MAYANK YADAV .... EXPRESS and bouncy Indian pacer who is accurate too

[Muloghonto]

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

I dont think so. South Africa current attack is just as good as their 90s attack easily. More well balanced. 

Not at all. 

South Africa in the 90s had Donald, Pollock, DeVilliers, Ntini as their main frontline bowlers, who are overall a better pace unit than South Africa has fielded since, with Kallis and Cronje, with Cronje being the best part time bowler since his time, if not ever.  Keshu maharaj is better than Adams/Symcox/Boje but not by enough to tip the scales for the current era

 

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

Sri Lanka attack was only better cause of the chucker

Chucker, mucker, pucker, doesnt matter. just because you are chucking doesnt make it easier for the batsman. Also Vaas is their best pacer ever by a huge margin. 

I dont care as to WHY sri lanka was aeons better - my point is, they were better and tendu had to face them. if he faced the Sri lanka of the last 10 years, he'd be averaging 100+ against them. 

Same goes for Pakistan. They can tamper away and be called cheats, but it still does mean facing them was waaaaaaaaaaaay harder than its facing Pakistani bowlers today.

 

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

I disagree about Australia having a better attack. Even Australians own pundits admit this could be their best ever attack. Just look objectively you will see how potent it is overall. They have everything you need. 

Aussie pundits do not say this is their best ever attack. Ponting is the only idiot who's said that and if you look at it objectively, its clear that there is no one comparable to McWarne in the Aussie lineup since and the likes of fleming, lee, McGill are better than the likes of Hazlewood, Starc, Lyon etc. 

 

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

Flemmo just dint play enough. 

 

England gave quite a bit of depth post 2014. Andy broad they had Finn for a bit. Wood, Archer, woakes, potts, Robinson etc. Saqib and fisher too.

 

England in the90s had Gough, Cork, Fraser, Caddick, Flintoff, Tufnell,Defreitas,Headley,Mulaly and a few others - all of whom are in the same ballpark as any of the english pacers since, thats not Broad of Anderson and even then they are comparable to those two outside of England. 

 

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

Nz not slightly better. Lot lot better. 

NZ is slightly better.  They had their best ever spinner in the 90s era - vettori. Doull, Nash, Cairns were not overall worse than Southie, Boult, Wagner & Martin, though had a lot less longetivity. 

 

I asked you a question- did you see much test cricket in the 90s ? 

Edited April 24 by Muloghonto

[Kron]

51 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Not at all. 

South Africa in the 90s had Donald, Pollock, DeVilliers, Ntini as their main frontline bowlers, who are overall a better pace unit than South Africa has fielded since, with Kallis and Cronje, with Cronje being the best part time bowler since his time, if not ever.  Keshu maharaj is better than Adams/Symcox/Boje but not by enough to tip the scales for the current era

 

Chucker, mucker, pucker, doesnt matter. just because you are chucking doesnt make it easier for the batsman. Also Vaas is their best pacer ever by a huge margin. 

I dont care as to WHY sri lanka was aeons better - my point is, they were better and tendu had to face them. if he faced the Sri lanka of the last 10 years, he'd be averaging 100+ against them. 

Same goes for Pakistan. They can tamper away and be called cheats, but it still does mean facing them was waaaaaaaaaaaay harder than its facing Pakistani bowlers today.

 

Aussie pundits do not say this is their best ever attack. Ponting is the only idiot who's said that and if you look at it objectively, its clear that there is no one comparable to McWarne in the Aussie lineup since and the likes of fleming, lee, McGill are better than the likes of Hazlewood, Starc, Lyon etc. 

 

 

England in the90s had Gough, Cork, Fraser, Caddick, Flintoff, Tufnell,Defreitas,Headley,Mulaly and a few others - all of whom are in the same ballpark as any of the english pacers since, thats not Broad of Anderson and even then they are comparable to those two outside of England. 

 

NZ is slightly better.  They had their best ever spinner in the 90s era - vettori. Doull, Nash, Cairns were not overall worse than Southie, Boult, Wagner & Martin, though had a lot less longetivity. 

 

I asked you a question- did you see much test cricket in the 90s ? 

Seen enough and no I disagree with the notion. 

 

Current nz attack post 2014 is a lot betted. Doull Nash are all average bowlers. 

 

Fleming Lee are not better than hazelwoo starc duo. Not really. Flem barely played enough. 

 

Mcwarne is great. No reason why Cummins wouldn't have the same effect as mcg did in those times. He is just as quality. 

 

Jansen ngidi rabada burger and nortje? Looks better to me overall. 

 

Rabada averages just as well as Donald. 

 

Nitini is good but I feel jansen nortje are superior bowlers. They just don't have the batting to make them look good. 

 

You do need batting as well to win games. 

Look how we struggled in SA? 

 

When your batting is quality, your bowlers are better rested and can bowl with higher intensity. 

Edited April 24 by Kron

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Kron said:

Seen enough and no I disagree with the notion. 

As in you saw them in the 90s or are we talking about youtube videos and rain delay 'replays' ? 

 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

Current nz attack post 2014 is a lot betted. Doull Nash are all average bowlers. 

They were the same average bowlers as Southee, Wagner, etc. None of them were as good as Boult, true, but they also had Vettori, their best spinner ever and their best allrounder ever in Cairns. Very well balanced attack, so overall i'd say they are slightly worse

1 hour ago, Kron said:

Fleming Lee are not better than hazelwoo starc duo. Not really. Flem barely played enough. 

Yes, they are. better performances kinda seals the deal on this, especially given that Lee had to play through the flat pitches of 00s era. 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

Mcwarne is great. No reason why Cummins wouldn't have the same effect as mcg did in those times. He is just as quality. 

No, cummins is not as quality as mcgrath. McGrath, like Ambrose and Tendulkar, very very rarely had bad days - like 1 or 2 per year. Cummins is nowhere as consistent or as threatening to the top batters as McGrath is. 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

Jansen ngidi rabada burger and nortje? Looks better to me overall. 

Then you dont know cricket. Except for Rabada, not a single one of these guys would play tests in the 90s for South Africa. 

 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

Rabada averages just as well as Donald. 

 

Nitini is good but I feel jansen nortje are superior bowlers. They just don't have the batting to make them look good. 

 

You do need batting as well to win games. 

Look how we struggled in SA? 

 

When your batting is quality, your bowlers are better rested and can bowl with higher intensity. 

That is more or less a very minor detail. 

having quality batting doesnt make your bowlers better, if it did, then Ambrose & Walsh would'nt have gotten better results while the west indian batting weakened over time. 

Either way, even if you wanna argue about South Africa & Australia, the fact remains, that West Indies, Sri Lanka & Pakistan were orders of magnitude better back then than they are today, the gulf between WI/Pak/SL bowling in 90s and 2014-  is far, far wider than the gulf between RSA/AUS/NZ in the same period. 

England now is better,but again, the gulf is not as big as it is in the case of those three teams. 

Which means, 90s was a far tougher batting environment than the 2014- period for Indian batters. 

Ergo, if Tendy played in the current period, he'd most likely have much, much better numbers. 

 

[Vijy]

20 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

smith has easy pitches in Australia - the pitches in India and south africa have gotten tougher to bat on than the 00s but not Australia. Besides, tendu had far tougher pitches and far tougher bowling in the 90s. 

he isnt one of the goats, he is the goat. the statistics, the longetivity and his ability to score anywhere establishes that with a shadow of doubt. his only challenger was Lara but Lara would've had to have had another 5-7 years of his peak days to be in the same ballpark.

 

I agree lara would not be equally highly rated. his peaks were obviously higher than tendu, but had far too many weaknesses. he couldn't play fast spin, which is different than the type murali & co bowled. this is why he never did well in Ind vs Ind.

 

Even so, I would still find several candidates for post-WW2 GOATs; Even among those I have seen, there is Viv, Lara, SRT, Smith, Barrington, Sunny, Chappati (greg C), barry richards, etc.

Edited April 25 by Vijy

[Vijy]

20 hours ago, Kron said:

I am talking about our own commies lol and indian casual fans itself. They are unwilling to accept the reality that India has the best bowling attack at full strength.

 

Look at Pakistan. They always promote and hype their fast bowlers. So whiteys keep believing in their hype about how fast pak bowlers are based on past reputation. 

 

Our own people stop undermining our quality bowlers, only then we will be able to see some radical changes in the mentality of whiteys. 

 

To be fair most whiteys acknowledge the quality of Indian quicks. Even the ever hateful Michael holding begrudgingly rates our test and odi attack. It's the sycophantic indian casuals that need to change their attitude.

no, he absolutely does not.

[Kron]

2 hours ago, Vijy said:

no, he absolutely does not.

He does. In an interview with Ian healy he said would you believe india. India and Australia have the best bowling attack. He was disgusted by it but he did say it. Literally. 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XjUuX3lx6NE&t=15

Edited April 25 by Kron

[Kron]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

As in you saw them in the 90s or are we talking about youtube videos and rain delay 'replays' ? 

 

They were the same average bowlers as Southee, Wagner, etc. None of them were as good as Boult, true, but they also had Vettori, their best spinner ever and their best allrounder ever in Cairns. Very well balanced attack, so overall i'd say they are slightly worse

Yes, they are. better performances kinda seals the deal on this, especially given that Lee had to play through the flat pitches of 00s era. 

No, cummins is not as quality as mcgrath. McGrath, like Ambrose and Tendulkar, very very rarely had bad days - like 1 or 2 per year. Cummins is nowhere as consistent or as threatening to the top batters as McGrath is. 

Then you dont know cricket. Except for Rabada, not a single one of these guys would play tests in the 90s for South Africa. 

 

That is more or less a very minor detail. 

having quality batting doesnt make your bowlers better, if it did, then Ambrose & Walsh would'nt have gotten better results while the west indian batting weakened over time. 

Either way, even if you wanna argue about South Africa & Australia, the fact remains, that West Indies, Sri Lanka & Pakistan were orders of magnitude better back then than they are today, the gulf between WI/Pak/SL bowling in 90s and 2014-  is far, far wider than the gulf between RSA/AUS/NZ in the same period. 

England now is better,but again, the gulf is not as big as it is in the case of those three teams. 

Which means, 90s was a far tougher batting environment than the 2014- period for Indian batters. 

Ergo, if Tendy played in the current period, he'd most likely have much, much better numbers. 

 

I disagree still.

 

No I meant full matches on tapes. Not youtube videos like these random youtube famed influencers. 

 

100% batting matters. Just think about It. If your team bats first and posts a huge total. Your bowlers are well rested and can bowl with full intensity. 

 

Vice versa if you fail badly. Your batting can still bail you out by posting a great first innings total by outbatting your opponents. Thereby giving more rest to your quicks, a confidence boost, increasing morale and the license to bowl with full intensity. 

 

Sa don't enjoy that luxury and neither do Aussies tbh barring Smith and labu their batting is average. 

 

Give them 90s batsmen then I can guarantee they will do just as well as that famed attack of mcwarne etc. 

 

I will say 90s batsmen were better defensively and Australia sure had better batsmen overall. Best infact. But not the overall bowling attack. Not for me and not for punter or even haydos. 

 

SA bowling high quality. You need to re watch them again. All 4 of them are high quality. Sure donald and Pollock stand out but they played in a stacked team. If your batting is stacked then your bowlers figures can be misleading. It can appear better than its supposed to be. 

 

One abd was enough to trouble us in 2018. Just imaging the current SA attack having 3 to 4 world class batters. It's simple logic. 

 

Burger is outstanding. Look at his skills. Pace bounce movement. Has it all. Rabada is high quality. Best strike rate for them. 

Ngidi is quality in sena pitches. Lastly nortje express pace. Complete bowling unit. They are every bit as good as 90s attack 

Infact with steyn morkel philtrundler they can easily match the 90s attack. They dint get to play on treacherous pitches like the 90s. 

 

Nz is also far superior. Kyle Jamieson is a top talent. Then you had Wagner who is way better than doull Nash etc. 

Boult is quality and southee is decent. Southee is their worst bowler and he is well ahead of doull and Nash. 

 

They also had cdg in his prime. So yea nz attack is far better for me. Overall as a unit. 

 

I would agree only with Sri Lanka being worse but give Sri Lanka the chucker and their 90s batsmen I can guarantee they would be a lot harder to beat for most teams that tour. 

 

I agree with West indies being superior back then. 

 

If your point is about how well tenda will do in 2014 era? He would be the best batsman obviously. But he is not a clutch batsman like Smith. I think Australia with Cummins hazlewood will trouble him alot. He will have issues on some turners with drs in play. 

 

He would be averaging 55 ish. He would be troubled by kyle Jamieson and boult too in nz

Remember the series in the 90s where we got demolished 2 0? 

 

Yea can easily happen again. He is no God. He is the best but his figures would reflect a better average in current era post 2014 imo. Against sena I mean.

Edited April 25 by Kron

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Kron said:

I disagree still.

 

No I meant full matches on tapes. Not youtube videos like these random youtube famed influencers. 

That means you clearly havent watched enough cricket from the 90s to actually have a strong opinion on this topic. 

 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

100% batting matters. Just think about It. If your team bats first and posts a huge total. Your bowlers are well rested and can bowl with full intensity. 

That is a rare occurance. Posting huge total over 2 days happens like 10% of the time even for ATG teams. And as i pointed out, it didnt matter a jot for Pakistan or West Indies, both teams who had fragile batting lineups- their bowlers did just fine. 

 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

Vice versa if you fail badly. Your batting can still bail you out by posting a great first innings total by outbatting your opponents. Thereby giving more rest to your quicks, a confidence boost, increasing morale and the license to bowl with full intensity. 

 

Sa don't enjoy that luxury and neither do Aussies tbh barring Smith and labu their batting is average. 

 

Give them 90s batsmen then I can guarantee they will do just as well as that famed attack of mcwarne etc.  

That is not relevant. Doing just as well doesn't mean your team is as good. Indian batting is nowhere close to what it was in the 90s & 00s, so yes, obviously Aussie batting of 90s & 00s + current bowling of today would do just as well, even if the bowling is of lesser quality. 

 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

I will say 90s batsmen were better defensively and Australia sure had better batsmen overall. Best infact. But not the overall bowling attack. Not for me and not for punter or even haydos. 

 

SA bowling high quality. You need to re watch them again. All 4 of them are high quality. Sure donald and Pollock stand out but they played in a stacked team. If your batting is stacked then your bowlers figures can be misleading. It can appear better than its supposed to be. 

 

One abd was enough to trouble us in 2018. Just imaging the current SA attack having 3 to 4 world class batters. It's simple logic. 

 

Burger is outstanding. Look at his skills. Pace bounce movement. Has it all. Rabada is high quality. Best strike rate for them. 

Ngidi is quality in sena pitches. Lastly nortje express pace. Complete bowling unit. They are every bit as good as 90s attack 

Infact with steyn morkel philtrundler they can easily match the 90s attack. They dint get to play on treacherous pitches like the 90s. 

They are NOWHERE as good as the 90s. As i said, except for Rabada, no one walks in the 90s team from this bowling unit, because Pollock and deVilliers were still far better bowlers than Nortje, Ngidi, etc. Steyn+morkel+philander have worse stats than the 90s attack by a significant margin. and South African pitches have been the same from the 90s, if anything they've gotten more pacey and bouncy than before. 

 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

Nz is also far superior. Kyle Jamieson is a top talent. Then you had Wagner who is way better than doull Nash etc. 

Boult is quality and southee is decent. Southee is their worst bowler and he is well ahead of doull and Nash. 

Statistics and the eye test says otherwise. Apart from Boult, neither Jamieson or Southee are much apart from Doull and Nash. 

 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

They also had cdg in his prime. So yea nz attack is far better for me. Overall as a unit. 

You say this, while you ignore the fact that the best spinner ever in NZ history played in the 90s and is a far far better spinner than anything NZ has now. Not to mention, their best allrounder after Hadlee was also in the 90s - Cairns. 

90s NZ was a better balanced team. 

 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

I would agree only with Sri Lanka being worse but give Sri Lanka the chucker and their 90s batsmen I can guarantee they would be a lot harder to beat for most teams that tour. 

Then you are completely wrong. 

 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

I agree with West indies being superior back then. 

 

If your point is about how well tenda will do in 2014 era? He would be the best batsman obviously. But he is not a clutch batsman like Smith. I think Australia with Cummins hazlewood will trouble him alot. He will have issues on some turners with drs in play. 

Tendy is a far better batsman in every which regard than Smith is. DRS doesn't favour bowlers. Batsmen benefit from lbw calls far more now with DRS than before. 

As i said, you clearly missed tendy's best years live, otherwise this is not a contest. As i said, smith isnt even in the top 5 batsmen i've seen. 

 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

He would be averaging 55 ish. He would be troubled by kyle Jamieson and boult too in nz

Remember the series in the 90s where we got demolished 2 0? 

Nonsense. Tendy would be averaging 62+ in this easy era. 

 

 

My point still remains - given that SL, PAK and WI were better bowling attack by a light year back then and AUS was better than current bowling attack, even if you were correct about RSA and NZ ( which you are not), the gap is not sufficient in those teams to override the fact that between SL-PAK-WI we have an extra 5 hall of fame bowlers and another 2-3 world class bowlers to contend with that Indian batsmen today don't. Ergo, 90s bowling attack was far tougher for an indian batsman to face.

 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Vijy said:

I agree lara would not be equally highly rated. his peaks were obviously higher than tendu, but had far too many weaknesses. he couldn't play fast spin, which is different than the type murali & co bowled. this is why he never did well in Ind vs Ind.

 

Even so, I would still find several candidates for post-WW2 GOATs; Even among those I have seen, there is Viv, Lara, SRT, Smith, Barrington, Sunny, Chappati (greg C), barry richards, etc.

 

Of them, Tendy stands head and shoulder above the rest in consistency, performances all over the world and longetivity. As i said, Tendy's best period is a 19 year stretch scoring 12000+ runs at almost 60 average. While facing far more quality bowlers over the years than any batsman has ever faced. So that puts him as clear cut #1.

 

[Chaos]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Of them, Tendy stands head and shoulder above the rest in consistency, performances all over the world and longetivity. As i said, Tendy's best period is a 19 year stretch scoring 12000+ runs at almost 60 average. While facing far more quality bowlers over the years than any batsman has ever faced. So that puts him as clear cut #1.

 

My god dude even oxford professor dont discuss like u. About things u dont even know. 

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, Chaos said:

My god dude even oxford professor dont discuss like u. About things u dont even know. 

things i dont even know ? are you old enough to've even watched most of the 90s ? 

 

[Chaos]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

things i dont even know ? are you old enough to've even watched most of the 90s ? 

 

Yea born in 80s. Since then video recordings r available if u didnt know 

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Yea born in 80s. Since then video recordings r available if u didnt know 

Ah. video recording of patches and handful of matches now qualifies as having watched cricekt in the 90s. 

Figures. 

 

[Kron]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

That means you clearly havent watched enough cricket from the 90s to actually have a strong opinion on this topic. 

 

That is a rare occurance. Posting huge total over 2 days happens like 10% of the time even for ATG teams. And as i pointed out, it didnt matter a jot for Pakistan or West Indies, both teams who had fragile batting lineups- their bowlers did just fine. 

 

That is not relevant. Doing just as well doesn't mean your team is as good. Indian batting is nowhere close to what it was in the 90s & 00s, so yes, obviously Aussie batting of 90s & 00s + current bowling of today would do just as well, even if the bowling is of lesser quality. 

 

They are NOWHERE as good as the 90s. As i said, except for Rabada, no one walks in the 90s team from this bowling unit, because Pollock and deVilliers were still far better bowlers than Nortje, Ngidi, etc. Steyn+morkel+philander have worse stats than the 90s attack by a significant margin. and South African pitches have been the same from the 90s, if anything they've gotten more pacey and bouncy than before. 

 

Statistics and the eye test says otherwise. Apart from Boult, neither Jamieson or Southee are much apart from Doull and Nash. 

 

You say this, while you ignore the fact that the best spinner ever in NZ history played in the 90s and is a far far better spinner than anything NZ has now. Not to mention, their best allrounder after Hadlee was also in the 90s - Cairns. 

90s NZ was a better balanced team. 

 

Then you are completely wrong. 

 

Tendy is a far better batsman in every which regard than Smith is. DRS doesn't favour bowlers. Batsmen benefit from lbw calls far more now with DRS than before. 

As i said, you clearly missed tendy's best years live, otherwise this is not a contest. As i said, smith isnt even in the top 5 batsmen i've seen. 

 

Nonsense. Tendy would be averaging 62+ in this easy era. 

 

 

My point still remains - given that SL, PAK and WI were better bowling attack by a light year back then and AUS was better than current bowling attack, even if you were correct about RSA and NZ ( which you are not), the gap is not sufficient in those teams to override the fact that between SL-PAK-WI we have an extra 5 hall of fame bowlers and another 2-3 world class bowlers to contend with that Indian batsmen today don't. Ergo, 90s bowling attack was far tougher for an indian batsman to face.

 

Not really. Fannie dint play enough. He actually was pretty average in India and in Australia mostly. 

 

Also you are forgetting kyle Abbott. If you are going to include fanning then yes I can include kyle Abbott. He was a beast. Just dint get enough chances. 

 

Morkel steyn Abbott philander that can easily rival anything SA can throw in 90s. 

 

Also you are forgetting bowlers and batsmen both get scrutinised in depth given the advancement in technology. Weaknesses ar easier to spot. Video analysis is superior. 

 

Not to mention the no no ball umpiring and rigged home umpiring bias in 90s. Hugely favoured for home teams. 

 

Bowlers overstepping constantly especially w.indians and south africans etc. 

Ball tampering being rampant. All this would be put to an end in current era post 2014. 

 

I dont agree at all about aus sa having better attacks. It's about equal if not Better currently. 

 

I do agree with w.indies and lanka. Guess what tenda in modern era won't get ro stat pad much at all. It will be a constant grind vs sena and maybe w.indies occasionally and perhaps here and there with SL. We don't play Pakistan so including Pakistan is a moot point. 

 

Tenda is a great player but he was never clutch. Against quality bowlers his averages were 10 to 15 points lower than his standard average. Sounds to me like he wouldn't fare all that well in current era. And no drs doesn't just favour batsmen. Can go either way. If it clips the very top part of stumps and umpire gives it out, it's out. 

 

Tend averages only 42 compared to his actual average when mcg played.

34 when donald played and 37 when wasim played. 

 

The 90s series vs nz he failed vs doull and Nash on seaming tracks. Would be worse on the green seamers vs current lot.

 

Nz is well ahead of what they were in 90s. They won the wtc for God sake albeit in a rubbish one off final in conditions that favour them. 

 

They had a 5 pronged deadly attack. 90s had just one good bowler for nz.

Edited April 25 by Kron

[Muloghonto]

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

Not really. Fannie dint play enough. He actually was pretty average in India and in Australia mostly. 

 

Not played enough is not an excuse for players who have played 30+ matches. By England standards, Tendy didnt play enogh either. 

 

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

Also you are forgetting kyle Abbott. If you are going to include fanning then yes I can include kyle Abbott. He was a beast. Just dint get enough chances. 

 

Morkel steyn Abbott philander that can easily rival anything SA can throw in 90s. 

Not even close, since except for Steyn and Philander, the others wont stand a chance in the 90s either and as i said, 90s South Africa also had Kallis and Cronje for a much better balance of attack.

 

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

Also you are forgetting bowlers and batsmen both get scrutinised in depth given the advancement in technology. Weaknesses ar easier to spot. Video analysis is superior. 

So they cancel each other out more or less. 

 

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

Not to mention the no no ball umpiring and rigged home umpiring bias in 90s. Hugely favoured for home teams. 

Cancels each other out again. If my umpires are biassed at home and so are yours, we cancel each other out after each cycle of home-away trips.

 

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

Bowlers overstepping constantly especially w.indians and south africans etc. 

Ball tampering being rampant. All this would be put to an end in current era post 2014. 

Thats irrelevant- ball tampering or chucking is irrelevant to the discussion, since it STILL means the batsmen who faced them had to face them and if its harder to face a chucker, then the point that the batsmen had a harder time still stands.

 

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

I dont agree at all about aus sa having better attacks. It's about equal if not Better currently. 

Nonsense and this is because you didnt watch enough cricket in the 90s. 

 

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

I do agree with w.indies and lanka. Guess what tenda in modern era won't get ro stat pad much at all. It will be a constant grind vs sena and maybe w.indies occasionally and perhaps here and there with SL. We don't play Pakistan so including Pakistan is a moot point. 

Tendy didnt play much against WI back then either and if anything, the batsmen today are statspadding vs Lanka and WI than in the 90s. 

 

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

Tenda is a great player but he was never clutch. Against quality bowlers his averages were 10 to 15 points lower than his standard average. Sounds to me like he wouldn't fare all that well in current era. And no drs doesn't just favour batsmen. Can go either way. If it clips the very top part of stumps and umpire gives it out, it's out. 

He was far more clutch than any batsman of his callibre in tests. 

Against quality ATG bowling, all batsmen have 5-15 points less batting averages. 

DRS cancels out the advantages of batsmen and bowlers. Bowlers dont get to get wickets off of the arm guard or no balls, but batsmen dont get to dodge close lbw calls either. 

 

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

Tend averages only 42 compared to his actual average when mcg played.

34 when donald played and 37 when wasim played. 

Which would be far lower for virat, smith, etc. 

 

13 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

The 90s series vs nz he failed vs doull and Nash on seaming tracks. Would be worse on the green seamers vs current lot.

 

Nz is well ahead of what they were in 90s. They won the wtc for God sake albeit in a rubbish one off final in conditions that favour them. 

 

They had a 5 pronged deadly attack. 90s had just one good bowler for nz.

NZ is not well ahead. as i explained, they had better allrounders to balance their attack and their best spinner ever. 

overall they are slightly ahead.

 

But as i said, the point still stands - WI, PAK  & SL were country miles better in the 90s. There is absolutely no debate on this and marginal differences between rsa/aus/nz/eng doesnt cancel out this factor. 

 

Tendy averaged 60 in a period where only 6 other batsmen averaged over 45 in the entire world. Smith is already below 60 average and theres over a dozen batsmen who average 45+ in his period. 

 

[Kron]

41 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Not played enough is not an excuse for players who have played 30+ matches. By England standards, Tendy didnt play enogh either. 

 

Not even close, since except for Steyn and Philander, the others wont stand a chance in the 90s either and as i said, 90s South Africa also had Kallis and Cronje for a much better balance of attack.

 

So they cancel each other out more or less. 

 

Cancels each other out again. If my umpires are biassed at home and so are yours, we cancel each other out after each cycle of home-away trips.

 

Thats irrelevant- ball tampering or chucking is irrelevant to the discussion, since it STILL means the batsmen who faced them had to face them and if its harder to face a chucker, then the point that the batsmen had a harder time still stands.

 

Nonsense and this is because you didnt watch enough cricket in the 90s. 

 

Tendy didnt play much against WI back then either and if anything, the batsmen today are statspadding vs Lanka and WI than in the 90s. 

 

He was far more clutch than any batsman of his callibre in tests. 

Against quality ATG bowling, all batsmen have 5-15 points less batting averages. 

DRS cancels out the advantages of batsmen and bowlers. Bowlers dont get to get wickets off of the arm guard or no balls, but batsmen dont get to dodge close lbw calls either. 

 

Which would be far lower for virat, smith, etc. 

 

NZ is not well ahead. as i explained, they had better allrounders to balance their attack and their best spinner ever. 

overall they are slightly ahead.

 

But as i said, the point still stands - WI, PAK  & SL were country miles better in the 90s. There is absolutely no debate on this and marginal differences between rsa/aus/nz/eng doesnt cancel out this factor. 

 

Tendy averaged 60 in a period where only 6 other batsmen averaged over 45 in the entire world. Smith is already below 60 average and theres over a dozen batsmen who average 45+ in his period. 

 

Again all conjecture. You can't extrapolate stats based on his achievements or lack of in 90s. 

 

My point being bowling attacks are better now amongst top teams overall. You saying otherwise. 

 

Sorry Tendulkar was not clutch enough. His stat padded centuries never helped us win a series but yes he did play for a weak team so that works in his favour. 

 

I have no issues with him being rated as the best in modern era but my problem is with the premise of 90s attacks being harder to face. Sure harder to face cause of the rule set and also things that went in their favour. Intangible things that were out of control. 

 

Doesn't equate to them being better. I don't buy that at all. If anything modern bowlers have it harder so I believe current bowlers from 2014 are better overall. 

 

Agreed with.indies and lanka were better but again sl benefitted cause of a chucked. If you look at their pace attack objectively it's more or less similar. 

 

Tendulkar I don't feel would average 60 due to drs. He has issues vs spin on turners and we played on some insane Bunsens post 2014. 

 

He also weaknesses vs premium bowlers judging by his average against the top bowlers of his era. That couple with drs etc I feel he won't touch 60. It's 55 plus.

[Muloghonto]

19 minutes ago, Kron said:

Again all conjecture. You can't extrapolate stats based on his achievements or lack of in 90s. 

everytime you try to transpose a player of the past into the present of vice versa, its conjecture. 

 

19 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

My point being bowling attacks are better now amongst top teams overall. You saying otherwise. 

No. It isnt. Under no circumstances is Warne-McGrath-Lee-Gillespie-Fleming-Reiffel-McGill worse than the current lot. Same with Donald-Pollock-deVilliers-Ntini-Kallis vs the later bunch. 

 

19 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

Sorry Tendulkar was not clutch enough. His stat padded centuries never helped us win a series but yes he did play for a weak team so that works in his favour. 

He was clutchier than any other batsman of the highest class- more clutch than virat,smith,williamson and since all thse guys play at an easier bowling era, they stat pad more.

 

19 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

I have no issues with him being rated as the best in modern era but my problem is with the premise of 90s attacks being harder to face. Sure harder to face cause of the rule set and also things that went in their favour. Intangible things that were out of control. 

It IS harder to face.  This has been logically demonstrated multiple times already.

 

19 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

Doesn't equate to them being better. I don't buy that at all. If anything modern bowlers have it harder so I believe current bowlers from 2014 are better overall.

 

 

Modern bowlers dont have it harder. 

 

19 minutes ago, Kron said:

Agreed with.indies and lanka were better but again sl benefitted cause of a chucked. If you look at their pace attack objectively it's more or less similar. 

It isnt more or less similar, since Vaas is waaaaaaaay better than any other sri lankan test pacer ever. And why they were better is irrelevant to the point that they were better.

 

19 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

Tendulkar I don't feel would average 60 due to drs. He has issues vs spin on turners and we played on some insane Bunsens post 2014. 

DRS would have him not out to the shoulder-before wicket to McGrath and the 3 times he got out in west indies to balls coming off of his arm. 

A man who absolutely murders Warne and murali would eat every single spinner out there today for dinner. 

 

19 minutes ago, Kron said:

 

He also weaknesses vs premium bowlers judging by his average against the top bowlers of his era. That couple with drs etc I feel he won't touch 60. It's 55 plus.

there is no batter who averages 45+ against the same bowlers you mentioned. He would easily cross 60, since its already objectively demonstrated that he batted in an era of better bowling attack.

The objective proof is simply the fact that WI,PAK & SL were waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than what you are arguing about in AUS, RSA, NZ. 

use your brain - if Wi, PAK, SL are 100% better and even if you were right about AUS & RSA ( which you are not), they are at best equal or 5-10% better,then overall, 90s is better.logic dictates so.

 

Edited April 25 by Muloghonto

[Kron]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

everytime you try to transpose a player of the past into the present of vice versa, its conjecture. 

 

No. It isnt. Under no circumstances is Warne-McGrath-Lee-Gillespie-Fleming-Reiffel-McGill worse than the current lot. Same with Donald-Pollock-deVilliers-Ntini-Kallis vs the later bunch. 

 

He was clutchier than any other batsman of the highest class- more clutch than virat,smith,williamson and since all thse guys play at an easier bowling era, they stat pad more.

 

It IS harder to face.  This has been logically demonstrated multiple times already.

 

 

Modern bowlers dont have it harder. 

 

It isnt more or less similar, since Vaas is waaaaaaaay better than any other sri lankan test pacer ever. And why they were better is irrelevant to the point that they were better.

 

DRS would have him not out to the shoulder-before wicket to McGrath and the 3 times he got out in west indies to balls coming off of his arm. 

A man who absolutely murders Warne and murali would eat every single spinner out there today for dinner. 

 

there is no batter who averages 45+ against the same bowlers you mentioned. He would easily cross 60, since its already objectively demonstrated that he batted in an era of better bowling attack.

The objective proof is simply the fact that WI,PAK & SL were waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than what you are arguing about in AUS, RSA, NZ. 

use your brain - if Wi, PAK, SL are 100% better and even if you were right about AUS & RSA ( which you are not), they are at best equal or 5-10% better,then overall, 90s is better.logic dictates so.

 

He dint play spinners in drs era. Much tougher now against spin. One bad judgement and it's over. I agree he was affected by some rubbish decisions going against him which basically proves my point. Bowlers benefitted alot from such decisions.. 

 

I dont agree australia or SA had better bowling attacks back then. Rules and home biased umpiring, no no ball umpiring all favour them. Not to mention match fixing and other tampering woes. And no just cause on team tampers, doesn't mean other team tampered to the same extent. It's all conjecture. Some teams would do anything to win a game. Australia being one as they got exposed for sand paper gate. Pakistan certainly benefitte heaps from tampering

 

 

Give the same luxuries to modern quicks and they would mutilate the 90s batsmen just as well if not Better. That's my point. Bowlers weren't better at all back then. I don't agree with that for the top sides. 

 

West indies sure. Sri Lanka cause or chucker yes. Vaas is a trundler. He would be swatted by modern batsmen. I don't rate him. 

 

And tenda won't play pak. So he will be facing 4 strong bowling attacks. 1 weak one in w.indies. Sri Lanka for stat padding. 

 

Back then he gets to smash mediocre England, nz (he dint do all that well vs any of the top Bowlers btw as stated before. 

Plus Zimbabwe where india failed too. Even at home it was a struggle against the mammoth Zimbabwe team. 

[express bowling]

9 hours ago, Kron said:

I dont think so. South Africa current attack is just as good as their 90s attack easily. More well balanced. 

 

SA attack of the 90s did not have 2 really good pacers operating at the same time at their peaks barring 1 or 2 years of Donald and Pollock.

 

From 1991 to 1995 there was only Donald who was top tier. His support cast was mostly ordinary. Only F deVilliers was good but he played just 18 tests.

 

By the time Pollock became a really good bowler, Donald was past his best years.

 

Ntini became a,force in the 2000s. And he was never a great bowler anyway. 

 

Steyn and Morkel had their entire careers bowling together  And had some solid years with Philander too. That was their best pace attack. 

 

Their current pace attack in test matches has 4 pacers with low averages and this can't be ignored. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Kron said:

Sri Lanka attack was only better cause of the chucker

 

SL never really had low average pacers averaging 27 or less in tests or 25 or less in ODIs. ( taking 100+ wickets in either format )

 

Their pace attack was ordinary in the 1990s and still is ordinary. 

 

9 hours ago, Kron said:

I disagree about Australia having a better attack. Even Australians own pundits admit this could be their best ever attack. Just look objectively you will see how potent it is overall. They have everything you need. 

 

Flemmo just dint play enough. 

 

IMO the Australian attack was better in the late 1990s after McGrath and Gillespie came together and then Lee joined. It had more variety. 

 

But their early 90s pace attack was definitely worse than now. Not even comparable really.

 

[New guy]

2 hours ago, Kron said:

He dint play spinners in drs era. Much tougher now against spin. One bad judgement and it's over. I agree he was affected by some rubbish decisions going against him which basically proves my point. Bowlers benefitted alot from such decisions.. 

 

I dont agree australia or SA had better bowling attacks back then. Rules and home biased umpiring, no no ball umpiring all favour them. Not to mention match fixing and other tampering woes. And no just cause on team tampers, doesn't mean other team tampered to the same extent. It's all conjecture. Some teams would do anything to win a game. Australia being one as they got exposed for sand paper gate. Pakistan certainly benefitte heaps from tampering

 

 

Give the same luxuries to modern quicks and they would mutilate the 90s batsmen just as well if not Better. That's my point. Bowlers weren't better at all back then. I don't agree with that for the top sides. 

 

West indies sure. Sri Lanka cause or chucker yes. Vaas is a trundler. He would be swatted by modern batsmen. I don't rate him. 

 

And tenda won't play pak. So he will be facing 4 strong bowling attacks. 1 weak one in w.indies. Sri Lanka for stat padding. 

 

Back then he gets to smash mediocre England, nz (he dint do all that well vs any of the top Bowlers btw as stated before. 

Plus Zimbabwe where india failed too. Even at home it was a struggle against the mammoth Zimbabwe team. 

With every post you just show you had no idea about cricket in the 90s. Zimbabwe had goats like streak and the flower brothers, they were way stronger than today's Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or west indies.

 

Sometimes it's better not to open your mouth if you have no idea about what you are talking about

 

You don't have even basic cricket knowledge for this discussion 

 

P.S. I know you will never adress the proof about batsmen technique being way worse which is why bowler figures look better. 90s batsmen would play out today's best bowlers easily, most of them don't even attack the stumps.