Post Packer World XI - a discussion

[adharcric]

Would be harsh on Akram to miss out on both the first and second XI's IMO.

Based on what? Quite easy to say it's harsh on a Dravid, Kallis or Akram when they don't make some sort of all-time XI, but the nature of this side is such that there will be champion cricketers that will be snubbed. Unless you specifically think that Akram should make the side ahead of McGrath, Ambrose, Lillee, Kumble or Botham, I don't understand how it's "harsh" on him.

 

[stephen]

Interesting. But that's not always the best way to do things- for instance, if you were to switch Sehwag and Greenidge around and think Greenidge>Hayden, that's a difference.

I'll compare the team's areas:

Openers
Not a hell of a lot between these opening partnerships, but the first-choice team is largely the better. Greenidge and Sehwag are hardly weak links, though.

Middle order
Ponting, Chappell, Kallis vs. Richards, Tendulkar, Lara. Not a lot in it at all here.

Lower order/tail
Flower, Botham, Akram, Lillee, Ambrose vs. Gilchrist, Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Warne. Quite a bit more depth to the original team in terms of batting.

Bowling
I'm just putting it all under one area, because otherwise there's a spinning non-contest. It's basically:

McGrath, Lillee, Ambrose, Botham, Akram, Kallis

against

Marshall, Imran, Hadlee, Warne, Murali

I actually think the first side has a miles better pace attack. Saying "if Imran, Hadlee and Marshall can't take wickets, another fast bowler won't" is just a fallacy. Everyone bowls well on different days, and five top-class quicks are 66% more likely to have a player in unstoppable form than three. On the other hand, slow pitches could prove their undoing, but they have Akram in the team for when the ball gets older to offset that to an extent.

Jacques Kallis is not to be underestimated either, he's very much a threat to top-class batsmen. The list of nine players he's dismissed four or more times in tests includes:

Adam Gilchrist, six times
Shivnarine Chanderpaul, five times
Matthew Hayden, five times
Alec Stewart, four times
Younus Khan, four times

Bowling at six, he might not have much impact, but he's definitely an asset to the attack.

The major problem, obviously, is that on raging turners they'll be at a huge disadvantage. However, that's a small minority of pitches. IMO, they have a very slightly better attack on most pitches, and a considerably worse one on a select few.

It's an interesting thought though, how close the first and second XI are.

See the problem with this arguement is that by all rights McGrath should be in the first XI as a quick bowler instead of Hadlee (we just happened to have a lot of Kiwi CW readers at the time because of the Aus/NZ series, which pushed Hadlee over the line). If that was the case, I'd take a pace bowling attack of Marshall, McGrath, Imran over Lillee, Hadlee, Botham, Ambrose and Akram. Because Marshall and McGrath are higher quality bowlers than the others. Not by much mind you, but by enough. Warne and Murali add very good variety and both bowlers have shown that they can take wickets on pitches conducive to fast bowling.

Bowling is not about the amount of bowlers but the quality of bowlers. Really having five specialist bowlers is overkill, and even having bowling all rounders as the fifth option with bowling attacks of this quality is almost overkill. I mean how many overs is Imran likely to bowl most times? Eight? Twelve? Fifteen on an absolute road? Most of the time one would imagine the captain using McGrath for eight overs straight at end A, Marshall for four overs at end B, Imran for eight overs at end B and then Marshall for eight overs at end A, bringing in the spinners first when Imran finishes his spell and then when Marshall finishes his second. The only time the quicks would get another bowl is if the pitch was like the WACA of old - offering nothing to the spinners or the new ball was needed. With bowlers of this callibre I cannot imagine many new balls being needed. The third new ball would probably never need to be taken, except on the most dire of roads.

With five quicks you lose a lot of the flexibility that having the spinners there gives you. You can't really have a quick bowling for 25 overs in an innings on a regular basis or they would break down. So you have to use your five quicks and one medium pace part timer to fill out the whole 90 overs between new balls. If the pitch was flat and the second new ball is needed your quicks will end up all doing 20+ overs. It would be devestatingly bad to have five quicks in a test like the second tied test (40+ degree heat and high humidity).

 

[Precambrian]

Democracy ftw.

Australocracy.

When the highest wickettaker in the world struggles to find a place in there, one can understand.

 

[Precambrian]

I don't believe in isolating bits and pieces of a player's career or isolating particular batting positions to justify his superiority/inferiority. He did play international cricket, didn't he, even when "broken"? Well then that period needs to be taken into account. Otherwise, where does it end? The slipperly slope will result in Gillespie being declared a better batsman than Kallis - he did score a double hundred in that ONE innings. And to be fair, Imran also went through periods of injury and loss of form.

Incidentally, Botham's peak was 1977 - 1981. After that he played test cricket for another ELEVEN YEARS from 1981 to 1992. During this period his average was 36+, SR was 66+, and ER was 3.26. Do you really want me to not consider the majority of his career, then?

Let's compare their bowling peaks, of roughly 40 games (note that Imran's peak is longer - in terms of time period, not games - and absurdly more successful):

Botham:

[FONT="Arial"]
unfiltered 1977-1992 102  168 383 8/34 13/106 28.40 2.99 56.9 27 4 
filtered     1977-1981 41    71  202 8/34 13/106 21.20 2.64 48.0 17 4 [/FONT]

Imran:

[FONT="Arial"]
unfiltered 1971-1992  88 142 362 8/58 14/116 22.81 2.54 53.7 23 6 
filtered     1979-1986  38 63  189 8/58 14/116 16.04 2.24 42.8 14 3  [/FONT]

Superb post. So true.

 

[Precambrian]

Man for man let's see:

Greenidge < Gavaskar
Sehwag <Hayden
Ponting = Richards
Chappell >SRT
Kallis > BCL (as pure players, not as batsmen)
Flower = Gilchrist
Botham < Imran
Akram < Hadlee
Lillee <Marshall
Ambrose =Warne
McGrath >Murali


The Team with Imran and co noticebly better imo esp with that bowling attack.

SRT ?< Chappell?
Ambrose = Warne?

Facepalm

 

[Slifer]

I dont see whats so funny. is Shane Warne a better or more effective bowler than Ambrose? And contrary to most persons on this board i think very highly of the great Greg Chappell

 

[stephen]

I dont see whats so funny. is Shane Warne a better or more effective bowler than Ambrose? And contrary to most persons on this board i think very highly of the great Greg Chappell

Shane Warne is more valuable than Ambrose because he can succeed where quick bowlers fail. Chappell was a great. I wouldn't necessarily place him as better than Tendulkar though. On a par or just marginally below.

 

[Slifer]

Im waiting for evidence of where shane warne succeeded where a bowler of Ambrose's calibre failed. And i would like u to give me a logical reason to place SRT above G Chappell

 

[stephen]

Im waiting for evidence of where shane warne succeeded where a bowler of Ambrose's calibre failed. And i would like u to give me a logical reason to place SRT above G Chappell

I've done better - I've highlighted games where Warne has outbowled Ambrose himself. To find games where he's outbowled McGrath (who was better than Ambrose) would be easier.

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63591.html

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63683.html

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63730.html

Also, as to the SRT vs Chappell question - Tendulkar was picked younger, played longer, made more runs and had a higher average.

 

[Evermind]

Not sure how even the most glorified stats monger comes to that conclusion. In 1977 he played 2 Test Matches with minimal success. In 1982 he averaged nearly 50 with bat including 3 centuries and also had a fair degree of success with the ball, especially during the English summer.

1) In 1977 he debuted playing The Ashes in England. In 2 games he took 2 five-wicket hauls, and his series bowling average was 20.20. SR was 43.8. If that is "minimal success" for you, I'd love to know your definition of "great success".

2) I compared bowling stats, as my original post says. I could compare batting stats too, in which Imran also comes out superior. I leave it to you as homework.

3) I took the best contiguous period in Botham's career to compare. If you wanna include 1982, I'll have to include the series against India (AVG 38.8, SR 84.8 {that's like Sobers's quality bowling }), return series against India (AVG 35.5, SR 62.3) and the next Ashes in which he took wickets at an abysmal average of 40.5 and struck at 71.2. Botham's peak ends up a lot worse if we include 1982.

Imran >>>>> Botham. Let's move on.

 

[Slifer]

Ambrose has a better average, strike rate, and ER than Warne. The teams against whom warne had success (England, RSA, etc.) are the same teams Ambrose succeeded against. And what clinches for me is Ambrose's outstanding record against the best team of his time (Australia) Warne didnt enjoy near that type of success against the best team (batting team) outside of his own, India.

 

[stephen]

Ambrose has a better average, strike rate, and ER than Warne. The teams against whom warne had success (England, RSA, etc.) are the same teams Ambrose succeeded against. And what clinches for me is Ambrose's outstanding record against the best team of his time (Australia) Warne didnt enjoy near that type of success against the best team (batting team) outside of his own, India.

Warne's struggles against India are well publicised.

What matters is team balance. A team with five seamers is not balanced. Given the choice of Ambrose or Warne any captain who is any good would have picked Warne, given the other seamers on offer.

There's a reason Warne made the number one side and Ambrose didn't.

And I rate Ambrose very highly indeed.

 

[Evermind]

I actually think the first side has a miles better pace attack. Saying "if Imran, Hadlee and Marshall can't take wickets, another fast bowler won't" is just a fallacy. Everyone bowls well on different days, and five top-class quicks are 66% more likely to have a player in unstoppable form than three. On the other hand, slow pitches could prove their undoing, but they have Akram in the team for when the ball gets older to offset that to an extent.

That's a strawman though. If you have Imran, Hadlee and Marshall, sure, having Ambrose in the team will still be effective, but it won't be as effective as having Warne in the team. To me, that is obvious given the pitch conditions, age of ball, batsman's ability to readjust to pace, necessity to force the pace, weather, etc. It has been proven time and again when McGrath has been ineffective and Warne has taken a load of wickets. Variety is always better than more-of-the-same if they're both of the same quality - it works in cricket like it works in real life.

Let's say you have 1) Claudia Schiffer, 2) Cindy Crawford and 2) Cloning technology.

You are living with 3 Claudias, havin' a good time, livin' the good life. One day, you decide you need one more. But then Cindy Crawford comes along. What do you do, clone Claudia again - you already get the same conversations and same moves in bed with the other 3 (not that you're complaining) - or get Cindy to join the 3 Claudias you already have? The choice is clear, mon ami.

 

[stephen]

Those two are getting on in age now.

How about some younger guns like Miranda Kerr or Megan Fox.

 

[Slifer]

I've done better - I've highlighted games where Warne has outbowled Ambrose himself. To find games where he's outbowled McGrath (who was better than Ambrose) would be easier.

Cricinfo - 2nd Test: Australia v West Indies at Melbourne, Dec 26-30, 1992

Cricinfo - 4th Test: West Indies v Australia at Kingston, Apr 29-May 3, 1995

Cricinfo - 2nd Test: Australia v West Indies at Sydney, Nov 29-Dec 3, 1996

Also, as to the SRT vs Chappell question - Tendulkar was picked younger, played longer, made more runs and had a higher average.

U do realise that in the first link u highlighted Ambrose won man of the series in that series right? U do realise in the last two tests of that series Ambrose took 20 wkts. If i really wanted to i dont think it wood be too hard to find games where he outbowled Warne but i wont.

Just because SRT was picked younger and played longer makes no difference to me. Chappell is one of the few batsmen who has a completely flawless record. His lowest average in ne country is 40 against England and his lowest average against ne team is 40 in England.

SRT sorry to say doesnt have near as flawless a record.

 

[Evermind]

Those two are getting on in age now.

How about some younger guns like Miranda Kerr or Megan Fox.

OOoh nice.

Substitute as necessary. I was trying to think of names from what I guessed to be Uppercut's generation.

 

[Slifer]

Warne's struggles against India are well publicised.

What matters is team balance. A team with five seamers is not balanced. Given the choice of Ambrose or Warne any captain who is any good would have picked Warne, given the other seamers on offer.

There's a reason Warne made the number one side and Ambrose didn't.

And I rate Ambrose very highly indeed.

I just realised sumthin. U never actually said thatWarne was a better bowler than Ambrose, u said he was more valuable to the team (due to the variety that a spinner offers) in which case i agree; humbliest apologies. Still though G Chappell> SRT and by > i mean Greg Chappell was a better overall batsman than Tendulkar.

 

[0RI0N]

I just realised sumthin. U never actually said thatWarne was a better bowler than Ambrose, u said he was more valuable to the team (due to the variety that a spinner offers) in which case i agree; humbliest apologies. Still though G Chappell> SRT and by > i mean Greg Chappell was a better overall batsman than Tendulkar.

warne v ambrose not a good comparison.ambrose vs mcgrath is a better comparison.i'd have liked ambrose in 1st XI.But i'll be very happy when mcgrath doesnt make XI.
Ambrose just a better bowler than mcgrath. Yes i typed it.so what.

 

[Slifer]

Mcgrath and Ambrose is a close thing and all but Mcgrath edges it for me due to his superior worldwide success and his successes in generally less bowler friendly conditions.

 

[Evermind]

Ambrose just a better bowler than mcgrath. Yes i typed it.so what.