How do you feel about Shane Warne?

[weldone]

We're talking about all time bowlers. Ntini and Steyn, good they might be, but Malcolm Marshall they are not. Marshall, and bowlers of that calibre, were exceptional at bowling on spin friendly pitches.

If Harbhajan did better than Ntini and Steyn on that pitch, so would do Murali/Warne/O'Reilly than Marshall/Hadlee/McGrath..... Without disputing your comment that Marshall was excellent on any pitch...He was, indeed

 

[Richard]

lol... tats an amazingly arrogant and honestly slightly stupid statement. I expected better from you, Richard. There are no cast iron blah blah blah s in cricket. There is probability to an extent but when comparing all time great players, that is just about it. There honestly CANNOT be any certainty whatsoever over which bowling attack will be better where

I think there can. I think there's pretty compelling evidence to suggest certain things. Of course there's no cast-iron certainties, but there are enough near-as-damn-its IMO.

and again the RSA's 4 pronged men were pretty good for the time they were playing a few years ago... Remind me how much they managed get people out on turners. Even they needed a Nicky Boje.......

Did they, though, that's just the point? I've long thought that SA would've been far better almost never to have picked Boje, he was an absolutely nothing bowler. Decent batsman, but there were a great number of seamers (David Terbrugge being one of the most notable ones) who I'm fairly sure would've done a better job.

When SA had Donald, de Villiers, Matthews and McMillan they several times did not bother picking Symcox, who was, if only slightly, a better fingerspinner than Boje. And certainly every bit as good a batsman. Trouble was, after that despite a very brief time when they had Donald, Pollock, Kallis and Klusener, there was a minor dearth of good seamers (compounded by the fact they didn't pick the odd bowler like Terbrugge).

 

[Richard]

If Harbhajan did better than Ntini and Steyn on that pitch, so would do Murali/Warne/O'Reilly than Marshall/Hadlee/McGrath.....

I don't neccessarily think so. I don't see any reason why they would not all do exceptionally. On a very spin-friendly pitch like that, as I say, you'd not lose much if anything by picking an exceptional spinner. But pitches like that are in a very small minority, and IF you weren't allowed to change your team to tailor to different surfaces you'd inevitably find in, say, 70 games, you'd do best to cover the majority of cases and pick all-seam.

 

[weldone]

I don't neccessarily think so. I don't see any reason why they would not all do exceptionally. On a very spin-friendly pitch like that, as I say, you'd not lose much if anything by picking an exceptional spinner. But pitches like that are in a very small minority, and IF you weren't allowed to change your team to tailor to different surfaces you'd inevitably find in, say, 70 games, you'd do best to cover the majority of cases and pick all-seam.

My point was necessarily on that pitch though as I'm not taking part in the other debate...

 

[Briony]

I think Warne is a legend, is captaining his side well, marshalling and teaching the young troops and all the time putting up with Smith.

 

[social]

I don't neccessarily think so. I don't see any reason why they would not all do exceptionally. On a very spin-friendly pitch like that, as I say, you'd not lose much if anything by picking an exceptional spinner. But pitches like that are in a very small minority, and IF you weren't allowed to change your team to tailor to different surfaces you'd inevitably find in, say, 70 games, you'd do best to cover the majority of cases and pick all-seam.

Total rubbish

Firstly, to say that "On a very spin-friendly pitch like that, as I say, you'd not lose much if anything by picking an exceptional spinner" significantly underestimates the quality of Murali, Warne, etc etc. These are not fill ins, they're some of the greatest ever bowlers and have taken a shed-load more wickets than any of the bowlers you've mentioned

Secondly, you obviously have no idea what constitutes a balanced attack as everyone of your bowlers are similar (albeit great) - they are all right-arm, new-ball strike bowlers.

Who'll do the grunt work that inevitably will be required if it's not an absolute green-top and how badly will that affect their performances?

Furthermore, as I have the pick of virtually any batsmen in history, I simply have to narrow it down to the best players of right arm pace to substantially increase my odds

On the other hand, if I picked say Lillee(or Ambrose or McGrath)/Akram/Murali/Warne then every single style of bowling/conditions are covered and you'll be forced to consider how well each player combats pace/swing/left handers/doosras/ and legspin.

Thirdly, how will your attack ever complete 90 overs in a day - there are simply not enough hours in the day to do it and so you'll have to rely on plenty of overs from a part-timer (who'll be smashed at this level)

You simply cannot pick a balanced attack by going through the list of all-time averages

 

[Goughy]

Secondly, you obviously have no idea what constitutes a balanced attack as everyone of your bowlers are similar (albeit great) - they are all right-arm, new-ball strike bowlers.

Seldom hurt WI.

Variety is great but is secondary to ability.

 

[bond21]

heres a hypothetical situation, i will use a simple rating scale.

you must choose 4 bowlers, you have 5 bowlers to choose from, the pitch is just standard, favouring neither style.

all 4 pacers are 10/10, and a spinner is 9/10 in terms of ability.

Would you go 4 pacers of 3 pacers and the spinner with slightly less ability for variety?

 

[Goughy]

heres a hypothetical situation, i will use a simple rating scale.

you must choose 4 bowlers, you have 5 bowlers to choose from, the pitch is just standard, favouring neither style.

all 4 pacers are 10/10, and a spinner is 9/10 in terms of ability.

Would you go 4 pacers of 3 pacers and the spinner with slightly less ability for variety?

The 4 fast bowlers. There isnt another logical answer.

 

[Engle]

Spot on. ( on Social's post )

Not only should it be a winning combination, as well your AT XI is also your chance to show off to the world the depth and variety of cricketers produced by your country.

 

[Engle]

Seldom hurt WI.

Variety is great but is secondary to ability.

You have to come up with the right combination of both.

 

[Engle]

The 4 fast bowlers. There isnt another logical answer.

But there is. You're not picking the best 4 bowlers. You're picking the best team. So, if you have to include a lesser bowler that will result in a better team, well then, that's logical, is it not ?

 

[Ikki]

The argument is non-sensical to me. Both Murali and Warne compete very well with the best of Fast bowlers. We are talking about a few runs extra and a few balls slower instead of having that extra bowler who will provide more variety and can bowl longer spells. At least to me, the latter completely overshadows the former.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

heres a hypothetical situation, i will use a simple rating scale.

you must choose 4 bowlers, you have 5 bowlers to choose from, the pitch is just standard, favouring neither style.

all 4 pacers are 10/10, and a spinner is 9/10 in terms of ability.

Would you go 4 pacers of 3 pacers and the spinner with slightly less ability for variety?

The spinner. People forget that you can't share a new cherry between four quicks. The threat posed between overs 35 and 80, provided mints are banned, would conceivably increase in an attack with a quality spinner - who's less reliant on ball conditions - than simply an extra slinger.

 

[social]

Seldom hurt WI.

Variety is great but is secondary to ability.

To be fair, WI were never confronted by a hypothetical situation like this where the opposing batting lineup was comprised of all-time greats each picked on their ability to play pace and they were playing in unfriendly conditions

In any event, WI were fortunate to have a production line of great fast bowlers but fact is that they had nothing to fall back on when that failed

Realizing this, they spent years trying to turn a guy like Roger Harper into a test spinner for the occassions that it didnt work

To take another hypothetical situation, let's say Warne/Murali was WI in the 80s

I can guarantee they'd play more often than not despite the resources at that team's disposal

Why? Because their presence would not detract from the attack in normal conditions but would greatly improve it when the wicket was dead as a doornail or favoured spin

Finally, IMO, if you stick all your eggs into one basket, particularly when you have every cricketer in history to choose from, you deserve the losses that will inevitably come your way if you choose an attack that is not capable of doing well in all conditions

 

[Richard]

Total rubbish

Firstly, to say that "On a very spin-friendly pitch like that, as I say, you'd not lose much if anything by picking an exceptional spinner" significantly underestimates the quality of Murali, Warne, etc etc. These are not fill ins, they're some of the greatest ever bowlers and have taken a shed-load more wickets than any of the bowlers you've mentioned

I couldn't care less how many wickets they've taken. All that means is they've played more games and bowled more overs than some bowlers. Given an equal footing, a large number of the best seam-bowlers will do far better on a game-by-game basis.

Secondly, you obviously have no idea what constitutes a balanced attack as everyone of your bowlers are similar (albeit great) - they are all right-arm, new-ball strike bowlers.

Who'll do the grunt work that inevitably will be required if it's not an absolute green-top and how badly will that affect their performances?

You vastly underestimate the calibre of those four bowlers. Every single one of them was as deadly with old ball as new, and lost very little by bowling on non-greentop pitches. All were exceptionally capable as both strike (short spell) and stock (long spell) bowlers.

Utterly laughable, really, to suggest four seam-bowlers from the very top drawer (or indeed a good few of those quite a bit further down the list) would require absolute greentops to be effective.

Furthermore, as I have the pick of virtually any batsmen in history, I simply have to narrow it down to the best players of right arm pace to substantially increase my odds

On the other hand, if I picked say Lillee(or Ambrose or McGrath)/Akram/Murali/Warne then every single style of bowling/conditions are covered and you'll be forced to consider how well each player combats pace/swing/left handers/doosras/ and legspin.

The best players of right-arm pace are the best players. Full-stop. Same way the best players of left-arm wristspin are the best players.

You don't get to the very top of the game by being weak against one angle of attack or one speed of bowling.

Thirdly, how will your attack ever complete 90 overs in a day - there are simply not enough hours in the day to do it and so you'll have to rely on plenty of overs from a part-timer (who'll be smashed at this level)

Aside from the fact that the original stipulation was that 90 overs will be completed however long it takes - it's really not so difficult as you seem to think to bowl 15 overs per hour. None of the bowlers had extraordinarily long run-ups, even Donald, and they were all incredibly fit and did not need to constantly take breathers.

You simply cannot pick a balanced attack by going through the list of all-time averages

I don't care about balance, I care about quality.

 

[Richard]

People forget that you can't share a new cherry between four quicks. The threat posed between overs 35 and 80, provided mints are banned, would conceivably increase in an attack with a quality spinner - who's less reliant on ball conditions - than simply an extra slinger.

I cannot believe someone as sensible as you is seriously contending that reverse-swing is impossible without use of mints. It's really not that difficult to get a good shine on a good-quality cricket-ball using standard (whatever that is) saliva.

Depending on the state of the outfield, it's almost always possible to keep a good shine on the ball and make either conventional or reverse-swing possible. Only Marshall of my four seam-bowling picks was anything other than outstanding at bowling reverse-swing - and he could easily be if he was shown how.

What you also seem to ignore is that swing is not the only weapon of the very best seam-bowlers. A top-shelf seamer (never mind the four best ever) can move the ball off the pitch as well as through the air. All four used the seam, and bowled cutters, in both directions, brilliantly.

I cannot believe the calibre of these seamers is being underestimated so badly. You really imagine Malcolm Marshall, Allan Donald, Richard Hadlee and Imran Khan can only be effective with a shiny new ball? Heck, Imran was probably more noteworthy for his skills with old than new ball.

 

[Richard]

In any event, WI were fortunate to have a production line of great fast bowlers but fact is that they had nothing to fall back on when that failed

What's that got to do with anything? We're not talking about real-life production-lines, but hypothetical come-togethers from bowlers over a finite period of time.

Finally, IMO, if you stick all your eggs into one basket, particularly when you have every cricketer in history to choose from, you deserve the losses that will inevitably come your way if you choose an attack that is not capable of doing well in all conditions

It truly remains baffling that anyone honestly thinks the four greatest seam-bowlers in history are NOT capable of doing well in any conditions you care to name.

 

[bond21]

if theyre so fit why do you need 4?

 

[social]

What's that got to do with anything? We're not talking about real-life production-lines, but hypothetical come-togethers from bowlers over a finite period of time.

It truly remains baffling that anyone honestly thinks the four greatest seam-bowlers in history are NOT capable of doing well in any conditions you care to name.

Richard, it's debatable that the 3 non-WI bowlers you've chosen are any better than the bowlers Marshall played with

Donald, for example, was pretty average against by far the best team he faced

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...1;opposition=2;template=results;type=allround

The WI didnt win every game they played and suffered some embarrassing defeats when conditions were against them

Opening up with guys like Gavaskar and Gooch (both of whom had big success againt the Windies at their peak) on flat tracks and they'll walk in confident

Follow with IVA and things could get ugly very quickly

If those guys get their eye in you are basically screwed - the pitch wont help you, the conditions are oppressive, there is limited variation at your disposal and you're faced with the 2 greatest spinners in history once the wicket deteriorates

It may not happen in the first match but if you play that attack against all time great players of pace in conditions that dont suit the seamers, it'll happen too often for your liking