CG Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 You might want to take a look at Akram's record away from home. Span Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100 Wkts BBI Bowl Av 5 Ct St v Australia 1990-1999 9 419 123 26.18 1 36 6/62 24.05 3 5 0 v Bangladesh 2002-2002 1 - - - - 0 - - 0 0 0 v England 1987-2001 14 379 45* 22.29 0 53 6/67 28.73 2 5 0 v India 1987-1999 8 219 62 19.90 0 27 5/96 27.70 1 5 0 v New Zealand 1985-1995 7 129 35 16.12 0 50 7/119 17.18 6 0 0 v South Africa 1995-1998 2 87 41 29.00 0 7 3/70 39.00 0 0 0 v Sri Lanka 1986-2000 8 277 100 34.62 1 30 5/43 20.43 2 5 0 v West Indies 1988-2000 9 201 42 14.35 0 35 6/61 26.88 2 8 0 v Zimbabwe 1995-1998 4 63 27 10.50 0 17 5/43 26.47 1 1 0 its a brilliant record considering the no of matches played and australia were a top team then and wi were not as bad then even zim was not bad.
CG Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 see akram's record away form home then :hatsoff: Have u checked it?better check it again,i am a fan of steyn too but saying he is better than akram ,walsh ambrose,lilee,donald is not on ,he has still some distance to go and those who downplay akram may not have seen him bowl in 90's.I can understand steyn has owned india but still. Grouping Span Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100 Wkts BBI Bowl Av 5 Ct St v Australia 2008-2011 8 221 76 22.10 0 45 5/67 26.33 2 2 0 v England 2004-2012 9 132 47 22.00 0 38 5/51 32.05 2 2 0 v India 2006-2011 10 78 32 7.80 0 53 7/51 19.00 4 1 0 v New Zealand 2006-2012 8 86 25 10.75 0 45 6/49 18.64 4 2 0 v Pakistan 2007-2010 5 40 27 10.00 0 19 5/56 30.89 1 1 0 v Sri Lanka 2006-2012 5 82 43 13.66 0 22 5/73 27.00 2 0 0 v West Indies 2007-2010 6 122 39 30.50 0 35 6/72 18.68 2 4 0
Crookbond Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 :blink: Do you try to be funny every time. Can't really beat you in that department :good:
Cricket Tragic Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 Span Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100 Wkts BBI Bowl Av 5 Ct St v Australia 1990-1999 9 419 123 26.18 1 36 6/62 24.05 3 5 0 v Bangladesh 2002-2002 1 - - - - 0 - - 0 0 0 v England 1987-2001 14 379 45* 22.29 0 53 6/67 28.73 2 5 0 v India 1987-1999 8 219 62 19.90 0 27 5/96 27.70 1 5 0 v New Zealand 1985-1995 7 129 35 16.12 0 50 7/119 17.18 6 0 0 v South Africa 1995-1998 2 87 41 29.00 0 7 3/70 39.00 0 0 0 v Sri Lanka 1986-2000 8 277 100 34.62 1 30 5/43 20.43 2 5 0 v West Indies 1988-2000 9 201 42 14.35 0 35 6/61 26.88 2 8 0 v Zimbabwe 1995-1998 4 63 27 10.50 0 17 5/43 26.47 1 1 0 its a brilliant record considering the no of matches played and australia were a top team then and wi were not as bad then even zim was not bad. My post wasn't doubting Akram's greatness - he's an ATG. The point is that is has a better home record. So the flat track argument doesn't hold.
CG Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 Can't really beat you in that department :good: Nah i do not think so.:winky:.if you cannot even see a valid point in bowler averages 20 against right handers and 30 against lefthanders and come up with something nonsense what can i say.
CG Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 My post wasn't doubting Akram's greatness - he's an ATG. The point is that is has a better home record. So the flat track argument doesn't hold. here are is home records Career summary Grouping Span Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100 Wkts BBI Bowl Av 5 Ct St v Australia 1994-1998 4 143 45* 23.83 0 14 5/63 30.14 1 2 0 v Bangladesh 2001-2001 1 - - - - 0 - - 0 0 0 v England 1987-2000 4 83 40 20.75 0 4 2/64 56.25 0 1 0 v India 1989-1989 4 58 30 19.33 0 18 5/101 30.61 1 1 0 v New Zealand 1990-1990 2 29 28 14.50 0 10 4/44 16.20 0 1 0 v South Africa 1997-1997 2 11 9 5.50 0 6 4/42 19.00 0 0 0 v Sri Lanka 1985-2000 10 260 79 26.00 0 28 5/55 23.17 1 3 0 v West Indies 1986-1997 8 155 66 14.09 0 44 6/91 16.00 2 2 0 v Zimbabwe 1993-1998 6 377 257* 62.83 1 30 6/48 18.23 3 4 0 Here are his home performances he averages more against the top sides than away.
Crookbond Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 Nah i do not think so.:winky:.if you cannot even see a valid point in bowler averages 20 against right handers and 30 against lefthanders and come up with something nonsense what can i say. Dude, you still didn't get the point did you? You are nit picking here nothing else. We know those statistics you posted - nothing new. But put plain and straight, he's on his way to becoming an ATG whatever nitpicks you throw.
The Outsider Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 My post wasn't doubting Akram's greatness - he's an ATG. The point is that is has a better home record. So the flat track argument doesn't hold. Most bowlers from the subcontinent have better records at home - Kapil, Imran, Akram, Srinath - that does not necessarily mean that things are easier at home for fast bowlers. A big reason for the relatively poor averages of these bowlers away from home is the failure of the batting line up forcing them to bowl restrictive lines with little pressure on the opposition because of the low scores they were forced to defend.
rkt.india Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 Most bowlers from the subcontinent have better records at home - Kapil' date=' Imran, Akram, Srinath - that does not necessarily mean that things are easier at home for fast bowlers. A big reason for the relatively poor averages of these bowlers away from home is the failure of the batting line up forcing them to bowl restrictive lines with little pressure on the opposition because of the low scores they were forced to defend.[/quote'] Cannot agree more.
Manny_Pacquiao Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 akram against the top 4 batting sides (australia, india, south africa, england): 47 matches, 165 wickets at 28.61 akram against the rest (sri lanka, new zealand, west indies, bangladesh, zimbabwe): 57 matches, 249 at 20.30 all time great? i don't think so. look at the difference between the two averages. the guy made a living out of taking cheap wickets against weaker teams and was considerably worse off against the better teams. he was basically a glorified minnow basher and a tailender bully. basically the bowling version of mohammad yoosef. how anyone can call this loser an all time great is beyond me. his bum buddy maqar was even worse, averaging 30.76 against the top 4 batting sides. shwaib aaktaar 31.65. saaklain, mustaq ahmed, qadir, etc. all over 30+ as well under this criteria. and this is inspite of all their ball tampering and cheating shenanigans. pretty embarrassing. imran kahn is the only paki with a legitimate ATG-worthy record against good sides, 205 @ 24.46. but then he was a self-confessed ball tamperer who played in a era when there were only 5 cameras at the stadium, if any, so its a bit difficult to take his figures seriously.
The Outsider Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 England a top 4 batting side in the 90s? Everyday is a learnIng experience!
the don Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 akram against the top 4 batting sides (australia, india, south africa, england): 47 matches, 165 wickets at 28.61 akram against the rest (sri lanka, new zealand, west indies, bangladesh, zimbabwe): 57 matches, 249 at 20.30 a. lol, most of those sides were better than india during akrams playing days , westindies had gun batsmen , so did newzealand and srilanka , india were virtually minnows during much of akrams playing career .
Ultimate_Game Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 lol' date=' most of those sides were better than india during akrams playing days , westindies had gun batsmen , so did newzealand and srilanka , india were virtually minnows during much of akrams playing career .[/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Yup why not! Maybe that's why Pakis got their @$$ handed in the WCs as usual by India. Yup kiwis had better "batsmen" than India along with Sri Lanka :hysterical: Maybe Tendulkar, Azhar, Ganguly, Dravid etc. were not good enough than Mahanamas, Gurusinhas, Ranatungas, Hashan Tillekratnes, Rutherfords, Greatbatches, Keith Arthurtons, Phil Simmons, Jimmy Adams etc. :cantstop:
CG Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Yup why not! Maybe that's why Pakis got their @$$ handed in the WCs as usual by India. Yup kiwis had better "batsmen" than India along with Sri Lanka :hysterical: Maybe Tendulkar, Azhar, Ganguly, Dravid etc. were not good enough than Mahanamas, Gurusinhas, Ranatungas, Hashan Tillekratnes, Rutherfords, Greatbatches, Keith Arthurtons, Phil Simmons, Jimmy Adams etc. :cantstop: Westindies was a good team through out 90s and we are taking about tests here.
Ultimate_Game Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Westindies was a good team through out 90s and we are taking about tests here. They were a good team because of their bowling attack since they had the likes of Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Benjamin etc. But the post I responded to was regarding WI, kiwis, SL having better batting than India, specifically the point about WI having gun batsmen. WI may have been a good team in 90s but their batting was not better than India at the time. Other than Lara they didn't have any other great batsman. Richie Richardson was there for sometime and Hooper was way too inconsistent. Other than that there were only the likes of Jimmy Adams, Phil Simmons etc.
rkt.india Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 They were a good team because of their bowling attack since they had the likes of Ambrose' date=' Walsh, Bishop, Benjamin etc. But the post I responded to was regarding WI, kiwis, SL having better batting than India, specifically the point about WI having gun batsmen. WI may have been a good team in 90s but their batting was not better than India at the time. Other than Lara they didn't have any other great batsman. Richie Richardson was there for sometime and Hooper was way too inconsistent. Other than that there were only the likes of Jimmy Adams, Phil Simmons etc.[/quote'] They were world's best test team till 1994.
Ultimate_Game Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 They were world's best test team till 1994. They were but I'm talking about their gun batting in this case as I've mentioned earlier.
Trichromatic Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 For Wasim Akram No code has to be inserted here.
the don Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 They were but I'm talking about their gun batting in this case as I've mentioned earlier. greenidge , haynes , hooper , lara , richardson , and an aging Viv were some of the westindians wasim bowled to and he rates them higher than most batsmen ,you would know the record of the indian team of that time compared to the Westindian , srilankan , newzealand or pakistani sides of the time so i dont need to post that .
the don Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Yup why not! Maybe that's why Pakis got their @$$ handed in the WCs as usual by India. Yup kiwis had better "batsmen" than India along with Sri Lanka :hysterical: Maybe Tendulkar, Azhar, Ganguly, Dravid etc. were not good enough than Mahanamas, Gurusinhas, Ranatungas, Hashan Tillekratnes, Rutherfords, Greatbatches, Keith Arthurtons, Phil Simmons, Jimmy Adams etc. :cantstop: maybe thats why pakistan won a worldcup during that period and india didnt , inconsequential , and we are talking test matches . and yes during that time the likes of jayasurya , attapattapattu , tunga and desilva were a bigger force than the indians , so were haynes , hooper , lara , richardson , martin crowe etc( the best player of reverse swing bowling ) .
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now