Ram Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 But my point is was steyn worse than zak? was Malinga worse than zak? Was Gul worse than Zak.. Zak was good for India. but that doesn't mean he is better than all the other bowlers. I am not going to compare Zak with any of the other bowlers you mentioned there.. But of one thing there's little doubt - He was one of the standout bowlers of the tournament and one of the main reasons why we lifted the cup.
Sehwag1830 Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 But my point is was steyn worse than zak? was Malinga worse than zak? Was Gul worse than Zak.. Zak was good for India. but that doesn't mean he is better than all the other bowlers. Yes he performed better than them in WC. Is Sachin worse than Clarke ? Then why was India thrashed 0-4.
vvvslaxman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 India was an exception to the rule of winning the tourney with one of the poorer attacks, but if you look historically at the 10 World Cups you will see that other than SL in 96 and India in 2011 all other WC winning teams had a pretty good bowling attack. Even the SL 96 WC team had Murali, Dharamsena, Vaas etc. who were pretty good in the conditions. As for India in 2011 Zak was at his peak - good with the new ball and with the old and taking wkts when India needed wkts. Yuvraj was the difference maker in the middle as he took wkts and controlled RR in the middle overs. And others like Ashwin, Munaf, Nehra supported them quite well. They were not that great but not so poor either. But still it was one of the very rare instances of a team with poor bowling attack winning the tourney and is not a formula which wins you too many WCs. 1996 world cup SL it was all Jayasuriya and their 7 batsmen theory and bunch of part timers and Vaas. Apart from Aussies during 2000s who had great bowling, great batting, great fielding more importantly mentally more strong.
vvvslaxman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Yes he performed better than them in WC. Is Sachin worse than Clarke ? Then why was India thrashed 0-4. Ofcourse in that series Clarkes scored more runs in one innings than Sachin made in entire series :cantstop:
Sehwag1830 Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 1996 world cup SL it was all Jayasuriya and their 7 batsmen theory and bunch of part timers and Vaas. Apart from Aussies during 2000s who had great bowling' date=' great batting, great fielding more importantly mentally more strong.[/quote'] This is so much wrong at so many levels i won't bother replying. SL didn't allow any team to score above 250 in either of their knock-out matches. You are questioning their bowling ?
vvvslaxman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 I am not going to compare Zak with any of the other bowlers you mentioned there.. But of one thing there's little doubt - He was one of the standout bowlers of the tournament and one of the main reasons why we lifted the cup. But packing your side with great bowlers and bunch of nobodies as a batsmen won't win you matches. You need half decent batsmen . Even 2 poor bowlers can ruin it for you especially in T20. Just look at what Gayle does.. (with an exception of this match). You need both and more importantly you need a good fielding unit. Punjab bowled so well in a match but they dropped so many catches and choked on the field. But for those drops they would have been in semi finals. It is not as simplas having a great bowler will do the job for you. i don't say bad bowlers can do the job with good batsmen. You need both good bowlers, good batsmen, ability to play as a team Just look at 2007 IPL edition. All warne had at his disposal was bunch of nobodies . He went on to win the IPL. Everyone predictied they will finish at the bottom. Punab had Mahela, Sangakkara, Yuvraj singh, Irfan pathan, Chawla, Shaun Marsh, Praveen Kumar.. powerful line up.
vvvslaxman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 This is so much wrong at so many levels i won't bother replying. SL didn't allow any team to score above 250 in either of their knock-out matches. You are questioning their bowling ? Huh.. Not because they had great bowling line up. But because thei surface crumbled and it suited their part timers.
Ultimate_Game Posted May 20, 2012 Author Posted May 20, 2012 1996 world cup SL it was all Jayasuriya and their 7 batsmen theory and bunch of part timers and Vaas. Apart from Aussies during 2000s who had great bowling' date=' great batting, great fielding more importantly mentally more strong.[/quote'] Jayasuriya & SL batsmen get credit for the SL win in 96 but everyone forgets their bowling attack was ideally suited to the subcontinental conditions. SL had Vaas, Murali, Dharamsena, Upul Chandana backed up by all-rounders like Aravinda & Jayasuriya. SL had bowlers who could strangle batsmen and I didn't see any team scoring too many against SL in that tourney. Just because SL didn't have a pace oriented attack doesn't mean they had a poor bowling attack.
Sehwag1830 Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Huh.. Not because they had great bowling line up. But because thei surface crumbled and it suited their part timers. Yes surface crumbled in 1st innings in quarter final and final.
vvvslaxman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Jayasuriya & SL batsmen get credit for the SL win in 96 but everyone forgets their bowling attack was ideally suited to the subcontinental conditions. SL had Vaas' date=' Murali, Dharamsena, Upul Chandana backed up by all-rounders like Aravinda & Jayasuriya. SL had bowlers who could strangle batsmen and I didn't see any team scoring too many against SL in that tourney. Just because[b'] SL didn't have a pace oriented attack doesn't mean they had a poor bowling attack. But are they as good as Akram, Waqar, Mcgrath, Warne.. That is my point as well. An average group of bowlers worked as a team. That is what India did in the world cup as well. Tell me who had the best bowling line up in the last 4 IPLs.
rajmarie Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 IMO what OP is saying is generally applicable & true. teams that have great bowlers win more then teams that have great batsman. Its not that its always happens...but % wise....its more like that. No point in giving examples of this or that matches.
vvvslaxman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Yes surface crumbled in 1st innings in quarter final and final. How come a team that had Akram, Waqar, Mustaq couldnt pull it off? ARe they inferior to SL bowlers? Given a choice which set of bowlers you will choose to win a match.. SL part timers or Pakistan bowlers?
Tiger80 Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 RCB in IPL 2012 had only best batting line up on paper ,O/W it was just one man show .I don't think a team with 1 man show can win tournament
Ultimate_Game Posted May 20, 2012 Author Posted May 20, 2012 But are they as good as Akram' date=' Waqar, Mcgrath, Warne.. That is my point as well. An average group of bowlers worked as a team. That is what India did in the world cup as well. Tell me who had the best bowling line up in the last 4 IPLs.[/quote'] But you don't have Akram, Waqar, McGrath & Warne in the same team :dontknow: SL had one of the best attack for sub-continental conditions in 96. As for IPL Mumbai & CSK's attack is generally pretty good. Mumbai due to Malinga and other intls (all the Mumbai bowlers have played intl cricket) and till last year Chennai were pretty good as well with one good quick (Bollinger) supported by spinners (Ashwin, Murali, Jakati etc.) For sub-continental conditions the attack was pretty decent and they did the same thing which SL did in 96,. i.e. play spinners on turning tracks and make run-scoring difficult for the opponents.
Ultimate_Game Posted May 20, 2012 Author Posted May 20, 2012 How come a team that had Akram' date=' Waqar, Mustaq couldnt pull it off? ARe they inferior to SL bowlers? Given a choice which set of bowlers you will choose to win a match.. SL part timers or Pakistan bowlers?[/quote'] But Akram got injured which cost them the match as his replacement was Ata-ur-Rehman IIRC :hysterical: If Akram had been fit Pakis were strong contenders to win the tourney.
vvvslaxman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 IMO what OP is saying is generally applicable & true. teams that have great bowlers win more then teams that have great batsman. Its not that its always happens...but % wise....its more like that. No point in giving examples of this or that matches. You also have to add.. with a decent batting line up. Also add you should not be mental midgets in big games. Otherwise SA should have won so many games. You should have innate ability to win matches from death.. not lose matches from winning positions. RCB has done it twice. In the 2009 edition RCB was well on their to win the match.. Th en sudden brainfart caused a collapse. Tody also 5 reckless shots by 5 of their top order batsmen.
Sehwag1830 Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 How come a team that had Akram' date=' Waqar, Mustaq couldnt pull it off? ARe they inferior to SL bowlers? Given a choice which set of bowlers you will choose to win a match.. SL part timers or Pakistan bowlers?[/quote'] I would take that SL team from 1996-98 over any Pak team of last 20 years. That team was bomb. Those days Jayasuriya was a nightmare for us. And their bowling rarely allowed us to score big runs.
Tiger80 Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 India was an exception to the rule of winning the tourney with one of the poorer attacks, but if you look historically at the 10 World Cups you will see that other than SL in 96 and India in 2011 all other WC winning teams had a pretty good bowling attack. Even the SL 96 WC team had Murali, Dharamsena, Vaas etc. who were pretty good in the conditions. As for India in 2011 Zak was at his peak - good with the new ball and with the old and taking wkts when India needed wkts. Yuvraj was the difference maker in the middle as he took wkts and controlled RR in the middle overs. And others like Ashwin, Munaf, Nehra supported them quite well. They were not that great but not so poor either. But still it was one of the very rare instances of a team with poor bowling attack winning the tourney and is not a formula which wins you too many WCs. :hmmmm: If I am not wrong Ashwin played only 1 game in WC
Sehwag1830 Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 But Akram got injured which cost them the match as his replacement was Ata-ur-Rehman IIRC :hysterical: If Akram had been fit Pakis were strong contenders to win the tourney. He deliberately didn't play QF. :winky:
vvvslaxman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 But you don't have Akram' date=' Waqar, McGrath & Warne in the same team :dontknow: SL had one of the best attack for sub-continental conditions in 96. As for IPL Mumbai & CSK's attack is generally pretty good. Mumbai due to Malinga and other intls (all the Mumbai bowlers have played intl cricket) and till last year Chennai were pretty good as well with one good quick (Bollinger) supported by spinners (Ashwin, Murali, Jakati etc.) For sub-continental conditions the attack was pretty decent and they did the same thing which SL did in 96,. i.e. play spinners on turning tracks and make run-scoring difficult for the opponents.[/quote'] My point is RCB not winning the tournament is not due to poor bowling, but due to poor captaincy, poor mental strength. They should have won the whole thing even with this line up.
Recommended Posts