From: mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: "We are the world " Team of 80's
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:03:40 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Oct8.154513.11307@waikato.ac.nz>, sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes:
> In article <92281.195206HH9679A@auvm.american.edu>, Howard E. Hill-Esbrand 
> <HH9679A@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>> How can any team play Qadir before Holding or Garner? They have more wickets
>> less runs per wicket and less deliveries per wicket in fact they should play
>> before Botham or Dev for the same statistics can be applied and Botham and Dev
>> would come up lacking except for total wickets, but remember thru the 80's
>> the West Indies bowlers had to share their wickets with Roberts,Marshall,
>> Walsh,Patterson,Benjamin,Davis all of whom are very good bowlers. The other
>> test playing countries had basically one man attacks except Pakistan who
>> had Sarfraz then later Akram. Who partnered Hadlee ? Chatfield - not much of a
>> bowler. Botham had Dilley then Thomas,Cowans,Fraser who are these chaps
>> anyhow. And we all know that Kapil Dev opened India's attack from both ends.
> Statistics proove very little.  For a start, with Qadir, he could be very
> potent on a dryer wicket.  An all-pace attack can get very predictable, and
> once batsmen have managed to settle in, you have no other weapon left to
> dislodge them.  Also, the argument about bowlers at the other end doesn't hold

I'm sure this was one of the many arguments used against Clive Lloyd when he
first proposed his pace quartet, yet they took wickets everywhere they went.

> either.  The lack of bowlers at the other end is often cited as a reason why RJ
> Hadlee is such a great bowler.  If you are a batsman against a team of one good
> bowlers and a bunch of mediocre ones, you can block out against the good bowler
> and try to attack the others.  But with good bowlers at both ends trying to do
> that only digs you into a rut so you have to take risks against all bowlers. 
> Note that Botham's greatest bowling success came with people like Willis and
> Hendriks at the other end.

The counter argument to this, is that instead of one bowler coming up with the
magnificent wicket taking deliveries, all four do, sharing the wickets.  If
people ended up taking risks against the lesser bowlers, why is it that Ewan
Chatfield had no earth-shattering figures to speak of?

With all due respect, Willis and Hendriks don't compare to a Holding, Marshall,
Garner, Roberts or Croft.

>> 
>> the team should be
>> Gavaskar (should be grouped in 70's but too great to exclude)
>> Greenidge
>> Miandad
>> Richards
>> Border
>> Gower  >Him again?  Why not Crowe, Vengsaker, Richardson...
>> Imran > How about Qadir.  I'd much rather face Imran than Garner
>> Dujon > That first slip that wears gloves again.  Try Smith or Kirmani

Very funny !  Dujoon remains the best keeper to pace of that period, and the
catches he took off the quicks made him rated #1.  I don't remeber spinners
doing a great damage during the 80's, so better to go with the keeper who will
take the fast bowlers wickets.

>> Hadlee
>> Marshall
>> Garner
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket