How do you feel about Shane Warne?

[social]

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.



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.

QUOTE

These 2 things sum it up really

1. Plenty of players have a weakness against one type of bowling and not another

2. If it were so easy to bowl 90 overs IN THE ALLOTTED TIME (if you think I'm going to change the laws of the game to suit your argument, think again), why cant anyone do it?

 

[Goughy]

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

I dont doubt they would have been selected, though we will never know for sure.

Another thing that could be guaranteed is that their inclusion would have weakened WI and cost them Tests.

West Indies served a diet of pace. It was unrelenting and impossible to get on top of. There were no scoring opportunities as nothing was pitched up, nothing was given away and the overrate was dismal. 180 runs in a day against them was decent going.

Add in Warne and Murali (as good as they were) and suddenly the pressure, intimidation and lack of opportunities are less of an issue and breathing room is given in the 'trial by fire'. Adding a spinner may help on occasion but would hurt far more in terms of overall mentality and approach.

 

[social]

I dont doubt they would have been selected, though we will never know for sure.

Another thing that could be guaranteed is that their inclusion would have weakened WI and cost them Tests.

West Indies served a diet of pace. It was unrelenting and impossible to get on top of. There were no scoring opportunities as nothing was pitched up, nothing was given away and the overrate was dismal. 180 runs in a day against them was decent going.

Add in Warne and Murali (as good as they were) and suddenly the pressure, intimidation and lack of opportunities are less of an issue and breathing room is given in the 'trial by fire'. Adding a spinner may help on occasion but would hurt far more in terms of overall mentality and approach.

Contrary to the propaganda of romantics who harp on about "Calypso Cricket", the game was really ugly and cynical for a while there and based on intimidation backed with no little skill.

As to whether the inclusion of a Warne or Murali would have cost them tests, who knows?

Certainly would've cost them in terms of intimidation

But, on the face of it, those guys could've taken wickets at a higher strike rate because many players in the 80s were pathetic against spin and the wickets were worse

Probably would have been same result, different personnel and the era would have been more more kindly looked upon by anyone other than WI fans or hard-core supporters of all out pace

 

[silentstriker]

Contrary to the propaganda of romantics who harp on about "Calypso Cricket", the game was really ugly and cynical for a while there and based on intimidation backed with no little skill.

As to whether the inclusion of a Warne or Murali would have cost them tests, who knows?

Certainly would've cost them in terms of intimidation

But, on the face of it, those guys could've taken wickets at a higher strike rate because many players in the 80s were pathetic against spin and the wickets were worse

Probably would have been same result, different personnel and the era would have been more more kindly looked upon by anyone other than WI fans or hard-core supporters of all out pace

Spinners also used to get owned on LBW in the 80s though.

 

[social]

Spinners also used to get owned on LBW in the 80s though.

Warne's appeals, backed by Viv and a host of other guys running at the ump would've had the same effect IMO

 

[Engle]

Following Richards logic here's my AT England XI :

01. J.Hobbs
02. H.Sutcliffe
03. L.Hutton
04. G.Boycott
05. G.Gooch
06. WG Grace
07. W.Hammond
08. K.Barrington
09. T.Dexter
10. P.May
11. D.Compton

I guarantee your 4-paced attack could'nt beat this team

 

[Goughy]

Contrary to the propaganda of romantics who harp on about "Calypso Cricket", the game was really ugly and cynical for a while there and based on intimidation backed with no little skill.

I agree with that. WI got away with murder and played some of the dullest cricket imaginable and brought certain aspects to new lows.

However, that is the answer to a different question than the one we are discussing.

 

[social]

I agree with that. WI got away with murder and played some of the dullest cricket imaginable and brought certain aspects to new lows.

However, that is the answer to a different question than the one we are discussing.

Would Warne or Murali's inclusion have cost them tests?

No

For every game that their inclusion cost them during WI's prime, they'd have converted draws and losses into victories - imagine Border (a net bowler at best) outbowling those guys as he did their greats when Oz won by an innings at Sydney

Plus their careers are naturally longer.

Ambrose, Walsh, Murali and Warne is a brilliant attack that would've ensure the Windies were at or near the top of the tree until 2000 (assuming that the spinners started in the mid 80s)

After all, two of those bowlers plus Lara enabled an otherwise extremely average WI lineup to draw with the world's best team

Other major difference would be that both Murali and Warnie (God forbid) would now be known as "Sir"

 

[Engle]

...imagine Border (a net bowler at best) outbowling those guys as he did their greats when Oz won by an innings at Sydney

Or Tony Greig bowling off-spin in conducive conditions and getting buckets of wickets at Port-of-Spain '74

 

[Richard]

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

An average of 27 is not an out-and-out poor performance. In any case, Donald faced better batting-line-ups than Australia's (India, especially in India, were better than Australia for his entire career) and he did better against them in fact than anyone else.

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

And it'll happen every bit as often, possibly quite a bit more so, against spinners.

And no, Gavaskar was not particularly remarkably successful against West Indies' seam attacks. Nor was Gooch. Both of them did better than most, but they had more failures than successes.

 

[Richard]

These 2 things sum it up really

1. Plenty of players have a weakness against one type of bowling and not another

Err, yes - these players don't tend to be all that good. I'm presuming that my attack is going to be facing some of the best batsmen in history, who had no notable weakness against anything.

2. If it were so easy to bowl 90 overs IN THE ALLOTTED TIME (if you think I'm going to change the laws of the game to suit your argument, think again), why cant anyone do it?

The statutory-min-overs-per-day original law stated that 90 overs must be bowled, and it will be done however long it takes. Just because the most recent (and extremely poor) law is current, doesn't mean a thing. It'll almost certainly be changed again soon. If a 90-overs-per-day law is in use for a post-covered-pitches game, the law in question will be the 90-overs-however-long-it-takes one.

And yes, it's perfectly possible to bowl 90 overs in 6 hours - the trouble is, poor tactics mean it seldom happens at the current time - including sides who have 2 spinners bowling for part of lots of the day. Stricter penalties would do wonders to change that.

 

[Richard]

Following Richards logic here's my AT England XI :

01. J.Hobbs
02. H.Sutcliffe
03. L.Hutton
04. G.Boycott
05. G.Gooch
06. WG Grace
07. W.Hammond
08. K.Barrington
09. T.Dexter
10. P.May
11. D.Compton

I guarantee your 4-paced attack could'nt beat this team

Certainly could if it was a timeless Test. If I had a good batting-line-up (featuring for instance Merchant, Morris, Bradman, Headley, Sobers and Tendulkar) it'd routinely be scoring 1000+ totals. And much as it'd take Marshall et al a while to get through that batting-line-up (as it would any and every attack you could put out), it'd happen given long enough.

Not a realistic scenario, though.

 

[Richard]

For every game that their inclusion cost them during WI's prime, they'd have converted draws and losses into victories - imagine Border (a net bowler at best) outbowling those guys as he did their greats when Oz won by an innings at Sydney

That game was a dead one. You seriously believe Australia would have won it if it'd been live?

 

[social]

An average of 27 is not an out-and-out poor performance. In any case, Donald faced better batting-line-ups than Australia's (India, especially in India, were better than Australia for his entire career) and he did better against them in fact than anyone else.

And it'll happen every bit as often, possibly quite a bit more so, against spinners.

And no, Gavaskar was not particularly remarkably successful against West Indies' seam attacks. Nor was Gooch. Both of them did better than most, but they had more failures than successes.

Yeah yeah heard it all before!

Amazing how these incredibly talented batsmen could never get runs against Australia!

FYI, Sunny pounded the might of WI to the tune of a career average of 65

Gooch averaged over 45

Greg Chappell,who I hadnt even considered, averaged over 55 vs WI (despite an horrendous series against them near retirement) and against Hadlee's NZ as well and compounded it by hammering Imran at every opportunity

I hate to think what Gilchrist would do to those guys after this lot had finished with them. After all, he took the second fastest 200 off Donald

 

[Richard]

Yeah yeah heard it all before!

Amazing how these incredibly talented batsmen could never get runs against Australia!

Australia are not the only team that exist. In any case, hardly like Tendulkar, Mongia, Azharuddin, Sidhu, Laxman, Dravid and Ganguly never scored runs against Australia. Check the books again.

FYI, Sunny pounded the might of WI to the tune of a career average of 65

The vast majority of which comes from the series' in 1971 and 1978/79 when West Indies did not have an attack of any note. Against the famous three- and four-pronged seam attacks his performances were no more than respectible, same as everyone else. Anyone who knows basic cricket history knows that Gavaskar's performance against West Indies is woefully exaggerated. I thought you might have been aware of this.

Gooch averaged over 45

Gooch combated the West Indian bowlers better than possibly anyone. However, an average of 42 (that's what it was until 1990, after which he smashed anything and everything for 4 years) is far from an exceptional performance and it's one most other batsmen, better players than Gooch, could not match. It's also a performance Gooch could not match against lesser attacks, too, as he averaged just 38 against the rest of the teams between '78 and '88.

Greg Chappell,who I hadnt even considered, averaged over 55 vs WI (despite an horrendous series against them near retirement) and against Hadlee's NZ as well and compounded it by hammering Imran at every opportunity

Indeed, along with most other bowlers he faced. Greg Chappell is one of the greatest batsmen in the history of cricket.

I hate to think what Gilchrist would do to those guys after this lot had finished with them. After all, he took the second fastest 200 off Donald

No, he didn't. Gilchrist never faced Donald in that innings - aside from the fact he should've been out on 44. Not that the bowler in that match was the Donald I'm talking about - that game, and the preceding two, are completely and totally meaningless.

 

[social]

So there we have it

My batting line up is:

Sunny
Gooch
IVA
Chappell G
A Nother (Tendy or Lara)
An all-rounder (Kallis or Sobers or other - you make the choice)
Gilchrist

backed by choice of 2 of Lillee/McGrath/Akram/Garner etc etc etc plus Warne and Murali

We play 5 tests under non greentop conditions (even then its little more than 50/50)

In summary:

• I dont have to go back more than 25 years
  
• I dont have to pick great unproven players from SA
  
• The core of my batting lineup has taken bowlers EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS YOURS for an average of over 50

In summary - you're done and dusted

 

[Goughy]

FYI, Sunny pounded the might of WI to the tune of a career average of 65

Ah, possibly one of the most overused misleading facts in cricket. As we all know Sunny did great against WI but the 2 series when he dominated the WI their attack was way below par.

Taking those numbers against ordinary attacks and trying to sell it as proof of excellence against quality quicks just because it has the WI name attached is cricketing charlatanism

 

[silentstriker]

FYI, Sunny pounded the might

No he didn't. He scored freely against substandard attacks, and did well (compared to what everyone else did) when they were at their peak, but did not pound them by any means. He averaged something like 35-40, which is very respectable, but not something that remotely qualifies as 'pounding'.

 

[social]

Australia are not the only team that exist. In any case, hardly like Tendulkar, Mongia, Azharuddin, Sidhu, Laxman, Dravid and Ganguly never scored runs against Australia. Check the books again.

The vast majority of which comes from the series' in 1971 and 1978/79 when West Indies did not have an attack of any note. Against the famous three- and four-pronged seam attacks his performances were no more than respectible, same as everyone else. Anyone who knows basic cricket history knows that Gavaskar's performance against West Indies is woefully exaggerated. I thought you might have been aware of this.

Gooch combated the West Indian bowlers better than possibly anyone. However, an average of 42 (that's what it was until 1990, after which he smashed anything and everything for 4 years) is far from an exceptional performance and it's one most other batsmen, better players than Gooch, could not match. It's also a performance Gooch could not match against lesser attacks, too, as he averaged just 38 against the rest of the teams between '78 and '88.

Indeed, along with most other bowlers he faced. Greg Chappell is one of the greatest batsmen in the history of cricket.

No, he didn't. Gilchrist never faced Donald in that innings - aside from the fact he should've been out on 44. Not that the bowler in that match was the Donald I'm talking about - that game, and the preceding two, are completely and totally meaningless.

Richard,

you just dont get it

Marshall, Imran and Hadlee are brilliant bowlers

I've said many, many, many times that the best bowlers I've ever seen include 2 of the above plus Mcgrath and Akram

Unfortunately, no matter how good you are, you need help when conditions vary - that's where Warne and Murali come in

I personally dont care who you pick but if you're playing in conditions unfavourable to even the best quicks and all other things are equal (batsmen, keeper + 2 fast bowlers), the addition of a brilliant specialist or two will tip the scales against you more time than not

 

[Richard]

Ah, possibly one of the most overused misleading facts in cricket. As we all know Sunny did great against WI but the 2 series when he dominated the WI their attack was way below par.

Taking those numbers against ordinary attacks and trying to sell it as proof of excellence against quality quicks just because it has the WI name attached is cricketing charlatanism

No he didn't. He scored freely against substandard attacks, and did well (compared to what everyone else did) when they were at their peak, but did not pound them by any means. He averaged something like 35-40, which is very respectable, but not something that remotely qualifies as 'pounding'.

Beat you both to it TBH.

The vast majority of which comes from the series' in 1971 and 1978/79 when West Indies did not have an attack of any note. Against the famous three- and four-pronged seam attacks his performances were no more than respectible, same as everyone else. Anyone who knows basic cricket history knows that Gavaskar's performance against West Indies is woefully exaggerated. I thought you might have been aware of this.

Thanks for reiterating mind.