No. 6 for Post Packer XI

[0RI0N]

And I'm not even Indian. Athlai is Hebrew! And I'm not even a Jew! Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Us pesky Irish catholics.

and athlai plays the classic race card...cant win an argument...play the race card,accuse someone of being a racist. And now il ignore you.

 

[Matt79]

Your post made no sense to me. What does the choice of Murali have to do with the choice of Imran?

We're discussing the #6 spot, not #7. It makes NO SENSE to have Gilchrist come in at 7 (like he did for Australia) and then have a far worse batsman come in ahead of him. You can still have Imran come in at 8, and then have the spinner and the two strike bowlers come in after that.

If SS hates spinners, it's his own problem. He can replace a spinner with a fast bowler then in his own team, which is obviously going to be defective compared to the rest. I still don't see how it's relevant to the issue.

Yeah, he's basically saying that the people who are set on having Imran in the team are more likely to vote for Murali, which is his main objective now, if Imran, rather than Kallis, is chosen here.

 

[Matt79]

Your post made no sense to me. What does the choice of Murali have to do with the choice of Imran?

We're discussing the #6 spot, not #7. It makes NO SENSE to have Gilchrist come in at 7 (like he did for Australia) and then have a far worse batsman come in ahead of him. You can still have Imran come in at 8, and then have the spinner and the two strike bowlers come in after that.

If SS hates spinners, it's his own problem. He can replace a spinner with a fast bowler then in his own team, which is obviously going to be defective compared to the rest. I still don't see how it's relevant to the issue.

Don't know that Imran is a far worse batsman than Gilchrist at number 6. 7 was definitely Gilchrist's preferred spot, and if Imran is decent (well, actually very good) at 6, then I'd be prepared to let Gilly stay where he wants to be, knowing he'll still have Hadlee, Marshall and Warne to bat with. Teams have superior batsmen coming in after inferior ones all the time if it puts their most important batsmen where they like to bat. Border, then Steve Waugh came in at 5 for years after Dean Jones, Mark Waugh, etc. Sachin has mostly batted at 4, albeit that for much of that period Dravid was excellent at 3. Pietersen bats at 4 behind Bell, Vaughan, however, as has Kallis behind Gibbs/Amla etc.

 

[silentstriker]

Your post made no sense to me. What does the choice of Murali have to do with the choice of Imran?

We're discussing the #6 spot, not #7. It makes NO SENSE to have Gilchrist come in at 7 (like he did for Australia) and then have a far worse batsman come in ahead of him. You can still have Imran come in at 8, and then have the spinner and the two strike bowlers come in after that.

If SS hates spinners, it's his own problem. He can replace a spinner with a fast bowler then in his own team, which is obviously going to be defective compared to the rest. I still don't see how it's relevant to the issue.

Completely DWTA. I bet that extra all time great fast bowler would be much more versatile a player and much more useful than any spinner.

 

[Matt79]

Stop trolling re: spinners and go lock the Nike Jordan thread...

 

[Fusion]

Just to remind everyone, Bagapath has stated that the batting order can be changed after the selection of the team. So if people think that Imran at 6 is too high, then he can be switched with Gilly in the batting order.

lets fix the final batting order after everyone is selected. i expect the present middle order of richards, sachin, lara to be reversed too. hadlee's inclusion will push mashall and warne down. if we go with four bowlers + kallis that would affect the batting order as well. so assume this slot as an extra batsman, bowler or all rounder. 6 and 7 can be interchanged if necessary.

 

[The Sean]

Meh, I'm more than comfortable with Imran at 6 and Gilly at 7 - it's less a reflection on their talent or rank as a batsman and more a case of where they'd fit best.

 

[stephen]

I actually want someone to come up with 15 players who were definitively better than Ponting. I am even allowing for the fact that people believe that Richards, Lara and Tendulkar are all his superiors (even though that is debatable).

So that would leave (maybe):

Bradman
Hobbs
Hutton
Suttcliffe
Sobers
Grace

and ???

Even these picks IMO are arguable, but I want someone to fill out the list, otherwise I will assume that he is that good.

You have 6 there, and you are willing to put in Richards, Lara and Tendulkar. That makes 9. Hammond would make 10. Barrington 11. Weekes 12. Walcott 13.

Out of Australians who could challenge him? Chappell, S. Waugh, Border are all close too.

Dravid too could give him a run for his money.

Edit: Totally forgot about Headley and Pollock, Sid Barnes could be up there too.

So even if I grant you Hammond, Barrington, Weekes and Walcott (which is debatable) and all of the ones I've listed, you still have to go to Australian batsmen, who most people don't rate as higher than Ponting.

Like him or loathe him, Ponting is in the top 15 batsmen of all time, and probably in the top 10. At absolute worst he's in the top 20. But you really have to fudge the numbers pretty hard and give credit to batsmen who didn't have anywhere near as comprehensive and complete a record to better him.

 

[The Sean]

I don't think you could find 15 players who were definitively better than Punter and more so than you can say he's definitely in the top 10-15-20-whatever. In my personal opinion you've got Bradman on his own and then a half dozen or so players who could all have legitimate claims to be no.2 (Grace, Hobbs, Hammond, Sobers, Richards, Lara, Tendular - ok that's 7) and even some of those blokes are debatable either way.

Ponting in my opinion is on the next rung down with upwards of a dozen other greats - as far as I'm concerned there's so little between say the 8th best and the 18th best batsman of all time (whoever either of them may be) that it's all very much a matter of personal preference and subjective opinion.

 

[Evermind]

Completely DWTA. I bet that extra all time great fast bowler would be much more versatile a player and much more useful than any spinner.

Your trolling is neither interesting nor endearing.

 

[zaremba]

Meh, I'm more than comfortable with Imran at 6 and Gilly at 7 - it's less a reflection on their talent or rank as a batsman and more a case of where they'd fit best.

this

 

[Fusion]

Your trolling is neither interesting nor endearing.

Though I strongly disagree with him, how is his opinion that all-time quicks better than any spinner "trolling"?

 

[silentstriker]

Your trolling is neither interesting nor endearing.

Hmm? I believe that between five to ten best fast bowlers of all time are better than any spinner that has so far played the game. You can think of that statement however you want, it's up to you. To me (for example), Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, Hadlee, Imran, Lillee, Trueman, are simply better bowlers overall when you take into account all conditions and at all times of the match when compared to Warne, Murali or whoever else. You can think it trolling if you want.

 

[bagapath]

Hmm? I believe that between five to ten best fast bowlers of all time are better than any spinner that has so far played the game. You can think of that statement however you want, it's up to you. To me (for example), Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, Hadlee, Imran, Lillee, Trueman, are simply better bowlers overall when you take into account all conditions and at all times of the match when compared to Warne, Murali or whoever else. You can think it trolling if you want.

SS. you will find it very difficult to prove all those great names you've mentioned are better than murali. may be some of them but not all. murali's SR is better than ambrose's. and his average is better than most of them. also, his wk/test is much more than each and everyone of them. if you're going to call him a mere minnow basher then so was truman. if you say he took more wickets because there was no competition then that is true for hadlee also. murali and warne are certainly on par with all of them and in fact, are better than some too.

 

[Jamee999]

Because Murali bowls with Chaminda Vaas, Ambrose bowled with Courtney Walsh...

 

[Evermind]

Hmm? I believe that between five to ten best fast bowlers of all time are better than any spinner that has so far played the game. You can think of that statement however you want, it's up to you. To me (for example), Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, Hadlee, Imran, Lillee, Trueman, are simply better bowlers overall when you take into account all conditions and at all times of the match when compared to Warne, Murali or whoever else. You can think it trolling if you want.

There are several batsmen who are crap against spin, then there's the matter of averages, plus the spinner being able to bowl a load more overs than anyone else, variety of pace, spinning pitches, better economy, etc etc. Too many factors to go into. You're allowed your opinion, but it'd be absurd and completely impractical to not have a spinner in the team. Plus Murali has better average, better economy, more hauls, etc etc than Lillee for example. So even as a bowler he's better, without getting into the special factor of spin which obviously helps in nearly all cases except a handful of pitches around the world.

 

[bagapath]

Because Murali bowls with Chaminda Vaas, Ambrose bowled with Courtney Walsh...

i dont get your post. i am assuming you are suggesting ambrose's SR is bad because he had to bowl with walsh and murali's is better because he had only vaas to compete with.

marshall bowled with holding and garner for most of his career and took a wicket every 47 balls. garner and holding themselves did it every 51 balls. but ambrose and walsh did it only at 55 and 58. it is a fact that they, ambrose and walsh, had poorer strike rates compared to their illustrious predecessors and also muralitharan. they cant blame it on company because we have seen more fast bowlers in the same team sharing wickets at a faster SR.

on the other hand, hadlee had a strike rate under 51 and he never had a great bowler for company. similar to murali's case. i guess great bowlers are great. cant really assume too much about the role of their bowling partners in their stats. yes, the collective impact is quite important in match situations. but they would have similar stats with or without the other bowler bowling from the opposite end.

 

[silentstriker]

SS. you will find it very difficult to prove all those great names you've mentioned are better than murali. may be some of them but not all.

Aside from Bradman, no one can 'prove' anything. You give your evidence, and other people can accept or reject whether its good enough. I hope that some people would come over to my way of thinking if they keep an open mind about it, but they may not, and that's fine too. And they may be right - I don't think so - but you can hardly do a controlled experiment in sports.

I can give evidence why they are better, but whether that is good enough to counter what people think or the evidence that people can generate to support their own position is up to them.

There are several batsmen who are crap against spin, then there's the matter of averages, .

Let's say you have an all time middle order of Tendulkar, Lara and Richards. Two of them have generally belted the two spinners in the side. Neither of them have really belted McGrath, for example. They may have won some battles or lost some, but at worst the all time great pace bowlers are even.

So called "all time great spinners", on the other hand, lose out vs. both. So you tell me who you'd rather have bowling against Tendulkar and Lara: McGrath/Marshall or Warne/Mutalitharan. If you decide the latter, that's fine and that's up to you.

I'd take the former every time. If you're talking about crappy players of spin, its one thing, but they're rare in an all time side. All the players are great players of pace as well, but its very instructive how the best fast bowlers still manage to get the best batsmen, while the best spin bowlers have a tougher time.

 

[bagapath]

I hope that some people would come over to my way of thinking if they keep an open mind about it, but they may not, and that's fine too.

hey. keeping an open mind is a good idea. may be you will start appreciating the value of spin bowling that way. it is fine if you remain a life long advocate of fast bowling, too. not everyone has to be alike.

 

[JBH001]

All this Ponting stuff is giving me an awful sense of daja vu.

I voted Botham, for a period he was the best AR I have ever watched, he went on too long and never quite got it right against the best of the time the WI, one of the rare players in history that could change a game completly in a few overs.

If this team gets in trouble then Both at his peak would be the man that saves them

Only a token vote for 'Guy the Gorilla' at this stage, but I am casting it anway.

Also, I really dont see what the fuss is about Imran batting at 6 or 7. Its not like we dont have a powerful tail anyway.