James Anderson to retire this summer.

[Serpico]

Starc against England, India and South Africa - 187 wickets @ 30

 

Lee against EIS - 165 wickets @ 36

 

Its clear that Starc did better against toughest opponents of Aus

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, Serpico said:

Starc against England, India and South Africa - 187 wickets @ 30

 

Lee against EIS - 165 wickets @ 36

 

Its clear that Starc did better against toughest opponents of Aus

wrong.

the batting lineup Lee faced for South Africa and India are about 10 times better than the ones faced by Starc. 

 

[Muloghonto]

11 hours ago, Kron said:

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

 

Just like Hazlewood and Starc live off of Cummins. 

Averaging 29 in an era of far better batsmen is a better record than averaging 27 in an era of far weaker batting.

 

Unless you are literally the kind of idiot who thinks new is always best, in a field that is 140 years old, the best, by odds is going to be somewhere in the past and not in the present. that, is basic logic.

 

[Kron]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Just like Hazlewood and Starc live off of Cummins. 

Averaging 29 in an era of far better batsmen is a better record than averaging 27 in an era of far weaker batting.

 

Unless you are literally the kind of idiot who thinks new is always best, in a field that is 140 years old, the best, by odds is going to be somewhere in the past and not in the present. that, is basic logic.

 

Same logic applies to what you posted earlier. Far better batsmen how? 

Did you transport those past players into current era to see how they would fare against the world class attacks of modern era

 

Past is bhesst. Old is gold nonsense. I have watched since 90s. I don't buy it.

[Kron]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

wrong.

the batting lineup Lee faced for South Africa and India are about 10 times better than the ones faced by Starc. 

 

Sure they are. Then give the same team that batting team ans current saffers would mutilate teams too. 

 

Guarantee they would have serious problems vs burger jansen rabada who is possibly their best bowler and nortje. Those so called great 90s batsmen. 

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, Kron said:

Sure they are. Then give the same team that batting team ans current saffers would mutilate teams too. 

 

Guarantee they would have serious problems vs burger jansen rabada who is possibly their best bowler and nortje. Those so called great 90s batsmen. 

You cant have it both ways if you claim that South African batting was much stronger in the 90s and 00s ( which is true) and then turn around and compare averages of bowlers who bowled against that team and this faltu batting team. 

4 hours ago, Kron said:

Same logic applies to what you posted earlier. Far better batsmen how? 

Did you transport those past players into current era to see how they would fare against the world class attacks of modern era

 

Past is bhesst. Old is gold nonsense. I have watched since 90s. I don't buy it.

 

You YOURSELF keep saying that South africa of 90s and 00s are stronger batting lineup and now when i use that to make a point, suddenly, you are now backtracking and asking how are they better batsmen. This is called disingeneous nonsense argument. 

You havent watched much cricket since the 90s, that much is self evident. You young kids will realise the stupidity of 'recent is always better than the past even if all data and eye test says no' once your nuts drop and you grow up.