What is the sound of 200 pounds of overrated fast bowling sh-t hitting the fan?

[Gambit]

I agree with sarchasm and ritwik. The gulf between Akhtar and Lee in test cricket is akin to Sehwag and Gayle. Akhtar was easily the better test bowler.

[Mr. Wicket]

Putting aside my general dislike for Akhtar as a result of him being called up for everything from steroid taking to chucking - I'll concede that point. Without my anti-Akhtar bias, in terms of pure bowling in tests and effectiveness, he's definitely superior to Bung. Bowled a lot of superb spells where he could blast through a side with raw pace - something Lee rarely did against quality opposition. If Lee did it, it was usually vs. NZ or WI - with Akhtar, he did rip through the likes of Dravid and Tendulkar, and the whole Australian middle order in one explosive spell. A genuine strike bowler against anyone/everyone he faced (when he actually WAS bowling). Something Lee, as I have stated several times over the course of this thread (with plenty of proof), was not.

[Gambit]

Akhtar's combined bowling average vs Australia and India - :hahaha: 35 from 20 tests

[Chandan]

So following with the logic in bold, shall we now define Saqlain Mushtaq as a lesser bowler to Danish Kaneria as he too took fewer wickets for his country? Or say that Ambrose is a lesser bowler than Walsh because Walsh took more wickets than him? Or maybe that Marvan Atapattu is a better ODI batsman than Mark Waugh or Michael Bevan because he too scored more ODI runs than either?! Truly absurd logic, Chandan. I'm really surprised at how easily you're accepting the most basic statistic there.

The thing about Walsh and Ambrose is that they both bowled in a team and while they were together, Ambrose was class apart even from Walsh. But as for Saqlain, and Kaneria, Saqlain was a better bowler but he failed to capitalise on his skills and talents and didn't even play for 50 tests. He was given chance later too and we saw what happened to him at Multan. Kaneria isn't better to him because, firstly he hasn't played many more tests than him, has just 10 or more wickets at a significantly poorer average. When Kaneria will take 500 wickets then I'll say that he is better. Not now. Who knows if Kaneria gets to play even another test or not! The question is would you call a person better bowler, who bowls well, rather outstandingly for a brief while or one who gave steady performance for a much longer period of time? To me, maintaining a certain quality over for a longer period of time means more. I won't compare Waugh with Attapattu in ODI because ODI is completely different from test. If a bowler bowls terrifically taking wickets at an average of 15 runs with the SR of 30 balls per wickets but is able to bowl for only 25 test matches---will he be better than Glen McGrath for having better strike rate and better average? No way! Why? Because he could not continue after 25 tests. That is why Akhtar is a lesser bowler to Lee according to me because despite debuting in '97 he has been able to play just 46 matches and hasn't even taken 178 wickets while Lee debuted 3 years after Akhtar, has played 76 tests and has grabbed 310 wickets. Even if Lee's average is poorer, Lee's service as well as number of wickets taken is significantly higher than Akhtar. The logic that I'm applying will look less absurd to you if you'll see what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that 230 wickets at poorer average is better than 210 wickets at better average. But 310 wickets even at poorer average is better than 175 wickets at better average because the number of wickets taken by former is significantly more than the latter even if the average is a bit poorer.

[Mr. Wicket]

Akhtar's combined bowling average vs Australia and India - :hahaha: 35 from 20 tests

Lee's bowling average in tests from 2001 to 2006 was around the same. And Lee's bowling average combined against India, England, Pakistan and South Africa just looks awful. EDIT: A bit of stats work shows that Lee against those four teams averaged 36.35!

[Mr. Wicket]

The thing about Walsh and Ambrose is that they both bowled in a team and while they were together' date=' Ambrose was class apart even from Walsh.[/quote'] Exactly. Hence my point that tallies cannot be taken like that. Walsh played a good number more matches than Ambrose and finished with a lot more wickets. But anyone who watched the two will know that Ambrose was by far the superior bowler.

But as for Saqlain, and Kaneria, Saqlain was a better bowler but he failed to capitalise on his skills and talents and didn't even play for 50 tests. He was given chance later too and we saw what happened to him at Multan. Kaneria isn't better to him because, firstly he hasn't played many more tests than him, has just 10 or more wickets at a significantly poorer average. When Kaneria will take 500 wickets then I'll say that he is better. Not now. Who knows if Kaneria gets to play even another test or not!

Agreed. But again, this just highlights the fallacy of a person playing more tests and showing greater longevity while taking more wickets - and thus being considered 'better'. There are lots of better ways to make that judgement (watching the players, looking at more specific things such as performances in all conditions and against his top opponents), rather than just overall tallies. Going back to my point of Srinath v. Lee - Lee obviously played a great deal more than Srinath. But these days through a cricketer's schedule there's also a lot more cricket played (and as an Aussie, there are regularly longer test series v. England, India and West Indies. When did Srinath play a five-test series?). And Srinath not only was more consistent across his career, he was far more economical, more effective in terms of getting his wickets at a lesser cost, and could produce some truly brilliant match-winning spells against top quality oppositions. Lee has never come close to matching Sri's spell at Ahmedabad vs. South Africa. This is an excerpt from a piece that I co-authored a long time back with Birbal/Gaurang, a real brain on Indian cricket history: http://www.cricketnetwork.co.uk/main/s119/st67157.htm

Srinath was now in his pomp and glory, so to speak and the home Test series against South Africa produced one the golden moments of his career. With India defending a paltry 169 runs to save the Test at Ahmedabad, India's stellar home record of the past decade or so was under severe threat. Plenty was expected of the spin trio. Instead it was Srinath who rose to the occasion with one of the most stunning spells by an Indian fast bowler in Test cricket. With the new ball, he ripped out Andrew Hudson and Daryll Cullinan in his first over before a run was even on the board, and then ran through the middle and lower order. Richardson edged one from him behind to Nayan Mongia for 7, Rhodes was trapped LBW first ball, and to wrap things up, Donald and Adams saw their stumps rattled by lethal full and straight deliveries. South Africa had been shot out for 105, and Srinath was the hero with figures of 6/21 - this too, on the usual bald, grassless, slow low turner that Ahmedabad seems to specialize in.

BTW, if you check out that piece from the link - the much-debated pace statistics are quoted from Eddie Smith, who used to write for cricinfo and log top speeds from TV broadcasts for them.

That is why Akhtar is a lesser bowler to Lee according to me because despite debuting in '97 he has been able to play just 46 matches and hasn't even taken 178 wickets while Lee debuted 3 years after Akhtar, has played 76 tests and has grabbed 310 wickets. Even if Lee's average is poorer, Lee's service as well as number of wickets taken is significantly higher than Akhtar. The logic that I'm applying will look less absurd to you if you'll see what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that 230 wickets at poorer average is better than 210 wickets at better average. But 310 wickets even at poorer average is better than 175 wickets at better average because the number of wickets taken by former is significantly more than the latter even if the average is a bit poorer.

Fair points. Although as I said I still feel it's important to look at the quality of opposition the wickets are taken against, and the value attached to those - wickets at an average in the 30s at nearly 4 an over at times are generally less valuable than those bought at a mid-20ish average. And as I said I give a player a lot more regard if he can produce the same against a good team as he does against a weak team. This is why most of us will ignore the difference in Lee and Gillespie's wicket tallies, even if Lee finishes with 100 more wickets than Gillespie, just because Lee could rarely raise his game against good teams and Gillespie could outdo even McGrath against the top batsmen in the world. Good debate though. Nice to see an interesting, thought out series of arguments going back and forth here rather than the one-liners we're seeing in so many other threads.

[Chandan]

Fair points. Although as I said I still feel it's important to look at the quality of opposition the wickets are taken against, and the value attached to those - wickets at an average in the 30s at nearly 4 an over at times are generally less valuable than those bought at a mid-20ish average. And as I said I give a player a lot more regard if he can produce the same against a good team as he does against a weak team. This is why most of us will ignore the difference in Lee and Gillespie's wicket tallies, even if Lee finishes with 100 more wickets than Gillespie, just because Lee could rarely raise his game against good teams and Gillespie could outdo even McGrath against the top batsmen in the world. Good debate though. Nice to see an interesting, thought out series of arguments going back and forth here rather than the one-liners we're seeing in so many other threads.

Fair enough! Finer points needs to discussed ie the kind of pitches that the bowler bowled on, demanding conditions, quality of batsmen he bowled to, how many match winning performances he has given against quality opposition and so on. It is easier to scrutinize Akhtar and Lee here as we';ve watched almost every match that they've played in. But if you go to older boys, it is difficult to analyze these points just by watching a few clips, match reports, scorecard and the opinion of other authors. In those cases I think the yardstick best to judge is a consistent performance over a longer period of time. In this, talent, ability to transform that talent into performance, good as well as poor performances, temperament, lean patch as well hot patch, ability to deal with problems on and off the field, service, fitness and all the other factors will come in. You say, players get to play more these days. But isn't it a greater challenge for them to those who used to play for 4-5 months and then having an off season? Playing more means that player keeps up with the gruelling schedule, keeps himself fit for the matches and doesn't let his performance dip below a certain level despite hopping on and off the plane every 10 days and not getting time to recuperate and work on his game separately for months.