Who would be your top 10 greatest Asian cricketers?

[smash84]

it means one cant really say a bowler is more important to winning matches. you need runs to defend. as skills both are equally important to a team's success. for example, indian bowlers were fantastic in the 2002 series to new zealand but the batters didnt put enough runs on the board and we lost the series. saying a bowler is more important than a batsman is too simplistic and silly.

Not really.....the way the game has been made you need 20 wickets to win the match. Theoretically you may not score at all and keep blocking all the deliveries and still not lose a match. You need 20 wickets to close the match. And those will come from the bowlers. It is simplistic obviously but it does make sense I think.

 

[smash84]

his numbers are good enough to be in an all time asian xi. he wont make it to the world xi though.

That is what I am trying to say. His ODI numbers are not that good. On purely bowling reasons Shoaib Akhtar and Saqlain >> Imran in ODIs.

 

[bagapath]

Not really.....the way the game has been made you need 20 wickets to win the match. Theoretically you may not score at all and keep blocking all the deliveries and still not lose a match. You need 20 wickets to close the match. And those will come from the bowlers. It is simplistic obviously but it does make sense I think.

i can always say you have to score one run more than the opponent to win a game and hence batting is more valuable. but i wont. because the game is made up of both these skills. there is no cricket otherwise. if you dont buy it, it is better to agree to disagree and leave this. but please for ****s sake dont say that bowlers are lesser in number so they are more important. i know migara - and not you - made that point. still it is better to kill any support for that sort of silliness even before it is conceived.

 

[Migara]

no migara. may be i am not as smart as you. but i still cant understand why bowlers are greater than batsmen just because they are lesser in number. there are only two umpires in the middle compared to 13 players. are they more important to the game than the players themselves?

Still crossing the spinal cord. Umpires are not players and FFS they play for both sides!!

let me take a shot at this and see if you get this. there are only 20 wickets to take in a match which 4 or 5 bowlers in your team should be able to do; whereas you are expected to score as many runs as possible (at least one more than the opponent) which is why all 11 players are expected to bat. in other words, the game is set up in such a way that there will be 6 or 7 batters in a team who need to pile on the runs but only 4 or a maximum of 5 players are expected to bowl. this has got nothing to do with bowlers being rare to find in comparison with batsmen. this is how the game is designed. similarly you need only one wicket keeper because that is what the game demands. even if you have 10 good wicket keepers in your country 9 of them will have to sit at home.

Pu it like this. Losing a batsman < losing a bowler < losing the wicket keeper.

calling murali a better test cricketer than sachin is legit. saying he is a match winning bowler is also legit. but it is stupid to claim that he is a bowler and so he should be ranked above. if you believe in that theory then
billy bowden > paul adams > dhoni > murali > bradman

Still hell no, because you are not even close to the point. Paul Adams is a spinner, and we compare spinners regardless of their style. So are batsmen. But you always find lesser number of legendary bowlers than legendary batsman.

for a team to succeed a bowler = a batsman

7 batsmen and 4 bowlers.

 

[bagapath]

Still crossing the spinal cord. Umpires are not players and FFS they play for both sides!!

taking a dig, and your own opinion, too seriously. will let it pass.

Pu it like this. Losing a batsman < losing a bowler < losing the wicket keeper.

dont be silly. india reached the 2003 WC final with a makeshift WK. and we had an extra batsman in his place. what are you smoking dude!!!

7 batsmen and 4 bowlers.

it is 20 wickets versus infinite number of runs.

 

[smash84]

i can always say you have to score one run more than the opponent to win a game and hence batting is more valuable. but i wont. because the game is made up of both these skills. there is no cricket otherwise. if you dont buy it, it is better to agree to disagree and leave this. but please for ****s sake dont say that bowlers are lesser in number so they are more important. i know migara - and not you - made that point. still it is better to kill any support for that sort of silliness even before it is conceived.

You have to score one run more to win the match but you can't really do that unless you have taken 20 wickets of the opposition (not counting a declared innings here of course.....after all it is a simplistic analysis).

I would agree with you on the scarcity of bowlers in the team argument but I don't quite agree that bowler = batsmen. That is way too simplistic even for my simple tastes. IMO bowling is a much tougher art and hence more difficult to find quality bowlers.

 

[Migara]

bowlin = batting = wicket keeping in test cricket. But wicket keeper > bowler > batsman when it comes to importance per head in the team.

 

[smash84]

bowlin = batting = wicket keeping in test cricket. But wicket keeper > bowler > batsman when it comes to importance per head in the team.

what do you mean by importance per head?

 

[Migara]

There are 7 guys to build a total, 4 guys to take 20wickets, one guy to keep and 10 guys to field. The keeper has to always do it alond. Bowlers have a pack of four, so each one has to take 25% of wickets. There are 7 batsmen, so each needs only to contribute 15% of the total.

That is per head importance.

 

[smash84]

There are 7 guys to build a total, 4 guys to take 20wickets, one guy to keep and 10 guys to field. The keeper has to always do it alond. Bowlers have a pack of four, so each one has to take 25% of wickets. There are 7 batsmen, so each needs only to contribute 15% of the total.

That is per head importance.

Yes but his work is cut out for him and in most cases is quite straight forward. Probably the least amount of skill needed when compared to batting and bowling. Hence I wouldn't say it is that important.

 

[bagapath]

There are 7 guys to build a total, 4 guys to take 20wickets, one guy to keep and 10 guys to field. The keeper has to always do it alond. Bowlers have a pack of four, so each one has to take 25% of wickets. There are 7 batsmen, so each needs only to contribute 15% of the total.

this is getting funnier by the minute!

That is per head importance.

enjoy the trip migara. will look forward to a 500 page book on this theory.

 

[Cricketismylife]

For tests

1) Imran Khan (one of the top 3 allrounders ever with Sobers and Kallis)
2) Murali (probably the greatest bowler in history, made a weak team competetive)
3) Sachin (look at all those runs)
4) Wasim (top class bowler who made plenty of contributions with the bat)
5) Dravid (India's Mr Reliable for over a decade both home and away)
6) Sangakkara (superb batsman who kept well in 48 tests)
7) Inzamam (Match winning batsman, scored deciding runs when needed)
8) Kapil Dev (wholehearted bowler who never gave up, plus full of useful cameos)
9) Waqar (Completely devastating bowler, who could be higher in the list, but whose peak didn't last as long as the others)
10) Sehwag (Consistent and destructive batsman, offers a dimension no one else possesses)

Wasim would be closer to Waqar but his batting was more than useful. Javed unlucky not to make the list, Inzamam's performance in matches Pak won kept him there. Jayawardene and Kumble unlucky as well. Expect Sangakkara and Sehwag to move up the list by the time they finish.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Forgot Gavaskar lol....Javed and him could slot in there somewhere, but it's very difficult to compare between eras...although I do realise it's very questionable to have the likes of Sehwag, Inzamam and Dravid ahead of Gavaskar.

 

[smash84]

Forgot Gavaskar lol....Javed and him could slot in there somewhere, but it's very difficult to compare between eras...although I do realise it's very questionable to have the likes of Sehwag, Inzamam and Dravid ahead of Gavaskar.

I agree. Gavaskar is one of the best openers of all time.

 

[Faisal1985]

i can always say you have to score one run more than the opponent to win a game and hence batting is more valuable. but i wont. because the game is made up of both these skills. there is no cricket otherwise. if you dont buy it, it is better to agree to disagree and leave this. but please for ****s sake dont say that bowlers are lesser in number so they are more important. i know migara - and not you - made that point. still it is better to kill any support for that sort of silliness even before it is conceived.

Not for tests...you can always draw a game and score less then the opponent. Sometimes its as good as a win because of the situation of the game, if the opponent really dominates for 4 days and you bat out the 5th you have pretty much won in that you drew the game instead of losing it.

For me, the deciding factor is always which team is more capable of taking 20 wickets.

 

[Faisal1985]

here is an Asian XI that will be difficult to beat...

Sunil Gavaskar
Virender Sehwag
Rahul Dravid
Sachin Tendulkar
Javed Miandad
Kumar Sangakara (WK)
Imran Khan (C)
Kapil Dev
Wasim Akram
Muralitharan
Waqar Younis

Thats a gun team...especially the bowling.

 

[smash84]

Thats a gun team...especially the bowling.

The batting looks quite solid. How about having Shoaib in the team. That will give the bowling a lot of firepower or maybe Fazal Mahmood? Both should edge out Kapil in the bowling department I think. However Kapil brings a lot of depth into the batting.

 

[Maximus0723]

The batting looks quite solid. How about having Shoaib in the team. That will give the bowling a lot of firepower or maybe Fazal Mahmood? Both should edge out Kapil in the bowling department I think. However Kapil brings a lot of depth into the batting.

IMO, that's not a bad idea.

 

[Faisal1985]

The batting looks quite solid. How about having Shoaib in the team. That will give the bowling a lot of firepower or maybe Fazal Mahmood? Both should edge out Kapil in the bowling department I think. However Kapil brings a lot of depth into the batting.

That would be tough decision because of Kapil's batting for sure. But depends on the track they are playing on. In subcontinent i would bring in Akhtar to replace Kapil on a moving track i would stick to Kapil for depth in the batting department.

However, interesting that he is still playing 3 bowling all rounders there...

 

[smash84]

That would be tough decision because of Kapil's batting for sure. But depends on the track they are playing on. In subcontinent i would bring in Akhtar to replace Kapil on a moving track i would stick to Kapil for depth in the batting department.

However, interesting that he is still playing 3 bowling all rounders there...

On a moving track Fazal could wreak havoc on other batting line-ups too. Batting till number 7 is decent while Wasim can hit a few lusty blows at times.