Top 10 Spinners With Best Strike Rates in Test Cricket | Ashwin Best in Last 100 Years

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

In a nutshell.....don't  state specific speeds from the '60s , '70s and '80s without any data being available. We will never know what speeds they bowled at, day in and day out.

 

Yes, but we can infer what they bowled at, based on batsmen who've played them and bowlers who have their speeds recorded. 

if Lara says that Wasim was one of the quickest he's faced and he also faced Brett Lee & Akhtar, it would mean Wasim at his peak wasnt a 95mph bowler but a 90mph bowler at the least.

As for Marshall, yes, he was not as fast as Johnson. But Patrick Patterson was- so was Holding, both of whom were considered faster than Marshall, who himself was seen as an archetype fast bowler.

 

As for top batsmen- why just the top batsmen ? The average ones too- the average human being reacts to their conditions. The average batsman in the 60s,70s & 80s had more incentive to protect their body first than the ones today. So they'd be better at it. Just as the average batsman today have more of an incentive to cash in on loose deliveries and are better offensively. Also, being more body-centric has a trade-off, it makes you less capable of cashing in on fuller balls, as you are on the backfoot more often. All these are applicable to the average batsmen. As you noted, the top ones will be complete batsmen.

I just think you are ignoring the fact that sports does have some eras that outshine other eras and some eras that are barren. 

You cannot tell me that the Sehwag-Das/Gambhir-Dravid-Tendulkar-Laxman-Ganguly was anything less than **THE** strongest batting lineup ever fielded by India. And unless you find another Tendulkar-Sehwag-Dravid-Laxman all at the same time, it will still remain the best, strongest lineup India has fielded in another 20 years. 

But someone, 20 years form now may say like you 'they are old farts and the new ones are better, stop being all old is gold mode'. 

Then you will understand, that in sports, the progression is not always linear, there are fallow years and there are exceedingly great generations sometimes.

 

[express bowling]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, but we can infer what they bowled at, based on batsmen who've played them and bowlers who have their speeds recorded. 

if Lara says that Wasim was one of the quickest he's faced and he also faced Brett Lee & Akhtar, it would mean Wasim at his peak wasnt a 95mph bowler but a 90mph bowler at the least.

As for Marshall, yes, he was not as fast as Johnson. But Patrick Patterson was- so was Holding, both of whom were considered faster than Marshall, who himself was seen as an archetype fast bowler.

 

As for top batsmen- why just the top batsmen ? The average ones too- the average human being reacts to their conditions. The average batsman in the 60s,70s & 80s had more incentive to protect their body first than the ones today. So they'd be better at it. Just as the average batsman today have more of an incentive to cash in on loose deliveries and are better offensively. Also, being more body-centric has a trade-off, it makes you less capable of cashing in on fuller balls, as you are on the backfoot more often. All these are applicable to the average batsmen. As you noted, the top ones will be complete batsmen.

I just think you are ignoring the fact that sports does have some eras that outshine other eras and some eras that are barren. 

You cannot tell me that the Sehwag-Das/Gambhir-Dravid-Tendulkar-Laxman-Ganguly was anything less than **THE** strongest batting lineup ever fielded by India. And unless you find another Tendulkar-Sehwag-Dravid-Laxman all at the same time, it will still remain the best, strongest lineup India has fielded in another 20 years. 

But someone, 20 years form now may say like you 'they are old farts and the new ones are better, stop being all old is gold mode'. 

Then you will understand, that in sports, the progression is not always linear, there are fallow years and there are exceedingly great generations sometimes.

 

 

As I am agreeing that the '80s West  Indian bowling attack was one of  the best bowling attacks  that ever has been in cricket.... I don't really understand what you are saying in the last few paragraphs.

 

Regarding bowling speeds. without any specific data available for day in day out bowling speeds....let us stop making comparisons because it is just boiling down to debate without facts.  I have seen them bowl in the '80s and know what I  saw.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

 

As I am agreeing that the '80s West  Indian bowling attack was one of  the best bowling attacks  that ever has been in cricket.... I don't really understand what you are saying in the last few paragraphs.

 

Regarding bowling speeds. without any specific data available for day in day out bowling speeds....let us stop making comparisons because it is just boiling down to debate without facts.  I have seen them bowl in the '80s and know what I  saw.

I also know what i saw and i also know what batsmen say when they faced bowlers from the 80s and the ones from 90s/2000s for whom we have speed data. 

It is common knowledge that back then, fast bowling was faster, because it was worth it trying to get that extra zip and scare the batsmen by bowling at them. Today, its not worth it. Back then people like Mohammed Sami would've had a half decent career just due to pace. Nowadays, they won't.

 

[express bowling]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I also know what i saw and i also know what batsmen say when they faced bowlers from the 80s and the ones from 90s/2000s for whom we have speed data. 

It is common knowledge that back then, fast bowling was faster, because it was worth it trying to get that extra zip and scare the batsmen by bowling at them. Today, its not worth it. Back then people like Mohammed Sami would've had a half decent career just due to pace. Nowadays, they won't.

 

It is not common knowledge. Lots of people my age who have actually played cricket, don't really think so.

 

You are not understanding the difference between scaring batsmen and bowling fast.

 

Md. Sami was not adept at bowling bouncers and would have had an average career back then too.

Edited October 20, 2016 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

It is not common knowledge. Lots of people my age who have actually played cricket, don't really think so.

 

You are not understanding the difference between scaring batsmen and bowling fast.

 

Md. Sami was not adept at bowling bouncers and would have had an average career back then too.

Best way to scare batsmen is to bowl fast AT them. You realize, that back then you didnt have to hit the head to be 'scary & fast', you could bowl really fast off of good length & ping batsmen on their arms and scare the BEJEEZUS off them ? 

Check Mikey Holding bowling really, really fast in Edsbagston. half the time, he his hitting batsmen left, right & centre on the chest, abdomen, thigh, arm: all unprotected, all quite painful. I don't know which era you speak of, but even in my era (70s-80s FYI), bowling fast was straight up, scarier than it is today: batsmen had less protection and could get hurt easier just off of a fast guy. 

 

Adept at bowling bouncers, Sami may be not, but neither was John Snow or Terry Alderman for that matter. Or Rodney Hogg. Actually, I've seen Hogg and Sami was a slightly worse option of him. Yet, Hogg has 29-33 average, Sami has 45+.Simply because back then, being fast was a means itself to getting wickets. Which is why the people back then, focussed on bowling fast! 

 

[express bowling]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Best way to scare batsmen is to bowl fast AT them. You realize, that back then you didnt have to hit the head to be 'scary & fast', you could bowl really fast off of good length & ping batsmen on their arms and scare the BEJEEZUS off them ? 

Check Mikey Holding bowling really, really fast in Edsbagston. half the time, he his hitting batsmen left, right & centre on the chest, abdomen, thigh, arm: all unprotected, all quite painful. I don't know which era you speak of, but even in my era (70s-80s FYI), bowling fast was straight up, scarier than it is today: batsmen had less protection and could get hurt easier just off of a fast guy. 

 

Adept at bowling bouncers, Sami may be not, but neither was John Snow or Terry Alderman for that matter. Or Rodney Hogg. Actually, I've seen Hogg and Sami was a slightly worse option of him. Yet, Hogg has 29-33 average, Sami has 45+.Simply because back then, being fast was a means itself to getting wickets. Which is why the people back then, focussed on bowling fast! 

 

Even a 137 k delivery bowled on a hard, greenish, bouncy pitch...which rises from short of  length...being bowled at batsmen with low quality protective gear, armed with low quality bats.....looks very fast and scares the batsmen badly.  You don't have to bowl at 150 k for that result.

 

A batsman used to playing 122 k deliveries will feel that a 132 k delivery is very fast...especially on a juicy pitch. 

 

What feels fast to a batsman depends a lot on the pitch and what he is generally used to facing day in and day out and his quality of protective gear and bat.

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Even a 137 k delivery bowled on a hard, greenish, bouncy pitch...which rises from short of  length...being bowled at batsmen with low quality protective gear, armed with low quality bats.....looks very fast and scares the batsmen badly.  You don't have to bowl at 150 k for that result.

 

A batsman used to playing 122 k deliveries will feel that a 132 k delivery is very fast...especially on a juicy pitch. 

 

What feels fast to a batsman depends a lot on the pitch and what he is generally used to facing day in and day out and his quality of protective gear and bat.

It doesnt look any faster than it does to a guy holding a high quality bat and padded like a knight, since how fast it looks to the batsman is dependent on how fast the delivery is. 

It is simple logic and every bowler i knew up, grew up with, uses it : if you sense that you are too fast for the batsman, bowl as fast as you can and at his body and see if you scare him. 

Worked a LOT better back then than it does now, yet you for some reason think, that bowlers, who have a lot to gain by just going flat out back then than now, somehow mysteriously chose to make life harder for themselves by bowling slower & with more movement & bounce and stuff...

 

Fast is fast and slow is slow and a juicy pitch is a juicy pitch. I've never heard a batsman go 'this pitch was so juicy that your mom would've felt as fast as Andy Roberts!'. They either say you are fast or slow, on this pitch you bowl with a lot of bounce or lot of movement. 

As i said, i think you are more caught up in the 'anything new is better' than considering the fact that sports go through phases and certain things happened better in the past than now and certain things happen now better than in the past.

Take hockey too: 30 years ago, people were a lot tougher & fought a lot more. Now, players are a lot better at endurance and lot faster. 

[express bowling]

13 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

It doesnt look any faster than it does to a guy holding a high quality bat and padded like a knight, since how fast it looks to the batsman is dependent on how fast the delivery is. 

It is simple logic and every bowler i knew up, grew up with, uses it : if you sense that you are too fast for the batsman, bowl as fast as you can and at his body and see if you scare him. 

Worked a LOT better back then than it does now, yet you for some reason think, that bowlers, who have a lot to gain by just going flat out back then than now, somehow mysteriously chose to make life harder for themselves by bowling slower & with more movement & bounce and stuff...

 

Fast is fast and slow is slow and a juicy pitch is a juicy pitch. I've never heard a batsman go 'this pitch was so juicy that your mom would've felt as fast as Andy Roberts!'. They either say you are fast or slow, on this pitch you bowl with a lot of bounce or lot of movement. 

As i said, i think you are more caught up in the 'anything new is better' than considering the fact that sports go through phases and certain things happened better in the past than now and certain things happen now better than in the past.

Take hockey too: 30 years ago, people were a lot tougher & fought a lot more. Now, players are a lot better at endurance and lot faster. 

 

I  keep on saying that I  think that the WI bowling attack of the '80s was far better than any attack nowadays and still you make such statements.

 

Since there are no actual  data about the speeds at which the bowlers of that era bowled day in and day out, there is no point carrying on this debate. You will stick to your belief and I will stick to mine.  

 

 

[CricketBuffOne]

18 hours ago, express bowling said:

I don't think you will find any authentic source of very high speeds before 1990.   There are some figures available but the only video evidence I found of olden days was the 1979 competition where the top speeds were 147.9  k by Thomson and 141.3 k by Holding.  No other pacer could even touch 140 k.  That included Imran, Roberts, Lillee, Croft etc.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPDW7hj1yfs

 

 

express bowling, though I did come across a few studies conducted in the 1970s, its difficult to say if the criteria was the same as today; accuracy of measuring technique is another aspect which I am not sure about. Have seen the video you shared, but thanks a lot for sharing. Seems you and Muloghonto didn't rest at all last night; that was a very passionate discussion...in fact, in my recent memory, I don't remember witnessing anything like it...honestly, after reading the entire conversation I am feeling dizzy, still figuring out who said what. 

[express bowling]

1 minute ago, CricketBuffOne said:

express bowling, though I did come across a few studies conducted in the 1970s, its difficult to say if the criteria was the same as today; accuracy of measuring technique is another aspect which I am not sure about. Have seen the video you shared, but thanks a lot for sharing. Seems you and Muloghonto didn't rest at all last night; that was a very passionate discussion...in fact, in my recent memory, I don't remember witnessing anything like it...honestly, after reading the entire conversation I am feeling dizzy, still figuring out who said what. 

[CricketBuffOne]

22 hours ago, mishra said:

hmm. Old is gold. Top part of list is all new for me.

mishra, I am glad you found it interesting. Thanks a ton for sharing your feedback!

[tweaker]

Great discussion @express bowling ,@muloghoghonto

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by tweaker

[CricketBuffOne]

2 minutes ago, tweaker said:

Great discussion @express bowling ,@muloghoghonto

 

I second that.