Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

sussexpob wrote:A lot of these Windies players avoided bowling to some of the recognised most gifted players in the world (Graham Pollock, Barry Richards, etc) because of South Africa's exclusion. I am sure that makes their record look a lot better.

Another example, just that indicates and illustrates my point. Check the bowling averages of the Windies players on the few times that they went to New Zealand

Holding..... 7 wickets in 4 games @ 48
Marshall.. 9 wickets in 3 games @ 32
Roberts...3 wickets in 2 games @ 65

Garner was the only one who did well there. Put in unfamiliar circumstances more, would their records look as good? The least toured nation they went to brought the worst out of most, on pitches that have often favoured bowling a lot more, and against weak batting line ups.

It makes a huge difference, which is why Steyns record looks so brilliant.

But the lbw was outlawed for touring sides.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:But the lbw was outlawed for touring sides.

I think studies into Neutral umpires and lbws given to away sides returns very little statistical data that supports this argument.

The West Indies would have been crazy-hostile in South Africa!

sussexpob wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:But the lbw was outlawed for touring sides.

I think studies into Neutral umpires and lbws given to away sides returns very little statistical data that supports this argument.

On some tours, lbws weren't given to the away side- Pakistan notably. I thought I heard a similar stat for NZ, but may be mistaken.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:The West Indies would have been crazy-hostile in South Africa!

Particularly with the bouncer rules back then.

Though that probably helps you in a way.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:The West Indies would have been crazy-hostile in South Africa!

Which leads me to another point. How many batsman were wearing helmets at this time? And how many stood there in the 70s or early 80s getting a 90 mph barrage wearing a cap, while Holding was bowling 6 bouncers an over? Its much easier to face a barrage of pace with a full helmet and grill, knowing you only get one bouncer an over.

When the rules changed, I believe it was after directly Malcolm Marshalls last test so we wont know. But its pretty easy to see how facing them would have been much easier post 1991

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:The West Indies would have been crazy-hostile in South Africa!

Particularly with the bouncer rules back then.

Though that probably helps you in a way.

I was getting there

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

sussexpob wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:But the lbw was outlawed for touring sides.

I think studies into Neutral umpires and lbws given to away sides returns very little statistical data that supports this argument.

On some tours, lbws weren't given to the away side- Pakistan notably. I thought I heard a similar stat for NZ, but may be mistaken.

As I said, I believe the data per test on away lbws been given before and after neutral umpires shows hardly any rise. I does rise, but not to a significant amount to prove anything other than simply a different set of data.

Marshall and Akram.

Malcolm was always going to be my number one pick. I don't think I've seen a pace bowler have a better tour than he did in 88. He had lost a couple of mph but swung and cut it both ways. Very quick and cunning.

Akram gets in really because he's a leftie. Him, Ambrose, McGrath, Hadlee, and Steyn are all but equal.

I mean I think its pretty obvious that in peoples minds it seems that the peak of fast bowling in terms of the fast pacemen is always seen as the days just before helmets kicked in.

It would make sense. Scientifically people would have been getting fitter and stronger progressively, and after helmets came in the effect is batsman dont react nearly as scared to short pace bowling to give the illusion that people are bowling quicker.

Schedules nowdays and rule changes/helmets mean that the effect of out and out pace bowling is largely nullified. You have to have other qualities. No one can bowl that level nowadays for any time period. People play more than Andy Roberts in a 4 year career, they cant maintain the pace, and dont reach the same level in such a condensed time.

Someone like Brett Lee bowling 6 bouncers an over to a helmetless batsman may have produced figures sub 20 per wicket.

The differences between eras is just the friction in the whole venture. They have to be taken into account, but the comparisons still generally work. Things are lost and gained both ways. Besides, some of these bowlers bridged eras, and retained their class in both. Like McGrath, or Walsh.

Helmets came in about the late seventies. Almost all of these bowlers played at least mostly against batters with helmets.

sussexpob wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

sussexpob wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:But the lbw was outlawed for touring sides.

I think studies into Neutral umpires and lbws given to away sides returns very little statistical data that supports this argument.

On some tours, lbws weren't given to the away side- Pakistan notably. I thought I heard a similar stat for NZ, but may be mistaken.

As I said, I believe the data per test on away lbws been given before and after neutral umpires shows hardly any rise. I does rise, but not to a significant amount to prove anything other than simply a different set of data.

Maybe there's another variable at work. People used to go whole tours to Pakistan in the seventies and not see an lbw. I'll see if I can statsguru it in the morning.

Gingerfinch wrote:Marshall and Akram.

Malcolm was always going to be my number one pick. I don't think I've seen a pace bowler have a better tour than he did in 88. He had lost a couple of mph but swung and cut it both ways. Very quick and cunning.

Akram gets in really because he's a leftie. Him, Ambrose, McGrath, Hadlee, and Steyn are all but equal.

The batters always seem to mention Akram, but his numbers aren't quite as good as some.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

Gingerfinch wrote:Marshall and Akram.

Malcolm was always going to be my number one pick. I don't think I've seen a pace bowler have a better tour than he did in 88. He had lost a couple of mph but swung and cut it both ways. Very quick and cunning.

Akram gets in really because he's a leftie. Him, Ambrose, McGrath, Hadlee, and Steyn are all but equal.

The batters always seem to mention Akram, but his numbers aren't quite as good as some.

Pakistan wickets? if we're going on stats, big bird is right up there. Funnily enough not having as many wickets as some lets him down.