Who would be your top 10 greatest Asian cricketers?

[Faisal1985]

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.

I would worry about the batting more if we are playing on and English, SA, NZ or Aussie track to be honest.

I don't know the exact numbers but i would speculate that generally Asian batsmen would struggle on a moving track.

How was Fazal's batting?

 

[smash84]

I would worry about the batting more if we are playing on and English, SA, NZ or Aussie track to be honest.

I don't know the exact numbers but i would speculate that generally Asian batsmen would struggle on a moving track.

How was Fazal's batting?

I think he was supposed to be a genuine tail-ender of the old school. Which means his batting must have been ****.

 

[bagapath]

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.

for a draw you dont have to take 20 wickets... in fact, you dont have to take a single wicket...

 

[smash84]

for a draw you dont have to take 20 wickets... in fact, you dont have to take a single wicket...

true. but in order to finish a match u need to get 20 wickets.

 

[vcs]

true. but in order to finish a match u need to get 20 wickets.

Not necessarily.

2nd Test: Australia v England at Adelaide, Dec 1-5, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

 

[smash84]

Not necessarily.

2nd Test: Australia v England at Adelaide, Dec 1-5, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Australia did take 20 English wickets didn't they???

 

[Faisal1985]

for a draw you dont have to take 20 wickets... in fact, you dont have to take a single wicket...

That's precisely why bowling is so important....

 

[vcs]

Australia did take 20 English wickets didn't they???

No, England declared at 551/6 in the first innings. This one is another example.

1st Test: India v England at Chennai, Dec 11-15, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

 

[smash84]

(not counting a declared innings here of course.....after all it is a simplistic analysis).[/B]
[/B]
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.

No, England declared at 551/6 in the first innings. This one is another example.

1st Test: India v England at Chennai, Dec 11-15, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

VCS if you read one of my previous posts in this thread (which I am copying above) please read the part in bold. I had mentioned previously that I am not taking into account declarations.

 

[vcs]

I understand your point across. I was trying to be annoyingly pedantic.

 

[smash84]

I understand your point across. I was trying to be annoyingly pedantic.

lol.......u aren't a fraction as effective at it as some of the other blokes on the forum.

 

[bagapath]

That's precisely why bowling is so important....

Only as important as scoring one run more than the opponent. You can't win if you score less than the other team even if you bowl them out twice. That is the game. No point in excelling in one discipline and failing in the other.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...he-key-to-the-ashes-thats-tripe-2128809.html?

"The most important thing is that we get big runs because we're going to play on five fantastic wickets, or four anyway, and one we don't know about. If we don't get big runs we could have Shane Warne, Malcolm Marshall and Glenn McGrath bowling for us and we won't win. It's a tired old cliché but if we don't perform well as a team then we haven't got a prayer."

He is right, of course. If England do not score sufficient runs – and that means regular totals above 400 – Swann will not have anything to aim at. It was the same when Warne was strutting his stuff for Australia for 15 years. Generally he was able to do so because there was a mountain of runs in the other column which imposed additional stress on batsmen who could not simply survive.

 

[biased indian]

Gavasakar
Sachin
Miandad
Imran
Wasim
Kumble
Kapil
Aravinda De silva
Murali
Saqlain

 

[smash84]

Gavasakar
Sachin
Miandad
Imran
Wasim
Kumble
Kapil
Aravinda De silva
Murali
Saqlain

what is this list about?

 

[smash84]

Only as important as scoring one run more than the opponent. You can't win if you score less than the other team even if you bowl them out twice. That is the game. No point in excelling in one discipline and failing in the other.

Swann: 'I've read i'm the key to the Ashes. That's tripe' - Cricket, Sport - The Independent

"The most important thing is that we get big runs because we're going to play on five fantastic wickets, or four anyway, and one we don't know about. If we don't get big runs we could have Shane Warne, Malcolm Marshall and Glenn McGrath bowling for us and we won't win. It's a tired old cliché but if we don't perform well as a team then we haven't got a prayer."

He is right, of course. If England do not score sufficient runs – and that means regular totals above 400 – Swann will not have anything to aim at. It was the same when Warne was strutting his stuff for Australia for 15 years. Generally he was able to do so because there was a mountain of runs in the other column which imposed additional stress on batsmen who could not simply survive.

Well nobody ever said that batsmen were never important. They obviously are but I guess some would attach more importance to bowlers like McGrath, warne or Marshall and some to top class batsmen like Ponting, Lara, or Tendulkar.

 

[biased indian]

what is this list about?

what is the thread name ? i included saqlaing becuase of the impact he had on the game with his variations

 

[biased indian]

Well nobody ever said that batsmen were never important. They obviously are but I guess some would attach more importance to bowlers like McGrath, warne or Marshall and some to top class batsmen like Ponting, Lara, or Tendulkar.

if you don't have good batsmen the best you can do with good set of bowlers is to tie a test ...

 

[smash84]

if you don't have good batsmen the best you can do with good set of bowlers is to tie a test ...

and without good bowlers the best that you can do is draw a test. I think a tie seems to be a better result than a draw,

 

[smash84]

what is the thread name ? i included saqlaing becuase of the impact he had on the game with his variations

Saqlain And Kumble in an All time Asian XI? Is this an ODI XI?

 

[biased indian]

Saqlain And Kumble in an All time Asian XI? Is this an ODI XI?

This thread is about 10 players...... when did it became a test or ODI X! ????