No. 6 for Post Packer XI

[bagapath]

Well, no captain has ever had the choice of dropping someone like Ambrose in favor of a spinner though.

they dont have to. there will always be a choice of a patterson or winston benjamin who can be replaced by a kumble. warne can replace even better pacers

 

[bagapath]

I am very tempted to declare imran the winner and use kallis in the last poll. dont think anyone can over take imran; but dont want to be embarassed if greg or ricky manage to push kallis behind. will give it till tomorrow.

 

[silentstriker]

they dont have to. there will always be a choice of a patterson or winston benjamin who can be replaced by a kumble. warne can replace even better pacers

Yea, sure. But that doesn't mean he can replace an all time great pace bowler.

 

[zaremba]

they dont have to. there will always be a choice of a patterson or winston benjamin who can be replaced by a kumble. warne can replace even better pacers

Not in an imaginary World XI though, of course.

The 80s West Indies side did often have 4 fast bowlers who were (at least) very good (Patterson on an unpleasant pitch at Sabina Park in 1986 was about as much of a handful as any bowler has ever been, anywhere) - and it was the sheer relentlessness of that pace attack which made them so difficult to play against.

So for an imaginary World XI there's a case for going for a remorseless all-pace attack which would obviously not have a single weak link. Particularly if (as is arguably the case) each of those quick bowlers was better than the very best spinners.

And of course, in real life, just occasionally the WI played a complete foursome of greats. In 1980 their attack was Holding, Marshall, Garner, Roberts/Croft. Not sure how often this happened. No weak links there.

 

[haroon510]

i voted for Imran assuming that he is going to captain the side..

 

[bagapath]

Yea, sure. But that doesn't mean he can replace an all time great pace bowler.

i am writing this not exactly as a counter argument coz we are not having a specific debate going here. it is given more as an example of my belief.

in a post WW2 aussie XI, for example, if miller is included as an all rounder and four bowlers are going to be chosen i would expect the four to be lillee, lindwall, mcgrath and warne. if miller is sacrificed for an additional batsman the above mentioned four would still be the first choice. davidson, thommo, mcdermott, gillespie and lee - and miller too in the second option - would not be able to replace warne in either case.

in an all time aussie xi if spofforth and any other great is available for selection, one of the pacers would be replaced and it would probably be lindwall. and it will never be warne. in fact, any combination of a four member bowling attack you can think of for australia would feature a spinner for sure. and it will mostly be warne and on other times grimmett/oreilly. am sure benaud, border, waugh, taylor and bob simmo would agree with me. i've seen the all-time xis of some them.

in that sense one spinner in a four member bowling attack is a certainty for most countries - india, sri lanka, pakistan, south africa and england will definitely have one of bedi/chandra/gupte/ kumble/ murali/qadir/ iqbal/ tayfield/ faulkner/laker/ briggs/ underwood. west indies can do without gibbs but would expect sobers to bowl spin with their four man pace attack. new zealand would be struggling to field three bowlers - spin or pace - who could be a certainty like sir richard. they dont have the talent pool, unfortunately. still they may end up having vettori over most of their pacers as the fourth bowling option.

i guess i am trying to say one spinner is a must for winning test matches on a consistent basis. if three fast bowlers are not doing their job, the fourth is not going to do it either. you're better off having a spinner at your disposal.

btw, in a combined WI and Aus XI, warne is as much a certainty as Bradman and Sobers. (trumper, greenidge, bradman (c), richards, lara, sobers, gilchrist, marshall, warne, lillee, mcgrath). you will be able to change the other eight names but these three are shoo-ins.

 

[bagapath]

Not in an imaginary World XI though, of course.

The 80s West Indies side did often have 4 fast bowlers who were (at least) very good (Patterson on an unpleasant pitch at Sabina Park in 1986 was about as much of a handful as any bowler has ever been, anywhere) - and it was the sheer relentlessness of that pace attack which made them so difficult to play against.

So for an imaginary World XI there's a case for going for a remorseless all-pace attack which would obviously not have a single weak link. Particularly if (as is arguably the case) each of those quick bowlers was better than the very best spinners.

And of course, in real life, just occasionally the WI played a complete foursome of greats. In 1980 their attack was Holding, Marshall, Garner, Roberts/Croft. Not sure how often this happened. No weak links there.

one problem with the WI teams of the 70s and 80s was they didnt win any series in New Zealand or Pakistan. If they had a quality spinner they might have achieved that also. the contribution of warne for the all conquering aussie teams under waugh/ponting is so vital in that respect .

 

[subshakerz]

one problem with the WI teams of the 70s and 80s was they didnt win any series in New Zealand or Pakistan. If they had a quality spinner they might have achieved that also. the contribution of warne for the all conquering aussie teams under waugh/ponting is so vital in that respect .

Untrue. They beat Pakistan 1-0 in 1980-81 with an attack of Clarke, Croft, Garner, and Marshall. New Zealand remains an abheration.

 

[silentstriker]

am sure benaud, border, waugh, taylor and bob simmo would agree with me. i've seen the all-time xis of some them.

So? Benaud considers Tendulkar to be the second best batsman after Bradman, with others close behind. I disagree and think others are better, as do many people. You aren't dealing with facts here, merely opinions. Before Warne came along, leg spin was considered to be mostly dead and by some, perhaps not relevant to international cricket anymore - that was the cricket 'orthodoxy'. It happens, fads happen in cricket and opinions are constantly revised.

in that sense one spinner in a four member bowling attack is a certainty for most countries - india, sri lanka, pakistan, south africa and england will definitely have one of bedi/chandra/gupte/ kumble/ murali/qadir/ iqbal/ tayfield/ faulkner/laker/ briggs/ underwood.

And if we were picking all time XIs only for those countries, you may have a point. This is not the case, we are picking all time XI.

i guess i am trying to say one spinner is a must for winning test matches on a consistent basis. if three fast bowlers are not doing their job, the fourth is not going to do it either.

And I completely disagree. If your fourth bowler is of the quality of someone like Ambrose, then absolutely I think he can do the job when the other fast bowlers could not. The pace bowlers in an all time side are generally different enough to pose different types of problems.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I'm not sure how anyone can say that having a spinner in an attack is a must for winning consistently, when it is well known that the WI attack of the 1980s did exactly that; winning consistently without a frontline spinner.

 

[grant28]

In terms of bowling:

Hadlee8
Imran7
Pollock6
Kapil5
Cairns4
Botham/Flintoff3
Kallis1

In terms of batting:

Kallis8
Imran7
Botham6
Flintoff5
Cairns4
Kapil
Pollock/Hadlee1


Overall:

Imran 14
Hadlee 9
Pollock 7
Kapil 9
Cairns 8
Botham 9
Flintoff 8
Kallis 9

Imran>Hadlee>Kallis in terms of overall package.

But Imran is the far and away leader for me, easily makes the team as both a batsman and a bowler, Kallis is a top batsman but not quite the best bowler, Hadlee is the opposite of this and to a lesser extent Pollock.

Flintoff's bowling only 3? with his batting better at 5?

 

[Anil]

Before Warne came along, leg spin was considered to be mostly dead and by some, perhaps not relevant to international cricket anymore - that was the cricket 'orthodoxy'. It happens, fads happen in cricket and opinions are constantly revised.

that is not entirely true, abdul qadir more or less revived the mostly "dead" art of leg spin, warne certainly took it to a new dimension...

 

[bagapath]

Untrue. They beat Pakistan 1-0 in 1980-81 with an attack of Clarke, Croft, Garner, and Marshall. New Zealand remains an abheration.

thanks. i missed it. was thinking more about three consecutive drawn series between imran and richard' teams between 85 and 90. change that argument to nz alone, pl.

 

[bagapath]

I'm not sure how anyone can say that having a spinner in an attack is a must for winning consistently, when it is well known that the WI attack of the 1980s did exactly that; winning consistently without a frontline spinner.

sure they did. but australia won even more with a front line spinner in late 90s and 00s.

 

[Slifer]

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.



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.

SS Im with u on this one. Would much rather have a great fast bowler over ne great spinner. I would only include a world class spinner in my all time X1 if playin on a dust bowl but then again, bowlers like Marshall, Hadlee and Mcgrath have more than proven that they can bowl ne where.

 

[bagapath]

as long as kallis and botham stay this close in this poll i cant start the next one assuming one has made it as runner up for sure. still about 20 votes to come in.

 

[Ikki]

sure they did. but australia won even more with a front line spinner in late 90s and 00s.

I'd actually like someone to argue against this. Why were Australia much more dominant than the Windies (if at all - I haven't checked the stats, I am assuming bagapath is right)?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd actually like someone to argue against this. Why were Australia much more dominant than the Windies (if at all - I haven't checked the stats, I am assuming bagapath is right)?

Would guess it has to do with the number of drawn series and matches, whereas Australia was winning so many more of the games they were playing.

 

[Ikki]

Would guess it has to do with the number of drawn series and matches, whereas Australia was winning so many more of the games they were playing.

Yes, that would make total sense. In terms of 3+1 spinner or a 4-some, do you think the 3+1 helped?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yes, that would make total sense. In terms of 3+1 spinner or a 4-some, do you think the 3+1 helped?

Yeah, I think so. Obviously not just any spinner, though.

The other thing about a spinner is that in terms of workload, it's like another extra half a bowler. He can take that extra load on which allows quicks to be used in different sorts of spells, and that you can generally rely on your four bowlers to be bowling all the time rather than needing to call on a part timer whilst a fast bowler needs an extra couple of overs to get some rest.