finding a way to win no matter who was playing well or bad... and surely we would win the series as soon as VVS got out... But he never did :P What an innings. Right from the jaws of defeat, he snatches a victory. Once he'd done that... the pendulum had swung. Who knows what might have been.
 
Darren gough, Jason Gillespie, kapel dev, mohammed asif, mohammed Amir, Ryan Harris, flintoff, srikanth, Brett Shultz, Brett lee, shoaib akhter, mohammed sami Mitchell johnson
 
Not sure about Kapil Dev in this list, never thought of him as anything special as a pace bowler (maybe by Indian standards yes - but looked pretty ordinary when compared with the likes of Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Imran, Lillee , Hadlee of his era or those of the 90s with Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Donald, McGrath ).

If anything Kapil’s stats were inflated, in that he took 400 odd test wickets because someone has to take the 11 wickets even when a team scores 500 - and if you have a bowling attack consisting of mediocre club standard bowlers and 1 average international standard bowler then that chap ends up taking most wickets on most days.

Imagine in comparison how difficult it must have been for Wasim to take 5-fers when he had Imran, Qadir earlier and Waqar, Mushtaq, Saqlain, Shoaib all feasting on wickets at the other end.

Kapil paa jee had no such worries with Madan Lal and Roger Binny in the pace ‘attack’.
 
ishtiaq_ctg said:
As another poster pointed out, Australia won by the margin of 200+ & 300+ runs in 2004. Not sure how they were lucky. Sachin played half the series & Ganguly played probably all but 3rd test.
In 2001 Australia wasnt outplayed. They won the first test by an innings, made India follow on in the second, lost the third test by two wickets. Not sure anyone can lebel it as outplayed.Australia only lost that series because of Warne & Ponting. Australia virtually played with 9 players in that series
Click to expand...

Australia won three tosses and two Tests, India won the only Test they won toss. And, despite winning toss at 2nd Test, still Aussies would have most likely lost the 2nd Test.

That was a great Australian side, but they never mastered India in India. I believe for some reason Bhajji also missed one Test in that series.
 
wrongun said:
Depends who you ask as to how they expected players to fare I think. Honestly I expected S Waugh to make more runs than M Waugh because of how big the series was, you just knew S Waugh would fight tooth & nail & manufacture a way to score runs no matter what he encountered. He'd tough it out. Mark Waugh I never expected a regular output from.

Ponting was given nightmares by Harbajan. Just could not handle him at all. He was still a bit young & I guess had never encountered an offie who could trouble him before- offies in Shield cricket are cannon fodder mostly. So yes, we expected more from Ponting, he was our biggest talent. Then again Hayden surprised everyone by outscoring the lot, just sweeping India into oblivion or driving when he couldn't sweep.

Warne was given humpty by Sidhu in particular. Warne claims his shoulder was wrecked. Maybe he mentally gave up. Not sure but he wasn't efffective at all. What was interesting about Warne in those days it how much it was all an act, a show. He had huge crises of confidence & doubts & was very insecure behind the scenes believe or not. India as a tour, a nation was so different & the cricketers could play him & it may just have been all too much for him.

I don't really see it like players performance made us lose the series. I always remember that series as being won by VVS and that innings.

I listened to that series mostly on the radio at night. It was riveting. We had the first test, we were crushing India again in the second, we were finding a way to win no matter who was playing well or bad... and surely we would win the series as soon as VVS got out... But he never did :P What an innings. Right from the jaws of defeat, he snatches a victory. Once he'd done that... the pendulum had swung. Who knows what might have been.
Click to expand...

Sidhu hammered Warne in the 98 Series. In 01 the hammering was done by Laxman and Sachin. IIRC, neither Dravid nor Ganguly dominated him.

Tbh, I understand most people go ok about the 01 series. But it was the 98 series that really got me into test cricket. It was billed as Sachin vs Warne and initially played out like that. IIRC Warne got Sachin in the 1st innings of the 1st test for 4. Aus got a 100 run lead. India were in a spot of bother when Sachin came and counterattacked scoring 150. Sidhu also hammered Warne for many sixes in that series.

I know that Aus hadn’t yet reached their peak, but it was this series which started my love for test cricket.

And then the return tour of 99, even though India were hammered left right and center, made truly admire what the skills of test cricket. McGrath putting the ball at the same place ball after ball, Brett Lee searing in, Fleming making the swing and Sachin fighting tooth and nail with wickets falling around him. And then the appetiser of what was to come in the final innings from VVS. Of course, agarkar and his 5 ducks, Warne dropping a Hattrick catch of Fleming and Sachin’s shoulder before wicket added more spice.

What a time it was to be a teenage cricket fan.
 
ishtiaq_ctg said:
By looking at his pathetic record in Pakistan & minnow Sri lanka
Click to expand...

You get a false impression of what happened if you only look at spreadsheets instead of reading match reports.

Lillee turned up in Pakistan despite a flare-up of his 1973 back injury, and bowled medum pace in support of the spinners. PCB made three dustbowls on which Imran hardly bowled himself, because there was little point. So medium pace was not going to take wickets, and Lillee had no Thomson or Hogg either as both were injured. So what you call pathetic, I call brave and team-focused.

Lillee went to Sri Lanka right at the end of his career when he was bowling medium pace as a change bowler. He had probably gone on a year too long, but ACB wanted him on the tour to mentor the younger fast bowlers.
 
Bewal Express said:
Phil DeFreitas. The stats are not great but he beat the bat too much, and never got the reward. You could argue he was a few CM short but I felt the stats don't tell the whole story.
Click to expand...

Hmm. He had a good year in 1991 and was key to England holding WI 2-2. Otherwise he wasn't quite quick enough, and like all England bowlers of that era kept getting injured.

Good ODI player with bat and ball though.
 
Sidilicious said:
Sidhu hammered Warne in the 98 Series. In 01 the hammering was done by Laxman and Sachin. IIRC, neither Dravid nor Ganguly dominated him.

Tbh, I understand most people go ok about the 01 series. But it was the 98 series that really got me into test cricket. It was billed as Sachin vs Warne and initially played out like that. IIRC Warne got Sachin in the 1st innings of the 1st test for 4. Aus got a 100 run lead. India were in a spot of bother when Sachin came and counterattacked scoring 150. Sidhu also hammered Warne for many sixes in that series.

I know that Aus hadn’t yet reached their peak, but it was this series which started my love for test cricket.

And then the return tour of 99, even though India were hammered left right and center, made truly admire what the skills of test cricket. McGrath putting the ball at the same place ball after ball, Brett Lee searing in, Fleming making the swing and Sachin fighting tooth and nail with wickets falling around him. And then the appetiser of what was to come in the final innings from VVS. Of course, agarkar and his 5 ducks, Warne dropping a Hattrick catch of Fleming and Sachin’s shoulder before wicket added more spice.

What a time it was to be a teenage cricket fan.
Click to expand...

Ah ok, I must have been mixing up my memories of Sidhu thumping Warne for 6. Yes, some good moments there across the rivalry.
 
Robert said:
Hmm. He had a good year in 1991 and was key to England holding WI 2-2. Otherwise he wasn't quite quick enough, and like all England bowlers of that era kept getting injured.

Good ODI player with bat and ball though.
Click to expand...

He bowled well in 86 Ashes, in 87 against PK, in 88 against the Windies. The stats don't reflect that.
 
Majid Khan said:
Not sure about Kapil Dev in this list, never thought of him as anything special as a pace bowler (maybe by Indian standards yes - but looked pretty ordinary when compared with the likes of Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Imran, Lillee , Hadlee of his era or those of the 90s with Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Donald, McGrath ).

If anything Kapil’s stats were inflated, in that he took 400 odd test wickets because someone has to take the 11 wickets even when a team scores 500 - and if you have a bowling attack consisting of mediocre club standard bowlers and 1 average international standard bowler then that chap ends up taking most wickets on most days.

Imagine in comparison how difficult it must have been for Wasim to take 5-fers when he had Imran, Qadir earlier and Waqar, Mushtaq, Saqlain, Shoaib all feasting on wickets at the other end.

Kapil paa jee had no such worries with Madan Lal and Roger Binny in the pace ‘attack’.
Click to expand...
Also on Kapil, yes he played on flat pancakes but then so too did the fast bowlers of Pakistan in 70s/80s/90s era , the difference was clearly in pace, aggression and pure skills with the ball.. and if anything I think Kapil did well to average 29 as a test bowler, but clearly nowhere near the class of top class fast bowlers of that era who averaged in lower 20s.
 
Bewal Express said:
He bowled well in 86 Ashes, in 87 against PK, in 88 against the Windies. The stats don't reflect that.
Click to expand...

'86 Aussies were very weak though. AFAIR Dilley and Foster were the main guns for England against Pakistan that year, Daffy averaged 84 in the WI series. Dilley was the good one again.
 
Robert said:
'86 Aussies were very weak though. AFAIR Dilley and Foster were the main guns for England against Pakistan that year, Daffy averaged 84 in the WI series. Dilley was the good one again.
Click to expand...

The Windies series proves my point, he seemed to bowl well and never get any rewards.
 
Majid Khan said:
Also on Kapil, yes he played on flat pancakes but then so too did the fast bowlers of Pakistan in 70s/80s/90s era , the difference was clearly in pace, aggression and pure skills with the ball.. and if anything I think Kapil did well to average 29 as a test bowler, but clearly nowhere near the class of top class fast bowlers of that era who averaged in lower 20s.
Click to expand...

Kapil is a bit of an odd one. As a FM swinger you would expect him to excel in England, but he didn't. Yet he did well in WI and Australia where you would expect him to be innocuous.
 
Robert said:
Kapil is a bit of an odd one. As a FM swinger you would expect him to excel in England, but he didn't. Yet he did well in WI and Australia where you would expect him to be innocuous.
Click to expand...

Yes in some ways I think it’s poetic justice that those fast bowlers who looked a class apart and best of the best are the same ones who have stats that are exceptional clearly reflecting their greatness - and for the record my views on the likes of Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Lillee, Imran, Hadlee, Wasim, Waqar, Donald, McGrath, Ambrose are they were elite class fast bowlers and would say that even if they somehow deteriorated in their last few years and ended up averaging Kapil like in high 20s.. so long as they did what they did at their peaks.
 
Visitors to Barbados’ Kensington Oval cricket ground will soon be greeted by a statue of another of the island’s and West Indies’ cricketing legends standing along with that of Sir Garfield Sobers, the image of Sir Wesley Hall.

The Barbados Nation newspaper has reported that Prime Minister Mia Mottley will on Nov. 29 unveil, next to that of Sobers, an eight-foot statue of the former tear-away fast bowler who put terror in the hearts of batsmen across the world from 1958 to 1969 in 48 Test matches.

“The statue will be erected on a slightly lower platform next to Sir Garry, who is a National Hero, and Sir Wes will be next to him on the side by the Hall And Griffith Stand, which of course he is associated with,” said Chris deCaires, a member of the planning committee for the project. It is privately funded to the cost $250,000.

Hall, who celebrated his 83rd birthday earlier this month, last opened bowling with Sobers for the West Indies at Kensington in 1968 when the home team drew with England.

Throughout his career he took 192 Test wickets at an average of 26.38 and was the first West Indian bowler to take a hat-trick in Test cricket. He also captured 546 wickets in 170 first-class matches.

Hall began his Test career against India in 1958, took his hat-trick a year later against Pakistan and bowled the final over in two tied Tests, against Australia in 1960 and against England in 1963.

Hall is also a member of the International Cricket Council Cricket Hall of Fame and the West Indies Cricket Hall of Fame.

Some while after the end of his career he entered politics, serving in the Barbados Senate and House of Assembly. He was appointed minister of tourism in 1987.

The powerfully built former fast bowler became a West Indies selector then went on to be board president from 2001 to 2003.

He was awarded Knight Bachelor in 2012 for services to sport and the community.

https://www.caribbeanlifenews.com/wes-hall-getting-statue/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Why Steve Smith is still the undisputed second greatest Test batter of all time?
2 3 4
Replies
258
Views
4K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
U
No fire, no fight: Is the current bowling lineup the worst in Pakistan cricket history?
Replies
39
Views
858
LordJames
LordJames
T
Is Imran Khan the greatest Test cricketer since 1970?
Replies
52
Views
2K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
shariqnoor
  • Poll Poll
Swing vs Seam: Which is more deadly?
Replies
41
Views
2K
aboveandbeyond
A
Bhaag Viru Bhaag
Kevin De Bruyne says no one in Europe watches cricket, fans knock him for six
Replies
54
Views
2K
pakistani pride
P
Back
Top