Mitchell Johnson vs. Dale Steyn

[Ultimate_Game]

if you are not yet another ego-centric ***** with idiocy masquerading as wisdom, do such playerA and playerB analysis with Tendy and Steve Waugh and come to such conclusions. yes, you havnt played any cricket, which is why you think batting superiority for bowlers or part time bowling superiority from batsmen matter when being picked for the prime role. Clearly, what is a bonus but unecessary skill and what is the uncompromising one requiring frugality of a scrooge McDuck for making a choice, is lost on you. a gadhaa like you will always stay a gadhaa until you actually learn that your copious amount of watching as a fan does not necessarily make you competent at understanding the game.

What an argument sirjee what an argument :hatsoff: So you are one of those @$$holes who resort to personal insults to win an argument :hysterical: First calling folks stupid didn't work, followed by calling other folks as "street cricketers" when you obviously haven't done much other than jack off to videos of Bruce Reid, and now calling me a "gadha" :giggle: Still the only idiot I see is the one picking Bruce Reid ahead of Johnson. Anymore other-worldly gyaan you wanna bless us "street cricketers" with coz you obviously have played a lot of professional cricket

[ravishingravi]

I have. Havn't seen such sustained demolition with sheer pace and intimidation for almost a decade now. Heydeys of Shoaib, that was the last of it. Lee was never quite intimidatory, because he pitched it much shorter on the bouncer stuff.

Shoaib could sustain it for one or two test matches. This man going for 6 matches now. Also, the level of penetration and persistence at 150 k and hitting batsmen consistently. Intimidating bowling at its best.

[ravishingravi]

Reid was a brilliant bowler. Very underrated. But I don't see comparison with Johnson. Both are completely different.

[Old guy]

Its useless to argue Muloghonto for him every bowler bowled 150k in the 80s. Only if it was as easy as he think but he forgets that without protective gears even 135-140 will look express.

its funny watching u people "argue" with this guy :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Ultimate_Game]

its funny watching u people "argue" with this guy :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

:haha: It's fun and TBH I'm enjoying it more than the match. The way the guy thinks he's a gift from gods is especially hilarious :giggle:

[BlueBee]

Let the Argument continue :hysterical:

[Muloghonto]

Its useless to argue Muloghonto for him every bowler bowled 150k in the 80s. Only if it was as easy as he think but he forgets that without protective gears even 135-140 will look express.

err no, with or without protective gear, you can tell whether lee is as fast as akhtar or not. for you, who didnt see any cricket in the 80s, apparently every bowler was barely touching 90mph. it is clear that you have an agenda that revolves around total disdain for what you have not seen or experienced therefore, refusing to accept that your limited exposure to cricket in the 80s makes you incapable of commenting on which bowler was how good or how fast from the 80s.

[Muloghonto]

Low ER means cricket was slow those days not because they didn't play shots against and most top bowlers of those days had same ER. Johnson getting wickets not because they are playing shots against him but because he hasn't let them play shots.

no, low er and strike rate from the early days was because batsmen left a lot more and played a defensive shot far more often. The bulk of Johnson's wickets are from bowling full, not from bowling short. The reason he has a low strike rate is because batsmen play a lot more aggressively today, where average run-rate for the innings stay between 3 and 3.5 consistently. Back then, average run rate of the innings were 2.0 or thereabouts because the batsmen played a lot more cautiously. which is why the er of those days are usually higher. strike rate is important but beyond a certain point, it is a luxury that cannot compensate for a worse average. The objective is to get a batsman out in 450 overs a test. Even with interruptions and weather, thats 400 overs an average. Even back in the 80s, when stalling happened and 350 overs got bowled in a test or so, that is still a wicket every 52 balls is enough to take 40 wickets. So yes, strike rate can go to hell- give me a bowler who ends the opposition for lower scores over faster times every single time.

[Ultimate_Game]

err no, with or without protective gear, you can tell whether lee is as fast as akhtar or not. for you, who didnt see any cricket in the 80s, apparently every bowler was barely touching 90mph. it is clear that you have an agenda that revolves around total disdain for what you have not seen or experienced therefore, refusing to accept that your limited exposure to cricket in the 80s makes you incapable of commenting on which bowler was how good or how fast from the 80s.

You gotta enlighten us. Us mere mortals can't comprehend what you have witnessed over the years. Hame apni sharan me le lo aur cricket ka gyaan de do :--D Also tell us about your cricketing exploits as a reference

[Muloghonto]

Its useless to argue Muloghonto for him every bowler bowled 150k in the 80s. Only if it was as easy as he think but he forgets that without protective gears even 135-140 will look express.

err no, with or without protective gear, you can tell whether lee is as fast as akhtar or not. for you, who didnt see any cricket in the 80s, apparently every bowler was barely touching 90mph. it is clear that you have an agenda that revolves around total disdain for what you have not seen or experienced therefore, refusing to accept that your limited exposure to cricket in the 80s makes you incapable of commenting on which bowler was how good or how fast from the 80s.

[Muloghonto]

What an argument sirjee what an argument :hatsoff: So you are one of those @$ who resort to personal insults to win an argument :hysterical:

First calling folks stupid didn't work, followed by calling other folks as "street cricketers" when you obviously haven't done much other than jack off to videos of Bruce Reid, and now calling me a "gadha" :giggle: Still the only idiot I see is the one picking Bruce Reid ahead of Johnson. Anymore other-worldly gyaan you wanna bless us "street cricketers" with coz you obviously have played a lot of professional cricket

[Ultimate_Game]

i have nothing more to say to someone who is making statements that not even the average high school cricketer would make. Picking one bowler over another on the basis of who can bat better! lagee raho :haha::haha::haha:

Now I've been demoted to a school cricketer from a street cricketer Aisa zulm kyon? I agree Bruce Reid was the greatest bowler ever. Now you have to educate us about cricket starting with your cricketing exploits :yay: ICF mein itne bade mahapurush upasthith hain aur hame kuch pata hi nahin. Ghor anarth but I'm sure we will all benefit from your wealth of experience and knowledge

[Muloghonto]

Now I've been demoted to a school cricketer from a street cricketer Aisa zulm kyon? I agree Bruce Reid was the greatest bowler ever. Now you have to educate us about cricket starting with your cricketing exploits :yay: ICF mein itne bade mahapurush upasthith hain aur hame kuch pata hi nahin. Ghor anarth but I'm sure we will all benefit from your wealth of experience and knowledge

:haha::haha: Right, i was born yesterday. I am not going to say anything further on my exploits, simply as more ammunition to you. Suffice to say, you have never played cricket seriously, which is why you make fan-sque statements about who is fast and who is not based on limited notions of speed or how a bowler with less bowling skill should be picked because he averages 21 with the bat, not 4. :haha::haha::haha:

[Ultimate_Game]

:haha::haha: Right, i was born yesterday. I am not going to say anything further on my exploits, simply as more ammunition to you. Suffice to say, you have never played cricket seriously, which is why you make fan-sque statements about who is fast and who is not based on limited notions of speed or how a bowler with less bowling skill should be picked because he averages 21 with the bat, not 4. :haha::haha::haha:

Itni narazgi acchi nahin. Agar aap jaise gyani se kuch nahin seekha to mera ICF mein aana hi vyarth hai

[BlueBee]

Itni narazgi acchi nahin. Agar aap jaise gyani se kuch nahin seekha to mera ICF mein aana hi vyarth hai

:giggle:

[BlueBee]

:offtopic: It's enough

[express bowling]

Player A: 250+ wkts @ 27 with batting average of 23 with 1 100 and 8 50s and a much better fielder Player B: 113 wkts @ 25 with batting average of 4 with a high score of 13 and a p*ss poor fielder to boot .

Ask the Australian cricket fraternity who they want to pick in their team, MJ or Bruce Reid ? :cantstop:

[BlueBee]

Ask the Australian cricket fraternity who they want to pick in their team' date=' MJ or Bruce Reid ? :cantstop:[/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical:

[express bowling]

Its useless to argue Muloghonto for him every bowler bowled 150k in the 80s. Only if it was as easy as he think but he forgets that without protective gears even 135-140 will look express.

Exactly. But be prepared for a 3 page reply. :cantstop:

[Ultimate_Game]

Exactly. But be prepared for a 3 page reply. :cantstop:

:cantstop: