• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Kane Williamson

Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yes because it's not like seamers bowled shed loads more overs which will account for the large disparity between the total number of wickets.
You could also argue that because the spinners were effective, batsmen were more cautious against them.. explaining both the lower economy and the higher SR.

0.4 runs over a T20 game is not an inconsiderable amount itbt. Consider the fact you can win a T20 game having taken 0 wickets but it is impossible to win any game if you concede more runs than your opponents.
 
TumTum

TumTum

Banned
Marcuss said:
Yes because it's not like seamers bowled shed loads more overs which will account for the large disparity between the total number of wickets.
You could also argue that because the spinners were effective, batsmen were more cautious against them.. explaining both the lower economy and the higher SR.

0.4 runs over a T20 game is not an inconsiderable amount itbt. Consider the fact you can win a T20 game having taken 0 wickets but it is impossible to win any game if you concede more runs than your opponents.
Click to expand...
:laugh: I can't believe I am about to start going into this argument.

Mate if the pacers didn't get those wickets at such a healthy average and SR, the spinner's figures would have looked even worse. The fact that the spinners have worse figures already realistically means the pace bowlers did a far better job than their stats show.
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
TumTum said:
:laugh: I can't believe I am about to start going into this argument.

Mate if the pacers didn't get those wickets at such a healthy average and SR, the spinner's figures would have looked even worse. The fact that the spinners have worse figures already realistically means the pace bowlers did a far better job than their stats show.
Click to expand...
Nuh.
 
TumTum

TumTum

Banned
Chewie said:
Pace bowlers bowled at the death when the batsmen hit out and invariably get out slogging.
Click to expand...
Pace bowlers bowled with the new ball and got the top order batsmen out. Any person that has watched T20s knows the top order is the key for getting a decent score.

Nuh.
Click to expand...
Next time you comment, think about how you will defend your argument when making bold statements.
 
C

Chewie

International Vice-Captain
I remember when he tried to convince everyone that Vettori was a crap spinner. He got pwned.
 
C

Chewie

International Vice-Captain
TumTum said:
Pace bowlers bowled with the new ball and got the top order batsmen out. Any person that has watched T20s knows the top order is the key for getting a decent score.
Click to expand...
Spinners also opened (i.e. Nathan McCullum) and did a very good job.

And despite all the discussion before, the question was whether spin will be important in the World T20. I don't think you can deny that the did play an important job in keeping it tight and taking wickets. In T20s, E/R is very important, probably more so than wickets.

If I had time I would go through the scorecards and have a look at whether the pace wickets were top 6 batsmen, or if they were at the death but tbh I can't be bothered wasting my precious time for you.

Here's your discussion with enigma about Vettori and McGrath which you got pwned in:
Are we seeing a revival in quality pace attacks in test cricket? - Page 4 - PlanetCricket Forums
 
TumTum

TumTum

Banned
Chewie said:
Spinners also opened (i.e. Nathan McCullum) and did a very good job.

And spinners also bowled at the death...

And despite all the discussion before, the question was whether spin will be important in the World T20. I don't think you can deny that the did play an important job in keeping it tight and taking wickets. In T20s, E/R is very important, probably more so than wickets.

If you don't take early wickets, the spinners would have not been as economical.

Here's your discussion with enigma about Vettori and McGrath which you got pwned in:
Are we seeing a revival in quality pace attacks in test cricket? - Page 4 - PlanetCricket Forums

I got pwned? :laugh: He was saying McGrath bowled 90-95% short
Click to expand...
imho
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Rightio, enough of the pissing contests. This thread isn't to discuss whether or not people are right or not about another issue on another forum. Ends here, any more mentions can expect ramifications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top