special K Posted January 2, 2014 Author Posted January 2, 2014 MJ was bowling with the same fire and venom in India, it was actually in India where the 'new MJ' emerged. MJ will not trouble us. India has never been wonky against sheer pace- we've annihilated Brett Lee, Shoaib Akhtar & Harmison, MJ is a similar type bowler, only left handed. We've always been undone by swing or nagging seam movement, which is why Philander did the best against us this series. Against Australia, the ones who will trouble us the most are Harris and Siddle. Harris and Siddle have been the two mostly getting our top order out. MJ has been cleaning up the tail.
Muloghonto Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Root can bowl a few overs of spin. Monty isn't bowling well enough and I doubt Borthwick is the answer. If Finn get himself sorted out he'll cause you trouble and like I said, Anderson will likely just be effective at home now. You dont need 'few overs of spin', you need 15-20 overs of spin every other innings. If you throw Root at us, we will cart him for 100 runs in those 15-20 overs. Seriously, think before you speak. Spinners averaging under 40 against India is rare as England winning in India- happens once every 4-5 years. In all my years watching cricket, Warney managed to average under 40 in India only ONCE! Same with Murali. Kaneria, Saqlain, Monty & Swann are the only other spinners in the last 30-40 years to average under 40 in India and they've all done it only once in their lifetimes. Yet, almost every single series against India, teams play a spinner. Even when they take like 10 wickets @ 50+ average in 4 test series. Why ? because otherwise you will get your captain banned for slow over rate. This is not the 1980s where you can field a four-prong & get away with bowling 70-75 overs per day. Without a spinner or a competent slow-medium bowler bowling off a short run-up ( like Hansie Cronje or Steve Waugh in his youth), you guys have no chance of completing your overs quota against India.
Muloghonto Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Yes, they do. The game was the same and aside from England no one had an amateur tradition of note. It ended in 1962 (I think). So you dont regard the likes of Bradman, McCabe, 3 W's, Sobers, Hobbs, Hutton, Headley's careers in full (or part measure depending on when they finished) as worthy? :hysterical: You consider yourself a cricket fan? You are a T20 fan. Sobers played for 10 more years after the amatuer era and except for Bradman, no, i dont think anyone from that era would be good enough to play in the professional era. Sid Barnes might've made it, since he was a pro amidst amatuers. Hobbs, Hutton, McCabe- they'd all be chopped liver in front of 90mph pacemen bowling at their heads. Maybe if they were born 30-40 years later, they might've adapted but what game they had, they'd be dead on the pitch against the likes of WI four prong or Lillee-Thommo. Its one thing opening batting against spinners and military medium pacers who barely crack 75mph like Hobbs or Sutcliffe did. Its a completely different animal opening the bowling against accurate 90mph+ bowlers who have no qualms to bash your skull in. Considering that I've been watching test cricket from the late 70s, there is no way in hell the likes of Hobbs or Headley average more than 25-30 in that era onwards.
shortbread Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Harris and Siddle have been the two mostly getting our top order out. MJ has been cleaning up the tail. You forgot Watson, Carberry is his bunny now!!
alexander Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Sobers played for 10 more years after the amatuer era and except for Bradman, no, i dont think anyone from that era would be good enough to play in the professional era. Sid Barnes might've made it, since he was a pro amidst amatuers. Hobbs, Hutton, McCabe- they'd all be chopped liver in front of 90mph pacemen bowling at their heads. Maybe if they were born 30-40 years later, they might've adapted but what game they had, they'd be dead on the pitch against the likes of WI four prong or Lillee-Thommo. Its one thing opening batting against spinners and military medium pacers who barely crack 75mph like Hobbs or Sutcliffe did. Its a completely different animal opening the bowling against accurate 90mph+ bowlers who have no qualms to bash your skull in. Yes, cos guys before 1960 didnt bowl quick. Lindwall and Miller were famously military medium. Marty Martindale was a trundler. Larwood and Voce were 75 mph like the Indian bowlers of forever. :finger: You are embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.
alexander Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Any one of them would be the best quick bowler India has ever seen. And the quickest too.
special K Posted January 2, 2014 Author Posted January 2, 2014 You forgot Watson' date=' Carberry is his bunny now!![/quote'] Carberry isn't a test batsmen.
alexander Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Carberry isn't a test batsmen. Hope he gets some this game.
shortbread Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Carberry isn't a test batsmen. A very good batsman touring with a sorry side. The present state of affairs means hes playing over defensive not his natural game. Seen him play for Hampshire, thought he was a write off after some serious medical condition. Right now its just a case of wrong place, wrong time....way better batsman than Root.
Muloghonto Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Yes, cos guys before 1960 didnt bowl quick. Lindwall and Miller were famously military medium. Marty Martindale was a trundler. Larwood and Voce were 75 mph like the Indian bowlers of forever. :finger: You are embarrassing yourself with your ignorance. Lindwall was not a fast bowler, he was in the Philander class of speed with much more movement. Miller was fast, but i've not seen or read or heard any evidence of him being genuinely fast. The two genuinely fast bowlers in the world pre 1950 was Larwood and Spofforth. In the pre-1960s era, it would've been Larwood, Trueman, Adcock. The guys you name would've been averaging low 80smph, which is nothing. There was also a huge convention against bowling at people's heads back then, which is why hooking was rarely seen in the amatuer era. Look at the matches played by the likes of Hobbs, Hutton & Sutcliffe- they opened against spinners and people bowling at trundler speeds while attempting zero bouncers. Heck, Hobbs even gets away with driving with both his feet in the air in a video i once saw. Those guys would do well against modern spinners. Against modern pace, they'd be dead. Real cricket began somewhere in the early-mid 1960s. Prior to that, it was a 'gentleman's game' of weird conventions overriding anything and everything required to win. So prior to that era, i dont give two hoots about records or accomplishments. Its the same with any sport really. Just like how Rod Laver or Bill Tilden would've been absolutely smashed into bits by Federer, Nadal or Sampras, Hutton or Sutcliffe would be competing with Gillespie's batting average if they brought the same game into the modern era.
Muloghonto Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Any one of them would be the best quick bowler India has ever seen. And the quickest too. None of them were good enough to carry Zaheer Khan's jockstrap. Namby-pamby bowlers bowling at 80mph at good length while never ever bowling at the batsman's head will not make it out of a Ranji side today.
alexander Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Miller wasnt fast? :hysterical: Miller was as quick as anything. Ditto Larwood. Frank Tyson was express - I believe clocked at 92 through a basic wind tunnel test.
vvvslaxman Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Forget about that series.. let us enjoy how Warner is gorging on this "FAST" bowling .4 Broad to Warner, FOUR, into another drive, Warner is up and running, big stride forward and mid-off is far to wide to get anywhere near it Warner passes 500 runs for the series 3.3 Broad to Warner, FOUR, close! Unconvincing this time, he flaps a short-of-a-length delivery, a touch more bounce, and he flies off a top edge just out of reach of a flying Carberry at point 3.2 Broad to Warner, no run, drags the length back a bit, defended to cover The sun is peeping through which will please Australia 3.1 Broad to Warner, FOUR, crunching drive, wasn't a full half volley but Warner just out his foot towards the line and drove handsomely straight of mid-off
Muloghonto Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Miller wasnt fast? :hysterical: Miller was as quick as anything. Ditto Larwood. Frank Tyson was express - I believe clocked at 92 through a basic wind tunnel test. Yes, Tyson was express. Miller ? Probably somewhere in the mid 80mph category. Larwood i mentioned but Larwood was too erratic to be any good and he made the Aussies crap themselves. What Brian Close and his batting partner ( his name escapes me) had to endure against Holding at Old Trafford would've ended the careers of Hobbs,Hutton, Sutcliffe, etc. if they were magically transported into the same era.
alexander Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Nope. Those guys played quicks on uncovered pitches. The challenge would sink 95% of modern batsmen.
panther Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Only 1 batsman from the modern era could bat on those pitches, Inzamam no player since the creation of the colour television was as good against pace as Inzamam was.
vvvslaxman Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Only 1 batsman from the modern era could bat on those pitches' date=' Inzamam no player since the creation of the colour television was as good against pace as Inzamam was.[/quote'] ya.. grand total of 19 runs in 2003 world cup which happend in SA :giggle: Tendulkar scored 18 runs in one over in 2003 world cup
Muloghonto Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Nope. Those guys played quicks on uncovered pitches. The challenge would sink 95% of modern batsmen. They played military medium and spinners on uncovered wickets. They did not play any real quick bowlers who bowled with the intent to injure or decapitate. Which is why i said those amatuers would be just fine against modern spinners but would die against modern pacers who are quite okay with knocking your head off, unlike those 'fair play' guys of the amatuer era.
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