West Indies (70's-80's) vs Australia (2000's)?

[manee]

Nothing - what makes you think that Murali will do better than he has, in his early years before his style was well known, in the modern era.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Nothing - what makes you think that Murali will do better than he has, in his early years before his style was well known, in the modern era.

Because his action is complicated? No one in the 70s or 80s would've faced an off-spinner who can turn it the other way either.

 

[manee]

manee have you watched him bowl?

he is more of ganguly speed,

I have seen him bowl on TV, but those who watched him live and those who faced him would be the best judges. Richie Benaud, who no doubt watched Hadlee more than me or you has placed him as a quicker bowler than Mcgrath, in an interview. Moreover, I never argued that he was fast-medium for the bulk of his career, just that he was a tearaway quick in his early years.

manee added 0 Minutes and 58 Seconds later...

No one in the 70s or 80s would've faced an off-spinner who can turn it the other way either.

But nor did anyone in this era, when the doosra had just been invented and although they struggled, Saqlain and Murali didn't run through teams taking 10/0.

 

[nightprowler10]

Australia would win 5-0.

The Windies batsman never come across a spin bowler like Shane Warne and they'd all likely be completely bamboozled.

I'd hate to see how they'd play Murali in Sri Lanka.

Great batsmen can't adapt to different types of bowling? Besides, its not as if those batsmen never faced any great spinners, just not of Murali/Warne stature. Just like the Aussies faced great pace bowlers, just not of Marshall/Holding/Garner/Roberts skill level.

 

[aussie_ben91]

But nor did anyone in this era, when the doosra had just been invented and although they struggled, Saqlain and Murali didn't run through teams taking 10/0.

I thought we were talking about a one off match.

He wouldn't take 10/0 but he'd be consistantly taking 5fers +

 

[Cricket_god]

I have seen him bowl on TV, but those who watched him live and those who faced him would be the best judges. Richie Benaud, who no doubt watched Hadlee more than me or you has placed him as a quicker bowler than Mcgrath, in an interview. Moreover, I never argued that he was fast-medium for the bulk of his career, just that he was a tearaway quick in his early years.

manee added 0 Minutes and 58 Seconds later...



But nor did anyone in this era, when the doosra had just been invented and although they struggled, Saqlain and Murali didn't run through teams taking 10/0.

do not belive anybody elses comments as most former players will want to say
good things about the bowlers they faced,just believe your eyes and your
opinion after watching the videos,also an hint is the keeper

 

[aussie_ben91]

Great batsmen can't adapt to different types of bowling? Besides, its not as if those batsmen never faced any great spinners, just not of Murali/Warne stature. Just like the Aussies faced great pace bowlers, just not of Marshall/Holding/Garner/Roberts skill level.

You mean like Allan Donald, Shoaib Akhter, Waqar Younis & Wasim Akram?

 

[manee]

do not belive anybody elses comments as most former players will want to say
good things about the bowlers they faced,

When did Richie face Hadlee?

manee added 2 Minutes and 28 Seconds later...

I thought we were talking about a one off match.

He wouldn't take 10/0 but he'd be consistantly taking 5fers +

If we are talking about a one off match, he'd no doubt do well - but likewise, Marshall and Roberts would likely do well as they'd have never likely played someone with the skiddy pace/controlled swing of Marshall or the clever changes in pace of Roberts - something still not utilised in the modern game to the effect of Roberts who has spoken of the "80mph bouncer, 85mph bouncer, 95mph bouncer and then hitting them with the 85mph bouncer" - no doubt the numbers are likely a bit high, but I have not seen this used much in the modern game.

 

[Cricket_god]

When did Richie face Hadlee?

manee added 2 Minutes and 28 Seconds later...



If we are talking about a one off match, he'd no doubt do well - but likewise, Marshall and Roberts would likely do well as they'd have never likely played someone with the skiddy pace/controlled swing of Marshall or the clever changes in pace of Roberts - something still not utilised in the modern game to the effect of Roberts who has spoken of the "80mph bouncer, 85mph bouncer, 95mph bouncer and then hitting them with the 85mph bouncer" - no doubt the numbers are likely a bit high, but I have not seen this used much in the modern game.

I was talking in general,if you want to believe someone believe sunny gavaskar as he has faced them and he said todays bowlers are as dangerous.

Its just so funny they themselves always talk about how quick they were

 

[manee]

I was talking in general,if you want to believe someone believe sunny gavaskar as he has faced them and he said todays bowlers are as dangerous.

But why is his opinion worth more than that of scientific studies of pace and the views of other people from the same era?

 

[Cricket_god]

But why is his opinion worth more than that of scientific studies of pace and the views of other people from the same era?

simple as he faced them and batted against them and was succesful against them.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Manee watch this...

link removed

Do you honestly think that batsman in the 70s & 80s faced bowling as quick as this without helmets? And on pitches that seamed aswell?

Mind you, this is probably one of the best delieveries bowled in the history of cricket.

My dad reckons when Shoaib Akhtar was at his best then that he was the best bowler he'd ever seen. Or atleast the most effective and dangerous and that he hates Akhtar because if he had a different attitude then he would've been probably one of the best bowlers ever. Mind you, he reckons Lilliee and Thomoson were better then McGrath and Warne.

 

[manee]

Manee watch this...

link removed

Do you honestly think that batsman in the 70s & 80s faced bowling as quick as this without helmets? And on pitches that seamed aswell?

Mind you, this is probably one of the best delieveries bowled in the history of cricket.

My dad reckons when Shoaib Akhtar was at his best then that he was the best bowler he'd ever seen. Or atleast the most effective and dangerous and that he hates Akhtar because if he had a different attitude then he would've been probably one of the best bowlers ever. Mind you, he reckons Lilliee and Thomoson were better then McGrath and Warne.

Shoaib Akhtar is on par with (link removed) Jeff Thomson in terms of pace. Akhtar has bowled at 161kph and Thompson has been timed at 160.6kph. They are, in my opinion, the quickest of all time by quite some margin. This being said, how many people has he hit in the helmet - Gary Kirsten, Tendulkar and a Holland guy, off the top of my head. Kirsten's shot would not have likely been attempted in the modern day and the latter two took their eyes off the ball simply because they can due to helmets. Geoff Boycott makes a lot of the fact that helmets have changed techniques and batsmen were much more weary of the ball in watching it through to ensure they did not get hit on their unprotected heads. Moreover, as far as I am aware, helmets became common during the 1980s and so it was not the case that noone wore them when West Indies were running rampant with their pace attack. (link removed)This clip from 1984/5 shows Australian batsmen wearing helmets.

 

[Cricket_god]

Shoaib Akhtar is on par with ]Jeff Thomson in terms of pace. Akhtar has bowled at 161kph and Thompson has been timed at 160.6kph. They are, in my opinion, the quickest of all time by quite some margin. This being said, how many people has he hit in the helmet - Gary Kirsten, Tendulkar and a Holland guy, off the top of my head. Kirsten's shot would not have likely been attempted in the modern day and the latter two took their eyes off the ball simply because they can due to helmets. Geoff Boycott makes a lot of the fact that helmets have changed techniques and batsmen were much more weary of the ball in watching it through to ensure they did not get hit on their unprotected heads. Moreover, as far as I am aware, helmets became common during the 1980s and so it was not the case that noone wore them when West Indies were running rampant with their pace attack. This clip from 1984/5 shows Australian batsmen wearing helmets.

manee show me the video or picture where he was timed at 161km

no matter how good the batsman were if guys were bowling at speed you told
most of them would have been killed,you will never accept that they were
mostly around 140,so no mor posts from me

Cricket_god added 1 Minutes and 1 Seconds later...

Manee watch this...


Do you honestly think that batsman in the 70s & 80s faced bowling as quick as this without helmets? And on pitches that seamed aswell?

Mind you, this is probably one of the best delieveries bowled in the history of cricket.

My dad reckons when Shoaib Akhtar was at his best then that he was the best bowler he'd ever seen. Or atleast the most effective and dangerous and that he hates Akhtar because if he had a different attitude then he would've been probably one of the best bowlers ever. Mind you, he reckons Lilliee and Thomoson were better then McGrath and Warne.

no point telling him,i ahve been telling the samething for 2 days,
some people just do not use simple logic

 

[manee]

manee show me the video or picture where he was timed at 161km

Akhtar or Thomson? I hope it is not the latter as I have copy and pasted the results of the study endless times.