Who is the no.1 spinner of the Post Packer Era?

[Precambrian]

Yes, it is. It would be fantastic for everyone on here if you posted with a hint of maturity.

Thanks for the advice. But I won't be me if I tried to be someone else. As you said, those who hate my posts, always have ignore button at their disposal.

 

[Ikki]

did you check the stats posted here? without zim/bang, murali's figures are closer to warne's than otherwise.

Do your stats not have bang/zim? Because if they don't, they there is an error. If they do, then there is also an error.

EDIT, you must have taken out the ICC XI match. I don't think you should, personally.

 

[Ikki]

Please read the thread from the start.

I have. I don't understand the point you're making mate?

 

[Precambrian]

Do your stats not have bang/zim? Because if they don't, they there is an error. If they do, then there is also an error.

EDIT, you must have taken out the ICC XI match. I don't think you should, personally.

Why not? ICC match was all purpose a joke and all eminent statisticians take it out in their analysis.

 

[Athlai]

Why not? ICC match was all purpose a joke and all eminent statisticians take it out in their analysis.

Dickinson has officially become eminent.

 

[Precambrian]

I have. I don't understand the point you're making mate?

If you have read, then you wouldn't be asking for explanation for that. I never said Bagapath shouldn't have created this thread.

 

[Precambrian]

Dickinson has officially become eminent.

Lol, in fact I loved that gentle soul, the Bearded Wonder, Bill Frindall.

 

[Ikki]

Why not? ICC match was all purpose a joke and all eminent statisticians take it out in their analysis.

Because it wasn't a joke. Australia were simply too good. The only side in the world that would have beaten that side was Australia.

I find the logic against it baffling.

If you have read, then you wouldn't be asking for explanation for that. I never said Bagapath shouldn't have created this thread.

Actually, that wasn't what I was saying. Still, what I thought you had said is a misunderstanding on my part. My bad.

 

[Precambrian]

Because it wasn't a joke. Australia were simply too good. The only side in the world that would have beaten that side was Australia.

I find the logic against it baffling.



Actually, that wasn't what I was saying. Still, what I thought you had said is a misunderstanding on my part. My bad.

Simply because it was a random match. And although the Aussie side was as good as ever, there was hardly any cohension to the RoW team. Even some selections were dubious and arbitrary. Not to mention the lack of chemistry between the captain and the mates. I can put down any number of reasons, but sorry mate, that was nothing but an exhibition match.

 

[Ikki]

Simply because it was a random match. And although the Aussie side was as good as ever, there was hardly any cohension to the RoW team. Even some selections were dubious and arbitrary. Not to mention the lack of chemistry between the captain and the mates. I can put down any number of reasons, but sorry mate, that was nothing but an exhibition match.

Whilst I buy the cohesion argument to an extent...cricket is not football. It's a team sport but of individual battles. Bowler + fielders vs batsmen. There isn't a need for such a degree of chemistry to begin with. Especially when you use that argument to write off the match.

When the batsmen are facing Australian bowlers, the only cohesion needed is knowing when to run or not, otherwise it is essentially the same fight regardless if, for example, Dravid was batting for India or the ICC XI. It's the same thing. It's Dravid vs the Aussie bowlers again.

Fielding/bowling requires a bit more, but not so much. Maybe supported runs to the boundary flicks and throws, but other than that it doesn't take much to be a unit. The captain and bowlers will place their fielders and they had the best players in the world (outside of Australians) to pick from. So it's another limited argument.

So what it comes down to is motivation. And whilst they probably don't have the same drive playing for the ICC XI as they may for their countries...suggesting world class cricketers just let other teams roll over them is, frankly, stupid.

 

[bagapath]

Do your stats not have bang/zim? Because if they don't, they there is an error. If they do, then there is also an error.

EDIT, you must have taken out the ICC XI match. I don't think you should, personally.

I am sure you guys know this thread is part of the on-going team selection for the post packer era and not a stand-alone thread. for this whole team selection process I proposed in the very beginning that we ignored records against ban/zim and the match between aus and ICC World XI. And I didn't see anyone objecting to it; so stuck to the decision. I wanted to leave out the match because it was not between regular international teams (that represent a nation except the west indies team) and looked more like an exhibition match. Even if someone has a different point of view, I am sure that one game's stat wont make much of a difference in our selections.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Choice of Warne over Murali is laughable.

That's the most "laughable" thing in this whole thread. The choice of Monty over Murali or Warne is laughable. Choosing Warne or Murali over the other, either way, is not laughable.

But of course, you knew this...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Simply because it was a random match. And although the Aussie side was as good as ever, there was hardly any cohension to the RoW team. Even some selections were dubious and arbitrary. Not to mention the lack of chemistry between the captain and the mates. I can put down any number of reasons, but sorry mate, that was nothing but an exhibition match.

Selections were arbitrary!!

 

[Precambrian]

Whilst I buy the cohesion argument to an extent...cricket is not football. It's a team sport but of individual battles. Bowler + fielders vs batsmen. There isn't a need for such a degree of chemistry to begin with. Especially when you use that argument to write off the match.

When the batsmen are facing Australian bowlers, the only cohesion needed is knowing when to run or not, otherwise it is essentially the same fight regardless if, for example, Dravid was batting for India or the ICC XI. It's the same thing. It's Dravid vs the Aussie bowlers again.

Fielding/bowling requires a bit more, but not so much. Maybe supported runs to the boundary flicks and throws, but other than that it doesn't take much to be a unit. The captain and bowlers will place their fielders and they had the best players in the world (outside of Australians) to pick from. So it's another limited argument.

So what it comes down to is motivation. And whilst they probably don't have the same drive playing for the ICC XI as they may for their countries...suggesting world class cricketers just let other teams roll over them is, frankly, stupid.

Good arguments overall but I have to disagree with the core suggestion.

Cohesion is indeed an important step in how a player motivates himself. And especially in a team sport like that of Test cricket, which is considered to be the pinnacle form, motivation and mental preparations are much more important than just physical training. The most important motivation at this level comes from the pride playing for one's nation (or nations, in Windies' case). The pride of wearing the team;s cap and the need to live upto the expectations of followers back home is what drives many great players more than money or anything.

This is exactly what the RoW players lacked. As far as they were concerned it was nothing more than a charity match, and a team assembled seemingly at random with zilch time for preparation and bonding. And worse, the playing conditions were hardly level. By playing conditions, I just don't mean grounds or pitches, but the motivation. Australians were wearing baggy greens and were seemingly a bonded unit because they had the biggest motivation of them all, playing for a single nation, running through them. While the RoWs couldn't even converse properly with each other due to linguistic and other barriers.

For whatever argument you might put, it was never test cricket.

 

[Precambrian]

That's the most "laughable" thing in this whole thread. The choice of Monty over Murali or Warne is laughable. Choosing Warne or Murali over the other, either way, is not laughable.

But of course, you knew this...

What about the retort "My face"? Isn't that laughable too?

 

[vic_orthdox]

What about the retort "My face"? Isn't that laughable too?

"Oh no, but it's not my fault. Look what he said, Sir."

 

[Precambrian]

"Oh no, but it's not my fault. Look what he said, Sir."

Disagreeable. But anyway past it.

 

[archie mac]

Warne, never saw MM bowl well in Aust. or bowl anywhere for that matter




Runs and hides

 

[vic_orthdox]

Warne, never saw MM bowl well in Aust. or bowl anywhere for that matter




Runs and hides

archie, most've us are all well aware of your opinion of Murali's action before this thread. All you're doing is increasing the likelihood that this becomes an insult throwing contest. Please, in the future, refrain from the throwing accusations when we are comparing the two of them as bowlers.

 

[Ikki]

I am sure you guys know this thread is part of the on-going team selection for the post packer era and not a stand-alone thread. for this whole team selection process I proposed in the very beginning that we ignored records against ban/zim and the match between aus and ICC World XI. And I didn't see anyone objecting to it; so stuck to the decision. I wanted to leave out the match because it was not between regular international teams (that represent a nation except the west indies team) and looked more like an exhibition match. Even if someone has a different point of view, I am sure that one game's stat wont make much of a difference in our selections.

Sorry, I didn't read your original post clearly. I knew you were making a team and I thought I got the gist of it and voted.

Good arguments overall but I have to disagree with the core suggestion.

Cohesion is indeed an important step in how a player motivates himself. And especially in a team sport like that of Test cricket, which is considered to be the pinnacle form, motivation and mental preparations are much more important than just physical training. The most important motivation at this level comes from the pride playing for one's nation (or nations, in Windies' case). The pride of wearing the team;s cap and the need to live upto the expectations of followers back home is what drives many great players more than money or anything.

This is exactly what the RoW players lacked. As far as they were concerned it was nothing more than a charity match, and a team assembled seemingly at random with zilch time for preparation and bonding. And worse, the playing conditions were hardly level. By playing conditions, I just don't mean grounds or pitches, but the motivation. Australians were wearing baggy greens and were seemingly a bonded unit because they had the biggest motivation of them all, playing for a single nation, running through them. While the RoWs couldn't even converse properly with each other due to linguistic and other barriers.

For whatever argument you might put, it was never test cricket.

Sorry, that's your take on it, but again I just don't accept that argument to explain away the write-off.

In football (soccer) which is completely grounded in being a team...a sport where a good unit can beat 11 good individuals... language barriers are not something to stifle them completely.

They say sport is the universal language, and I believe that a lot. There is not much that they would need to communicate to each other that couldn't have been settled with simple hand gestures, to be honest.

This is all, though, disregarding the fact that every member of that squad was fluent in English - maybe not Inzamum.

They had a enough motivation...it was a rare chance to beat a team that continuously beat the same players in their own sides and at home.

Again, this team was probably better than all the sides in the world bar Australia herself. If test matches against West Indies/New Zealand () can be counted in this, yet this test can't...then it's simply a joke.

Anyway, bagapath has already put down the criteria so this debate is a digression.