The Outsider Posted January 14, 2012 Author Posted January 14, 2012 Thats coz Murali is way ahead on those... probably. :hatsoff: 1536 = International wickets + International catches Kallis, who? Thank you. No one with an iota of cricket knowledge gives a damn about "International blah blah blah"!
deathmonger Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 [srs] Thats the first thing that came onto my mind when this whole 100th 100 hype was started a few years ago. No one noticed two guys had taken 1000 intl. wickets..[/srs] One of them retired immediately after he got to that landmark. 1000 intl wickets is like 15000 runs or something. 100 hundreds would be more like 100 5 wkt hauls or something.
THX_1138 Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 I hardly think that it is fair to club centuries with wickets. nevertheless, kallis was born 20 years too soon. he played in the era of lara and tendulkar and to an extend ponting. had he begun his career post 2005, he, as Amla and De villiers shall be, honored as a modern contemporary of the greatest(s) ever to play the game. I would give two dravids to have him in our team: he is as good a batsman as dravid, maybe even tendulkar, and twice as good a bowler as any of the non khan and non yadavs we have sported in the recent decade.
Rajiv Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 Those who don't respect the house, shouldn't be here Might have to bite the bullet
tothepoint Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 Can he get to 1000? 907 = International centuries + International wickets + International catches. Hmmm,ek teer se teen shikar :winky:
tothepoint Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 The jokes on you buddy ... Yep I know. But, just a part of it. As I said 'teen shikar'. ;)
flamy Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Runs and Wickets are fine...but catches? Seems like a forced bit of stats. Doesn't gell. exactimente senhor
debachat Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Runs and Wickets are fine...but catches? Seems like a forced bit of stats. Doesn't gell. +1 Agreed - but some would argue that ODI hundreds and Test 100s are also different things! Just saying....
Texan Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Can he get to 1000? 907 = International centuries + International wickets + International catches. Amazing :winky:
tothepoint Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Any chance of responding to this question I asked a while back ? : http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1753801&postcount=522 ? heres the video that I want you to comment on : http://www.britishpathe.com/video/third-test-cricket-third-day first bowler you see ( left arm ) I dint reply you back then because last time I checked that thread there was full maa-behen going on. And honestly, I cant even see the ball. You can make fun of my eyes but that's it. Tho I'm sure that bowler must have been one of the best(if not the best) of old days. And I guess he would have been averaging less than 25.<- otherwise you wouldnt have brought this up :winky: If he is rated as fast,then I can only say that the keeper was standing up so he really cant bowl at express pace(so did McGrath and Pollock when the keeper was up) or may be he was tired/past his prime/injured or may be he was taking 'medium pacers are most effective in english conditions' too seriously. I dont know really. By the way,you dint tell me who is he? Aur Bossbhai, kya abhi tak Bradman se kafa ho. Bradman bhaisaab apne jamane se kaafi aage the, bas yahi baat acchi lagi unki mujhe. Abhi Sachin is going through a form slump, baad me kabhi ye sab karenge. On Topic : In that post, you said we have been brainwashed beyond repair by goras. Ironically, the same british media hyped up Sachin's 100th 100,not even the sansani khej Indian media thought of something as bizarre during the world cup and you have bitten the bait. :P
SachDan Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 On Topic : In that post, you said we have been brainwashed beyond repair by goras. Ironically, the same british media hyped up Sachin's 100th 100,not even the sansani khej Indian media thought of something as bizarre during the world cup and you have bitten the bait. :P http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=207205&highlight=sachin :giggle:
Magneto Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=207205&highlight=sachin :giggle: Awesome thread that was :-)
tothepoint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Correct . the guy has a average that we associate with strike bowlers today but he is only bowling slow military medium at best if not spin. The deep position of the slip fielder tells you that he wasnt spinning. He is none other than Ernie Toshack a member of Bradmans invincible team on the 1948 tour. He has a grand average of 21 that even Wasim Akram couldnt manage. How is this possible ? I see no other reason other than absolutely mediocre batting or really demonic pitches as being the culprit. He is not the only one. There are many others like him who have literally 1000s of FC wkts at surreal averages. This defies all cricketing logic that we have now come to accept as common knowledge ( i.e only really really good strike bowlers can lay claim to such averages ). The point is if you want to harp about Bradman >> SRT based primarily on 99.94 > 56 then you should atleast be honest enough to say that Ernie Toshack = Wasim Akram using the same principle. But if by any chance you realize that standards were woefull in those days then you would realize the folly in comparing Tendulkars achievements to Bradmans. There is no level playing field here to make a apples to apples comparison. One faced atleast 70% ( if not more ) of the greatest bowlers that have ever played cricket in 10 different countries. The other faced absolutely none. I'am not mad at Bradman. Just amazed at the power of brainwashing that still manages to make people shout so loud and hard as though they have watched Bradman bat and are appalled at those who even dare to question. Except that I had started the counting waaay before any media caught on to this. Take a look at the tag line above my avatar. You have no idea the sort of stats that I used to put up for Tendulkar. I have deleted all of them after I got fed up arguing with idiots here. So Toshack he is :phew: But rightly so, he has been classified as a medium pacer. My point is guys like Tyson,Larwood,Lindwall are rated as fast so they might have been genuinely quick. Comparing him with Akram(who was fast) would be insulting to both of them. I would like to think Toshack was a very talented bowler whose main weapon was movement,like say Praveen Kumar who has a FC average of 23. Vaas,Pollock and to lesser extent,McGrath were also medium pacers in later days. And even tho medium pace is a dying art there are still some guys left who are doing well. Gavin Larsen, Jon Lewis, Martin Bicknell, Ian Harvey have impressive FC records, most of them hovering around 25. Also,bowlers who have 1000s of wickets played a hell lot more matches than the present cricketers. And yes, as you have said 'there is no level playing field'. Sachin has in his favor arguments like playing in 10 different countries, different formats, video-analysis available to their oppenents, facing better bowlers etc but so can one argue for Bradman that he has an exceptional average(that doesnt imply he was more talented but IMO,his concentration was outstanding), test cricket is the only test, cricketers cant improve so much between 1948 and 1989, in 40 odd years, using concepts like limits and continuity :P etc etc. Its just that I'm giving more weightage to the fact that 'Bradman was so ahead of his peers in his era'. And it depends on person to person. There was one guy Mishra on ICF who said he dont consider that very important and I said then we have no point in arguing here. The problem arises when we start forcing our view on the other person, and end up labelling other person an idiot. On a idiotic note, comparing greatest batsmen across generations is like comparing greatest footballers or more foolishly in the context of comparing Bradman and Sachin, Smilodon with Siberian Tiger. Nobody can say who would have won the fight. Who is better, Pele or Maradona? Pele like Bradman has stats to back him up but Maradona has a much bigger fan following like Sachin and is considered more talented. Sorry for stretching it a bit, some other great batsmen who I find similar to their footballing counterparts are Puskas(Sobers), Di Stefano(Barry Richards), George Best(Greame Pollock), Beckenbauer(Gavaskar), Cryuff(Viv), Platini(Lara) or Zidane(Ponting). And no-one can with absoulte certainty claim that any one of them was the most talented. And I have no doubt you would have thought of this milestone way way before. With my friends, even I have used the same concept to big up Kallis when arguing against Tendulkar. I would joke he has taken 500+ international wickets and he is the greatest ever cricketer and bla bla bla. But in my view this 100th 100 thingy is highly overrated,thats all. By the way Sachin is on 199 wickets as well. :P
tothepoint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=207205&highlight=sachin :giggle: Huh, I was expecting some thread with more than 99 posts. :P
tothepoint Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 None of the bowlers you mentioned were as slow as Toshack certainly not in their prime and their records are nowhere in the same zipcode as Toshack. He is no medium pacer either unless you want to be generous. Just look at the reaction times in that video , his runup and the amount of back he is putting into the deliveries. And as far as insults are concerened it is only Wasim Akram who would be insulted if a comparison were to be made between him and Toshack based on averages. Forget Waz how about Zack and Toshack ? But Here is a even better example of absurdity: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/9181.html That is Bill Bowes ... the same guy that uprooted Bradmans legstump for a duck in the famous MCG Test. Want to see how fast he bowled ? here have a look for yourselves @ 2:12 in this clip --> http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=61609 How can such a bowler have 1600+ FC wkts at a Avg of 16.76 and a S/R of 45 ? if that wasnt enough he has a avg of 22.33 in Tests ? Makes no sense at all. This has absolutely nothing to do with absolute core cricketing skills which is the only thing I care. And the reason is pretty simple : If you want to nominate a Batsman as the best ever please be ready to show me he could handle the very best bowlers. This is the single most fundamental aspect of batsmanship. Unfortunately Bradman never encountered the sort of bowlers that have been around for the last 30-40 yrs. You just simply don't know what Bradman could do against Real high quality pace or against truly exceptional spin wizards. Why ? Because the no.of such bowlers in his time was = ZERO. His case is further weakened by how he did everything to outlaw aggressive bowling. Not when there are valid logical reasons to go with the views. For example how does your view that he was far ahead of his peers translate into evidence that Bradman had better cricketing skills than SRT ? It just simply doesn't. So when faced with this dead end the Bradman fans usual escape route is to shout loud and hard and resort name calling. Then don't accuse me of being brainwashed by the media. I'm no one to judge who will be insulted Toshack or Akram. I said comparing them is inappropriate as Akram is a fast bowler, Toshack is medium, while Akram has played many international test matches, Toshack has played merely 12, from what I could gather on cricinfo he was injury-plagued(hardly played 48 FC matches). Again Zack is a fast-medium bowler so their is no basis for comparison. I also said that I acccept medium-pace is a dying art and these days all the strike bowlers are either fast/fast-medium. But rewind back 15 years, and you will find that atleast 1 of the strike/1st change bowlers of New Zealand, Sri Lanka, India and Zimbabwe were medium pacers. Traditionally, fast bowlers have mostly come from Australia, West Indies, South Africa, Pakistan and England so their is no harm in speculating that Larwood,Tyson,Lindwall were fast. If you would ask me to name some bowlers who I feel were greats of that era,then I would say Larwood,Lindwall,O Reilly etc. Some were mediocre(may be the %age was much higher),but I dont subscribe to the theory that all of them were utter crap. And if the only basis for rating a batsman is how he handled the best bowlers, then our very own Sunil Gavaskar would trump them all. Bill Bowes according to cricinfo has been classified as a Right-arm fast-medium as well as Right-arm medium. The balls which you are referring to may appear dead slow, but how can you come to the conclusion that those were the best/fastest ones he ever bowled! There are several parameters to go with it. That ways, any bowler from any generation can be made to look the best/worst of all times. Don was bowled by Bowes,ok but so has SRT struggled against Cronje! After some years,somebody will ask you how come the greatest of all got out so many times against such a trundler,then what are you going to answer! Also I dont understand why are you bringing FC in the mix. I gave you examples of Jon Lewis(FC average 25),Martin Bicknell(25),Gavin Larsen(28),Ian Harvey(27),Praveen Kumar(23 in FC and 25 in tests) and would like to add VINAY KUMAR(24) and Manoj Prabhakar(28). Loads of other *****y bowlers are going great guns in FC. Great records in FC doesnt guarantee success in tests. I can also point out why doesnt Sachin average 100 against these below average bowlers in FC matches? But I feel making conclusions on how one performed in FC with tests is dismal. Why dont you think Runs/wicket in test matches has remained more or less same? You will hate to admit it but Don's concentration power was much more, second to none(maybe Gavaskar comes close). And if absolute skills is the only thing which you care for in determining greatest of all,then you are cent percent correct. But ACCORDING TO ME its not. And I have my own reasons. Because likewise, I dont think Messi is the greatest ever footballer or Djokovic is the greatest ever tennis player just because standards of their opponents/skills or game as a whole has risen multifold. PS: I feel this Sachin vs Bradman would go on and on and their is no reason to continue with it. Both of us are just wasting our time and that also on a thread, that is taking a jibe at my favorite cricketer. :ciao:
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