James Anderson to retire this summer.

[Kron]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, well when you have a 140 year old sport, you are going to have periods in the past that are far better than in the future. i dunno why that is difficult to conceptualize for you kids. 

the best batsmen are from the 80s and 90s. the best bowlers are from 80s-2000s. thats not an inconceivable thing. 

 

Also, what dale said is called being polite on the retirement ceremony of a dude who's only great quality is longetivity.

 

No they aren't. We have already had this argument before. Each to their own. Bowling quality overall is much better now for main teams. Only Pakistanies West indies suck ass. Sri Lankas are useless too.

 

Rest all are as strong as they have been. Bowling attacks I mean. 

 

Take mcg out of the 2000 attack and they would struggle badly. Also many benefitted from ultra flat pitches in post 2000 era

 

If the bowling quality in 90s were so great then the inverse is true.  Can't have it both ways.

 

Batting and bowling can't be better cause overall quality of teams have better bowling attacks now. More depth in fast bowling. 

[Adamant]

1 hour ago, Kron said:

No they aren't. We have already had this argument before. Each to their own. Bowling quality overall is much better now for main teams. Only Pakistanies West indies suck ass. Sri Lankas are useless too.

 

Rest all are as strong as they have been. Bowling attacks I mean. 

 

Take mcg out of the 2000 attack and they would struggle badly. Also many benefitted from ultra flat pitches in post 2000 era

 

If the bowling quality in 90s were so great then the inverse is true.  Can't have it both ways.

 

Batting and bowling can't be better cause overall quality of teams have better bowling attacks now. More depth in fast bowling. 

How is overall quality better?

 

Tell me which current bowlers compete with this bunch

 

Ambrose

Mcgrath

Murali

Warne

Donald

Pollock

Bishop

Akram

Younis

Marshall
 

All of them are sub 25 averaging bowlers who are considered greats of the game, tell me 10 current names which stand up against these giants, you might have a couple of greats in this era but the overall bowling strength is uncomparable, show me facts and stats not your usual logic less rant.

[Adamant]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, well when you have a 140 year old sport, you are going to have periods in the past that are far better than in the future. i dunno why that is difficult to conceptualize for you kids. 

the best batsmen are from the 80s and 90s. the best bowlers are from 80s-2000s. thats not an inconceivable thing. 

 

Also, what dale said is called being polite on the retirement ceremony of a dude who's only great quality is longetivity.

 

I do agree with you that the best bowlers and batsman were from 90s and 00s.

 

What I am sure about is that a great player in one era would be great in another era too, players learn and develop skills yo counter their contemporaries.

 

There should be no debate about what you said, its true.

[Kron]

1 hour ago, Adamant said:

How is overall quality better?

 

Tell me which current bowlers compete with this bunch

 

Ambrose

Mcgrath

Murali

Warne

Donald

Pollock

Bishop

Akram

Younis

Marshall
 

All of them are sub 25 averaging bowlers who are considered greats of the game, tell me 10 current names which stand up against these giants, you might have a couple of greats in this era but the overall bowling strength is uncomparable, show me facts and stats not your usual logic less rant.

Ball tampering 

No drs

No no ball umpiring

Home bias umpiring

Bottle caps

Bouncer rule

Less protection gear

Match fixing

Bowling on treacherous pitches to stat pad

 

This was 90s and early 2000.

 

It's not just about averages. 

Why the * you including spinners. I never mentioned spinners at all. Only pacers. 

 

Pacer quality as a whole. Attack as a unit is way better now for every team except West indies, your team Pakistanistan cause of weak genetics and also lastly Sri Lankas

 

Those guys are lucky to not play in modern era where everything gets scrutinised. 

 

 

 

[Adamant]

1 hour ago, Kron said:

Ball tampering 

No drs

No no ball umpiring

Home bias umpiring

Bottle caps

Bouncer rule

Less protection gear

Match fixing

Bowling on treacherous pitches to stat pad

 

This was 90s and early 2000.

 

It's not just about averages. 

Why the * you including spinners. I never mentioned spinners at all. Only pacers. 

 

Pacer quality as a whole. Attack as a unit is way better now for every team except West indies, your team Pakistanistan cause of weak genetics and also lastly Sri Lankas

 

Those guys are lucky to not play in modern era where everything gets scrutinised. 

 

 

 

Drs improves bowlers stats too,lol.

 

Neutral umpires were there in 90,

 

No ball umpiring, it just started wth

 

bottle caps , lets say even if I remove Waqar who benefitted from it, what about others, list down 7 pacers like them in this era. The greats of the gane rate Wasim as the most skillfull bowler ever, who the hell are you to tell them he isn’t good.

 

Bouncer rule started in 1991,lol another clueless attempt 

less protection gear ,?

 

Treacherous pitches? Did you see the last Ind tour to SA?

 

As expected, I got a rant post from you nothing else.

 

[Kron]

29 minutes ago, Adamant said:

Drs improves bowlers stats too,lol.

 

Neutral umpires were there in 90,

 

No ball umpiring, it just started wth

 

bottle caps , lets say even if I remove Waqar who benefitted from it, what about others, list down 7 pacers like them in this era. The greats of the gane rate Wasim as the most skillfull bowler ever, who the hell are you to tell them he isn’t good.

 

Bouncer rule started in 1991,lol another clueless attempt 

less protection gear ,?

 

Treacherous pitches? Did you see the last Ind tour to SA?

 

As expected, I got a rant post from you nothing else.

 

www.pakpassion.net

Click on forum

They are waiting for your input there. 

 

Drs helps bowling and it does help batting too. Lots of times your parkie lowdes got wickets illegally. Do you know that term? 

Watch the park vs australia games too. Waqar is a fraud. Nothing bowler against India and Australia. Go check his stats. All full stat padded on weak teams. Even his own parki fan had a thread about how overrated he is. 

 

Test matches that is. He is good in odi. 

 

Wasim is good. But he is not better than bumrah. His stats in sewai is only 28. If you must know. Back then West indies were stronger than nz. England infact were a weak team in 90s but I included them otherwise his stats would look even worse. 

 

Less protection? What don't you understand? Is it that confusing to understand that less protection would aid fast bowlers cause batsmen will be more intimidated by them? 

 

They wouldn't be as scared with proper gear as they are accustomed to in modern times. Which basically means reduction in more wickets for 90s lowde bowlers. 

 

That pitch we got vs SA was no where bear as bad as any of the west indies pitches. Remember when we couldn't even chase 120 vs Walsh and Ambrose on that disgraceful pitch lmao. In a recent interview Ambrose even mentioned that pitch was shockingly bad. 

 

SA provides us such pitches cause they feel that's their best chance of winning. But they don't realise our batsmen are actually not that great on flatter wickets. 

 

[Gollum]

7 hours ago, Kron said:

According to him all past greats are the greatest. 90s era bowlers bhesst 

90s batsmen also bhessst

Ignore the oldies, they are hamaare zamaane mein yeh tha, woh tha types. 

 

Nostalgia is a powerful drug. 

[Adamant]

2 hours ago, Kron said:

www.pakpassion.net

Click on forum

They are waiting for your input there. 

 

Drs helps bowling and it does help batting too. Lots of times your parkie lowdes got wickets illegally. Do you know that term? 

Watch the park vs australia games too. Waqar is a fraud. Nothing bowler against India and Australia. Go check his stats. All full stat padded on weak teams. Even his own parki fan had a thread about how overrated he is. 

 

Test matches that is. He is good in odi. 

 

Wasim is good. But he is not better than bumrah. His stats in sewai is only 28. If you must know. Back then West indies were stronger than nz. England infact were a weak team in 90s but I included them otherwise his stats would look even worse. 

 

Less protection? What don't you understand? Is it that confusing to understand that less protection would aid fast bowlers cause batsmen will be more intimidated by them? 

 

They wouldn't be as scared with proper gear as they are accustomed to in modern times. Which basically means reduction in more wickets for 90s lowde bowlers. 

 

That pitch we got vs SA was no where bear as bad as any of the west indies pitches. Remember when we couldn't even chase 120 vs Walsh and Ambrose on that disgraceful pitch lmao. In a recent interview Ambrose even mentioned that pitch was shockingly bad. 

 

SA provides us such pitches cause they feel that's their best chance of winning. But they don't realise our batsmen are actually not that great on flatter wickets. 

 

Which protective gears were not there in 90s?

Taking example of one pitch doesn’t help your argument.

 

All your arguments are wrong.

Edited July 13, 2024 by Adamant

[Kron]

1 hour ago, Adamant said:

Which protective gears were not there in 90s?

Taking example of one pitch doesn’t help your argument.

 

All your arguments are wrong.

Again with the Strawman logic from madrasa school. 

 

You can produce any examples you want, I can rebutt all of them. 

 

Just cause you say it's wrong without substantiating your argument, it doesn't mean it's wrong. 

 

Protective gear? It's much more advanced now. What about analytics. Tapes etc. It's far easier now to pick out deficiencies in a player's bowling or batting ability. 

 

West Indian bowlers used to constantly overstep. Watch the game we lost vs them when we had to chase 120. Ambrose and even bish all overstepped.

 

Such nautanki will get called now. 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

13 hours ago, Kron said:

No they aren't. We have already had this argument before. Each to their own. Bowling quality overall is much better now for main teams. Only Pakistanies West indies suck ass. Sri Lankas are useless too.

No it isnt. bowling quality of australia, west indies, south africa, pakistan and sri lanka were better in the 80s-2000s period than now. 

13 hours ago, Kron said:

 

Rest all are as strong as they have been. Bowling attacks I mean. 

 

Take mcg out of the 2000 attack and they would struggle badly. Also many benefitted from ultra flat pitches in post 2000 era

 

If the bowling quality in 90s were so great then the inverse is true.  Can't have it both ways.

 

Batting and bowling can't be better cause overall quality of teams have better bowling attacks now. More depth in fast bowling. 

Sure can. you can have better bowlers AND better batsmen at a given time. Eg: West Indies and Paksitan. Both had better batting AND bowling attacks in the 80s and 90s than now.

The whole 'things get better as time goes on' is unsubstantiated bullshit when it comes to sports. It mostly does, but not always.

 

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, Gollum said:

Ignore the oldies, they are hamaare zamaane mein yeh tha, woh tha types. 

 

Nostalgia is a powerful drug. 

just as powerful a drug as modernism of 'things always get better with time'. 

 

[Kron]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

No it isnt. bowling quality of australia, west indies, south africa, pakistan and sri lanka were better in the 80s-2000s period than now. 

Sure can. you can have better bowlers AND better batsmen at a given time. Eg: West Indies and Paksitan. Both had better batting AND bowling attacks in the 80s and 90s than now.

The whole 'things get better as time goes on' is unsubstantiated bullshit when it comes to sports. It mostly does, but not always.

 

No man pace bowling quality is the same if not Better now. Just purely pace I mean. Not including spinners. Yes Oz had Warne and he was a genius. 

 

Can imagine Warne in drs era. Would be insane. 

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, Kron said:

No man pace bowling quality is the same if not Better now. Just purely pace I mean. Not including spinners. Yes Oz had Warne and he was a genius. 

 

Can imagine Warne in drs era. Would be insane. 

No. it isnt. Pakistan, west Indies, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Australia ALL have better pace bowling attacks in the 80s-2000s periods than now, with RSA being the only close call. 

Warne was a genius to those who cant play spin. Those who can, beat the living daylights outta him.

 

[Kron]

28 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

No. it isnt. Pakistan, west Indies, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Australia ALL have better pace bowling attacks in the 80s-2000s periods than now, with RSA being the only close call. 

Warne was a genius to those who cant play spin. Those who can, beat the living daylights outta him.

 

I disagree with that. Not the pace bowling units. 

 

SA Has weaker batting that makes their bowling look inferior. Give them a couple of atgs from 90s era in batting and they would prove to be just as effective as their 90s attack

 

I agree with wrst indies, pak and lanka. Rest no

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, Kron said:

I disagree with that. Not the pace bowling units. 

 

SA Has weaker batting that makes their bowling look inferior. Give them a couple of atgs from 90s era in batting and they would prove to be just as effective as their 90s attack

 

I agree with wrst indies, pak and lanka. Rest no

You disagree because you didnt see that era. 

West Indies *ALONE* makes 80s pace bowling >> today's pace bowling, given they literally had six pacers in the 80s who'd walk into ANY test team TODAY. 

Donald-Pollock is *still* the most successful South African pace bowling pair ever and McGrath-Fleming-Gillespie-Lee are objectively far better bowling unit than the current Aussie one. 

 

[Kron]

27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

You disagree because you didnt see that era. 

West Indies *ALONE* makes 80s pace bowling >> today's pace bowling, given they literally had six pacers in the 80s who'd walk into ANY test team TODAY. 

Donald-Pollock is *still* the most successful South African pace bowling pair ever and McGrath-Fleming-Gillespie-Lee are objectively far better bowling unit than the current Aussie one. 

 

I have watched 90s and no south african quarter actually look more potent now than ever before. They have zero batting to back them. 

 

Aus too. Even their own commies say this is the greatest Aussie pace attack. Pace attack not overall attack which would mean Warne comes in. 

Mcgrath would be the best bowler ever or top 3 but overall the quality of aus pace attack is superior as a unit

West indies yes. Absolutely. They are the goat in pace.

 

No team will ever come close to the quality of West Indian attack in those times. But they also had great batsmen in those days. 

[Muloghonto]

9 hours ago, Kron said:

I have watched 90s and no south african quarter actually look more potent now than ever before. They have zero batting to back them. 

My man, good or bad batters in your side does NOT affect 1st innings score against your bowling. only 2nd inning scores. 

9 hours ago, Kron said:

 

Aus too. Even their own commies say this is the greatest Aussie pace attack. Pace attack not overall attack which would mean Warne comes in. 

Aus always says that their new gen is the best gen. They also did this in the 80s when they literally said hughes and mcdermott were their greatest attack 

9 hours ago, Kron said:

Mcgrath would be the best bowler ever or top 3 but overall the quality of aus pace attack is superior as a unit

No. Gillespie and Lee are better than Hazlewood and Starc. Mcgrath is also better than Cummins. 

[Kron]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

My man, good or bad batters in your side does NOT affect 1st innings score against your bowling. only 2nd inning scores. 

Aus always says that their new gen is the best gen. They also did this in the 80s when they literally said hughes and mcdermott were their greatest attack 

No. Gillespie and Lee are better than Hazlewood and Starc. Mcgrath is also better than Cummins. 

Not really. Hazelwood is on par with Gill

And starc is better than Lee. Lee was way too wayward in tests.

Don't conflate loi with tests

And even then in LOi starc is probably better.

[Muloghonto]

29 minutes ago, Kron said:

Not really. Hazelwood is on par with Gill

And starc is better than Lee. Lee was way too wayward in tests.

Don't conflate loi with tests

And even then in LOi starc is probably better.

 

Gillespie, for most of his career, was a sub 24 average guy. Hazlewood for most of his career has been a above 26 average guy. Starc is far too wayward than lee. To think that lee is more wayward than starc is the most clear cut sign i have that you actually dont watch cricket.

 

[Kron]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Gillespie, for most of his career, was a sub 24 average guy. Hazlewood for most of his career has been a above 26 average guy. Starc is far too wayward than lee. To think that lee is more wayward than starc is the most clear cut sign i have that you actually dont watch cricket.

 

Yes yes past is always the best. Ok whatever. 

 

There is a reason why lee averaged over 29

 

And also Gillespie just mostly lived off mcg the goat bowler

Edited July 14, 2024 by Kron