Who was the better bowler - Marshall or Tendulkar?

[The Outsider]

You will find that nobody rates KD as a Tear away fast bowler ... with or without that footage ...

Whoever mentioned speed? And by the way, during those days Kapil was touted as a very quick bowler by all accounts. Of course, they could all be lying.

secondly unlike say Mr. Ernie Toshack - who has a average that is Curtley Ambrose'esque but bowls like Anil Kumble - Kapil Dev has stats that are far inferior to Ernie Toshack.Iam sure you will agree that those stats would suit a KD or Srinath or even Zack much better. And while we are indulging in things like "Open Mind" feel free to enlighten us how a trundler like Ernie Toshack ended up with a bowling avg of 21. Either my understand of fast bowling is fundamentally wrong or people back then rated bowlers who bowled at near 90mph as "medium pacers".

So Kumble is a poor bowler? Not long ago you used to have threads saying Kumble is better than Warne. Toshack is never touted as a fast bowler. He had a debilitating knee injury and hardly had a test or FC career to be some standard of comparison.

And speaking of old videos is this video also showing Holding to be a club bowler as it is older than the Kapil video ?

Different countries, different technologies. Unless of course you want to say that Holding was in a different universe as a bowler to Kapil - no doubt he was better. But do you think the video of Kapil does justice to his bowling? Plain and simple question.

Cue : I suspect this is where hurling insults and throwing smilies will come in very handy for your side-kick if not for you.

I am still waiting for your response to my earlier post regarding the ranking of Sobers, unless you have started your diverting the discussion in some meaningless direction mode of operation?

[The Outsider]

That video featuring Kapil makes him look exactly he was, a medium pacer

But Kapil was not a medium pacer during the first 5-6 years of his career when he had his knee surgery. He was not express either but would probably have been in the 135-145 category. I've seen him being clocked at 130 or thereabouts in some Sharjah matches in the late 80s-early 90s.

[zen]

Fastest skunk in town, what you did is pick Zaheer's best performance available and put it against one of Kapil's worst and randomly implied it's all because of the camera? But then you also came up with that gem where WW2 fighter aircrafts and bombs were deadlier than those in Desert Storm. Moving on, what is 'low tech' footage? What effect does it have vis-a-vis my viewing experience? Be specific. That video featuring Kapil makes him look exactly he was, a medium pacer. What you dishonestly forgot to mention is that Kapil looks bad only because he was deliberately bowling outside leg to waste time. You've a fetish for internet arguments and stuff and you're clearly not averse to twisting facts but atleast be clever about it. Coming back to the 'low tech' footage you've mentioned, I'd advise you to read up on frame rate and it's effect on the speed of a movie. Older hand cranked cameras with a dismal fps actually made the videos appear faster than they were. Modern cameras with a higher and adjustable fps film at a rate where the brain processes movies into a continuous 'video' without any flicker. Meaning they're closest to the real life experience. To simplify it further, video footage of Lindwall and co actually makes them appear faster than they were. Chew on that for sometime.

Appears as if another clown made his entry :giggle: If you had understood my point, you wouldn't have asked me to be specific! :P Then the clown goes on to tell me that modern cameras are closest to providing real life experience but forgets that what that would imply conversely (talking abt being specific) :hysterical: Chew on that!

[The Outsider]

The best example is the delivery Bradman got bowled on in his last innings bowled by a leg spinner - and it was a googly, so would be usually slower than the regular leg spin. It is impossible to see the ball in real time - that tells me all I want to know about the video footage of those days. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P5pfFAqrsI]YouTube - Don Bradman's Last Innings[/ame]

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

What's funny is when people talk about batting against Donald, McGrath, Ambrose and Wasim as if they played for the same team and bowled all the overs probably on pitches that helped them a lot :giggle:

[zen]

hehehee .... thats a good one sarchy :--D

See even he argees with you so that should tell you something :hysterical:

[The Outsider]

If you want to witness the difference video footage can make, compare Kapil bowling in the video posted by rett to this : tts2C2CTIe4 Forget about the fact that Kapil was not bowling well in the first footage and is bowling well here. Just concentrate on the video, clarity, speed etc. for the videos shot at around the same time in different countries with different technologies.

[zen]

On a side note: If I am not wrong Kapil has always bowled well in Australia. Liked his bowling in 1992 series when he took some 25 wkts in 5 tests. He also took his 400th wkt on that trip .... I always felt he should have retired after that series

[The Outsider]

Like I said SRT and Garry should never be compared on the same scale in the first place.

That's fair enough. If they are not comparable then you should also shelve the claim that Tendulkar is the best batsman of all time, for the simple fact that he cannot be compared to past greats.

Forget about my ranking for a minute but the very fact that you are positioning Garry's batting JUST 0.5 points below SRT is the big problem. I mean here we have someone who is matching Garrys records from lesser level in a higher level and you consider that to be worth only 0.5 points ? Sorry I beg to differ and I simply see no logic to it. All this disconnect arises from the fact that you simply dont recognize that modern day cricket is the most competitive and intense cricket that there ever was. So no matter what I say about Garry it will simply not sit well with you (and vice versa) .

That's fine and we can have different opinions on where to rank Sobers' batting. What we cannot have, or should not have is ranking Sobers' bowling above his batting in any self consistent ranking system for the simple fact that Sobers was a much better batsman than he was a bowler playing in the same era, same conditions, and same opponents.

For the record I stand by my rating ... Garry was a 6-7ish bowler and batsman. Had he bowled to the modern greats he would not be owning 235 wkts. Had he batted Against Donald,Ambrose, Waz and such he wouldnt average more than 45-50.

Then I would have to ask you where you rank Lindwall, Miller, and Trueman who were contemporaries of Sobers on the scale of 1-10 with respect to their bowling?

[The Outsider]

^ PS : A batsman averaging 50 against 'Donald,Ambrose, Waz and such' is a 6-7 on your scale? Pretty harsh on the likes of Laxman, I must say.

[zen]

From 1 Jan 2004 to 1 Jan 2009, a period of 5 years, this is what happened Some were even asking whether Tendulkar should retire .... Surprisingly at that time no many thought how the bowlers, fielders or whatever were during Bradman's era. But now suddenly, things seem to have changed :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

aWA7wYKcPGo&playnext=1&list=PLEC2AB35BDCC29A38&index=27 ^That's what Sir Gary Sobers tried to do in domestic games. I guess, if he cared that much about 100s and averages as today's batsmen, he would probably have had even better figures than what he has now :--D The strength of Sobers is that was not nervous even in tough situations, not afraid to take risks, played cricket for the fun of it, kept the game of cricket higher than his personal milestones (also shown in the sporting declarations that he used to make) If he played with the business mindedness of today's players, I guess, he would probably have achieved even more. One has to be a fool to pick any other player ahead of him (apart from may be Bradman). I usually think of Sobers as a mix of good elements of Lara and Richards. And that combination is hard to beat :winky:

[zen]

He did tell you quite clearly what that implies ... but it didnt register with you because of the current position of your head as I said earlier ... :hysterical: PS: Untill you get hold of a good surgeon that is willing to extricate your head from inside your butt not much will register.

:stupid:

[The Outsider]

And this works the other way too. But since these X vs Y discussions invariably force people to compare ... the first thing that stands out in this case is that FC record of Sir Garry that will get owned at Test Level. That is some domination.

I am absolutely fine with the notion that players across eras cannot be compared. Let Tendulkar battle it out with Lara and Ponting, Gavaskar with Richards and Chappell, and Bradman absolutely pummel Hammond and Hutton. What I am not fine with is saying Tendulkar is the best batsman of all time.

Like I said you place too much value on performances that were achieved against mediocre opponents. Once you realize that the quality of bowling improved drastically over the years you will have to adjust that rating.

Fair enough. Maybe one day I will realize it.

But please explain the logic behind ranking Garry only 0.5 points below SRT given that he is going to get pretty close to Garrys FC records.

I don't think I need to go into my appreciation for Tendulkar - I have already done so in many threads. But here are a few points which make me really appreciate Sobers' batting : 1. His career started in a completely ambiguous role where everyone concerned thought he was talented but unsure in which aspect, batting or bowling. From 17-20 or so he was constantly moved around sometimes as a batsman, sometimes as a slow bowler, before he finally hit the 365 to settle himself in a role and the side. 2. His record against the top Indian spinners of all time - Gupte, Chandra, Bedi, Prasanna is unbeatable. Not even Pakistanis could command that kind of dominance over Indian spinners aided with their biased umpiring and home grounds. 3. His batting in the two series for World XI - I know you would choose to discount and belittle them, but it's my opinion so bear with me - against England and Australia was superb. Specially in the series against England though the 254 against Australia gets more publicity for the audacity.

Lindwall - 6.5 Miller - 6 Trueman - 7

I really don't know what to say when you are rating someone averaging 35 and striking at 90 with the ball at the same level as people averaging around 20 and striking at 50 in the same era, conditions, and more or less same opponents. That's the equivalent of saying Kallis is as good a bowler as Ambrose, probably worse.

[zen]

In short: Tendulkar: 175T, 14.5k runs, 57A ----> almost at the best of his capabilities Sobers: 93T, 8k runs, 58A, 235 wkts ----> probably capable enough to avg 60+, if he played with the mindset of today's players Sobers

[Sachin=GOD]

In short: Tendulkar: 175T, 14.5k runs, 57A ----> almost at the best of his capabilities Sobers: 93T, 8k runs, 58A, 235 wkts ----> probably capable enough to avg 60+, if he played with the mindset of today's players Sobers

all ifs and buts and could have and would have.