Stan AF Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 SA is warne bunny. Dude picked up like 130 wkts in 24 Test matches against SA. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/8166.html?class=1;opposition=3;template=results;type=bowling;view=match
adi B Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 both india nd england were pery poor to be #1 side... india got lucky they didnt have to tour eng nd aus immediately after bcoming no.1 , considering england they had to face pak nd england nd later india in sc conditions.... india lost 8-0 abroad, so are the english, nothing different , both HTB`s, very pitifull, only saffers look to win anywhere they play, but dont think even they will reach #1
vvvslaxman Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 both india nd england were pery poor to be #1 side... india got lucky they didnt have to tour eng nd aus immediately after bcoming no.1 ' date=' considering england they had to face pak nd england nd later india in sc conditions.... india lost 8-0 abroad, so are the english, nothing different , both HTB`s, very pitifull, only saffers look to win anywhere they play, but dont think even they will reach #1[/quote'] I think if India had toured there immediately they wouldn't have done this badly. After all SL did much better than our side in the same conditions. Prasanna Jayawardane made a 100. Even Tamim iqbal made couple of 100s in England. Dravid was in a bit of rut till WI tour that happened prior to English tour. INfact he was the poorest among top order. He notched up 3 centuries in England. Overall out of form, IPL, world cup win all became a contributory factor towards debacle in England.
singhprakash72 Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 You having a laff!, :hysterical: The Aussies owned the Saffers through 1996 to 2008. Saffers wilted like hob-nobs dipped in a cup of tea every-time they faced Australia. I wouldn't say Aus completely owned Saffers except a period 2001/2 to 2006 ...their victories till late 90s (even losing till mid 90s) were not calk walk hence my observation. Again talent wise SA had a decent team even after Donald's,Pollock's were downhill but Aussie were masters of mental strengths which was why they won key matches like 99 WC semis and virtually unbeatable in that period 2002 to 2007.
jairamesh Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 I wouldn't say Aus completely owned Saffers except a period 2001/2 to 2006 ...their victories till late 90s (even losing till mid 90s) were not calk walk hence my observation. Again talent wise SA had a decent team even after Donald's' date='Pollock's were downhill but Aussie were masters of mental strengths which was why they won key matches like 99 WC semis and virtually unbeatable in that period 2002 to 2007.[/quote'] But the period when Aussie really dominated (Post '96 WC), South African resistance to Australian dominance was never there. Only India in the later half of the dominance years provided competition for Australia.
Emperor2kings Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 England is really losing to very sub standard test teams. hey
Crookbond Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 The recent debacles of two former no1 teams England and India have shown how hard it is to remain on mountain top. The constant grind and skills required to face new challenges and not to be satisfied by just attaining no1 ranking.The ruthlessness needed by the captains to motivate their teams. Captains like Clive Lloyd and Steve Waugh deserve lot of credit for creating that winning atmosphere and pushing their teams greater heights.Those teams were almost robotic in their execution.They both lead their teams with performances on the field unlike some captains. For Indian team, they reached their pinnacle by winning world cup in April last year then some seniors who had worked so hard all their life should have walked away.It would have infused new talent and hunger in the team but that did not happen now it is full scale rebuilding process. Just remember Alan Border and Mark Taylor - without their services Waugh wouldn't do much.
Ultimate_Game Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 The general standard of test cricket has gone down, which makes the dominance of West Indies and Australia even more commendable. Currently, there is just one bowler - Steyn - playing the game who would be a certainty in an all time great list of bowlers. During the period of dominance of Australia and West Indies at least half the teams could boast of one if not two all time great bowlers. Similar is the case with batting. The last group of batsmen who would be in the running for an all time great position debuted a good 10 years back. Yeah, they are still around but since then there is not a single batsman who is that special player. There are some very good players like DeVilliers, Amla, Clarke but they've played enough so we can be sure that they are not going to be someone in the league of Gavaskar, Richards, Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting etc. I expect AB De Villiers to join that list. The guy is way too talented not to do so.
Jersey #10 Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 The recent debacles of two former no1 teams England and India have shown how hard it is to remain on mountain top. The constant grind and skills required to face new challenges and not to be satisfied by just attaining no1 ranking.The ruthlessness needed by the captains to motivate their teams. Captains like Clive Lloyd and Steve Waugh deserve lot of credit for creating that winning atmosphere and pushing their teams greater heights.Those teams were almost robotic in their execution.They both lead their teams with performances on the field unlike some captains. For Indian team, they reached their pinnacle by winning world cup in April last year then some seniors who had worked so hard all their life should have walked away.It would have infused new talent and hunger in the team but that did not happen now it is full scale rebuilding process. I get the point of this thread. Seniors should retire and let the the "infusion of extraordinary hungry (Jaddu et al) tailunt to shine". I can't wait for that infusion to shine now. Enough of this idiocrity already... and to think...there was only one senior that played the worldcup. So after all, the tread is all about "Sachin should retire" but in different words. People didn't like it when I opened a thread with the same idea few hours ago. Maybe I should word my threads differently.
Crookbond Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 I get the point of this thread. Seniors should retire and let the the "infusion of extraordinary hungry (Jaddu et al) tailunt to shine". I can't wait for that infusion to shine now. Enough of this idiocrity already... and to think...there was only one senior that played the worldcup. So after all, the tread is all about "Sachin should retire" but in different words. People didn't like it when I opened a thread with the same idea few hours ago. Maybe I should word my threads differently. :blink:
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 I expect AB De Villiers to join that list. The guy is way too talented not to do so. De Villiers has played close to 80 test matches and is 28 years old - rewind to when Gavaskar, Richards, Tendulkar, and Lara had played so many number of matches and were of comparable age. They had already stamped their authority as great batsmen. Maybe its a matter of perspective, but greatness is defined relatively early in careers. If Tendulkar or Lara had not picked up a cricket bat in the 21st century they would still be considered all time great batsmen. De Villiers might still become a Kallis - and I have serious doubts on it given how rarely he converts his 50s into 100s, but a Tendulkar or Lara he will not become.
rkt.india Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 De Villiers has played close to 80 test matches and is 28 years old - rewind to when Gavaskar, Richards, Tendulkar, and Lara had played so many number of matches and were of comparable age. They had already stamped their authority as great batsmen. Maybe its a matter of perspective, but greatness is defined relatively early in careers. If Tendulkar or Lara had not picked up a cricket bat in the 21st century they would still be considered all time great batsmen. De Villiers might still become a Kallis - and I have serious doubts on it given how rarely he converts his 50s into 100s, but a Tendulkar or Lara he will not become. Gavaskar, Richards, SRT, Lara, Punter...they are not a product of one decade. They start from 71 and 2011...it is 40 years and we got 5 ATG batsmen in these 40 years. Regarding ABDV, He started he is 7 years old in international cricket and I don't think Tendulkar was already an ATG at the age of 23, his 7 years of international cricket. It is the whole career span which makes one great. Punter was ordinary in his first 4 years, ABDV is still better. His last 4 years have been ordinary and peak period is 4-5 years too, 2002-2006. ABDV has all the ingredients to be called a great when he retires in a few years.
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Gavaskar' date=' Richards, SRT, Lara, Punter...they are not a product of one decade. They start from 71 and 2011...it is 40 years and we got 5 ATG batsmen in these 40 years.[/quote'] Add Chappell to the list - and dare I say De Villiers would not be able to emulate even Miandad or Dravid.
rkt.india Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Add Chappell to the list - and dare I say De Villiers would not be able to emulate even Miandad or Dravid. Regarding ABDV, His career is 7 years old in international cricket and I don't think Tendulkar was already an ATG at the age of 23, his 7 years of international cricket. It is the whole career span which makes one great. Punter was ordinary in his first 4 years, ABDV is still better. His last 4 years have been ordinary and peak period is 4-5 years too, 2002-2006. ABDV has all the ingredients to be called a great when he retires in a few years. Lets see. He still has a long career ahead.
rkt.india Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Add Chappell to the list - and dare I say De Villiers would not be able to emulate even Miandad or Dravid. Is Chappel greater than Dravid or Kallis?
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Is Chappel greater than Dravid or Kallis? Definitely Kallis - as a batsman of course. Close enough to Dravid that it's too tough to call.
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Regarding ABDV, His career is 7 years old in international cricket and I don't think Tendulkar was already an ATG at the age of 23, his 7 years of international cricket. It is the whole career span which makes one great. Punter was ordinary in his first 4 years, ABDV is still better. His last 4 years have been ordinary and peak period is 4-5 years too, 2002-2006. ABDV has all the ingredients to be called a great when he retires in a few years. Lets see. He still has a long career ahead. Huh? Tendulkar and Lara were the greatest things to have hit world cricket in the early 90s! You'll look back and pick up some stats guru filters and I won't be able to present my case to stats guru, but if you were alive and kicking in the early 90s you would know what Tendulkar and Lara were disregarding any statistics.
rkt.india Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Huh? Tendulkar and Lara were the greatest things to have hit world cricket in the early 90s! You'll look back and pick up some stats guru filters and I won't be able to present my case to stats guru' date=' but if you were alive and kicking in the early 90s you would know what Tendulkar and Lara were disregarding any statistics.[/quote'] I Know we cannot debate about Lara and SRT's greatness, but I was just giving an example that whoever Tendulkar was or touted to be, but to be called an ATG it took 10-15 years even for him, so why taking decision on ABDV on hsi 7 year career where his average is around 50 already and is one of the most gifted player around in stroke play and in elegance. What about Sangakkara? Can he be a candidate of a great batsman. He too has scored at most overseas tours for SL and has been consistent.
master22 Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Definitely Kallis - as a batsman of course. Close enough to Dravid that it's too tough to call. What about Ricky Ponting. Ponting is no better than a Dravid or a Kallis.If he can be called an atg so does RD or does this have anything to do with his aggressive batting.
saneindian Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Add Chappell to the list - and dare I say De Villiers would not be able to emulate even Miandad or Dravid. AB is at a similar stage where Sanga was around the same stage of his career. 2-3 very good years with lots of 100s and he will surely get tagged with those names. You are right in saying he isn't there yet, but based on his recent form, no reason to believe why he cannot continue to get better. On that 50 to 100 conversion, the fact that he's s far batted at 6 or 5 hasn't helped much. But with Kallis' impending retirement, he could be SA's permanent no 4 and could blossom into a run machine. At 28, Dravid was not yet a legend in his career (his 148 at Headingley, 233 at Adelaide and 270 at Rawalpindi came a year later when he was around 30-31). Who knows ABDV may just have that kind of an year very soon in his career too.
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