West Indies vs Australia

[smash84]

I feel Ikki that you are limiting your level of analysis to a single match. What if a series is to be saved. Happened twice with Pakistan and WI in the 1980s. Both teams could have lost a series if one guy for Pakistan (Imran) and another for WI (Benjamin) had not stuck in at the crease. The series would have been lost. So context is very important. Playing out the overs is important in some cases and scoring quickly and getting out quickly would have been detrimental to both teams chances of saving the series.

 

[abmk]

I had already used the 90s stats as well. IIRC the difference went from 7 to 3-4. But, really, you've used every possibly quantifier (some even unfairly) and yet the difference remains. To go back to the original discussion; I think Hayden is better - slightly - but enough so. I objected to the inference that Greenidge had it so tough and Hayden easy.

There is enough of evidence to put greenidge over haydos, IMO , though not by a great margin ...

 

[abmk]

I feel Ikki that you are limiting your level of analysis to a single match. What if a series is to be saved. Happened twice with Pakistan and WI in the 1980s. Both teams could have lost a series if one guy for Pakistan (Imran) and another for WI (Benjamin) had not stuck in at the crease. The series would have been lost. So context is very important. Playing out the overs is important in some cases and scoring quickly and getting out quickly would have been detrimental to both teams chances of saving the series.

yeah, Ikki is just too obsessed with the stats ....That is the same reply I'd give to the rest of Ikki's previous post as well !

 

[Furball]

2000s ODI team
1. Matthew Hayden
2. Adam Gilchrist+
3. Ricky Ponting (c)
4. Shane Watson
5. Andrew Symonds
6. Michael Hussey
7. Michael Bevan
8. Shane Warne
9. Brett Lee
10. Nathan Bracken
11. Glenn McGrath

Take Watson out and put Clarke in.

 

[Ikki]

I feel Ikki that you are limiting your level of analysis to a single match. What if a series is to be saved. Happened twice with Pakistan and WI in the 1980s. Both teams could have lost a series if one guy for Pakistan (Imran) and another for WI (Benjamin) had not stuck in at the crease. The series would have been lost. So context is very important. Playing out the overs is important in some cases and scoring quickly and getting out quickly would have been detrimental to both teams chances of saving the series.

It's still the same. If your intention is to draw a match to win/save a series then yes, you may want to bat at a snails pace to deny the opposition a result. But you can also do that by trying to win. But if in a game situation you want to win, then you'll want to maximise your chances of doing so.

 

[smash84]

It's still the same. If your intention is to draw a match to win/save a series then yes, you may want to bat at a snails pace to deny the opposition a result. But you can also do that by trying to win. But if in a game situation you want to win, then you'll want to maximise your chances of doing so.

Yes it can be done by trying to win but going for the win requires a positive and attacking attitude. It is a high risk high return strategy.

So when you do admit that it can be done by batting at snail's pace then 30 off 25 balls is not better than 25 off 80. So an attacking approach is not necessarily good in all situations.

 

[Ikki]

Yes it can be done by trying to win but going for the win requires a positive and attacking attitude. It is a high risk high return strategy.

Again, that's a fallacy. We are talking about like batsmen except one that scores much faster than another. There is no risk of scoring less runs because the whole point is that they score the same amount. If you are going for the win it will increase your chances to have a batsman that scores the same amount as another batsman but faster.

It's not like you have Mohammad Yousuf and the other choice is Shahid Afridi. Imagine if Shahid Afridi had the same exact average as Yousuf but still scored highly. If they are both going to be dismissed for the same score anyway it is better to get there faster if you are going for the win.

So when you do admit that it can be done by batting at snail's pace then 30 off 25 balls is not better than 25 off 80. So an attacking approach is not necessarily good in all situations.

Only in a draw do you not want to score faster - and even scoring runs itself may be irrelevant.

 

[smash84]

yes but a team is NOT going for the win every time. That is the whole point. Hence scoring faster is not ALWAYS a better option

 

[archie mac]

Oh, I see; nasty. Thanks for that; I wasn't aware of this.

Just out of pure interest,

a. Was this true of all the great WI teams of that era (Sobers,Llloyd and Viv) or just the WI team that defeated Australia in Australia for the first time?

b. Do you think that the history of colonialism was the reason why the behaviour of the West Indians in Australia was so very different from that in India? Or was it just that India did not offer much of a challenge to that great team?

Was not the teams from the early days. I have the impression it was from the 80s onwards. I would think it was different because the Aussies are pricks to play as a rule unlike the Indians of that time, but then again not so sure about now

I don't really see why Gilchrist gets voted ahead of S Waugh for test matches

His average was over 50 for a lot of his career and the way he scored his runs could change a game very quickly. It was a close call tbh

 

[abmk]

Oh, I see; nasty. Thanks for that; I wasn't aware of this.

Just out of pure interest,

a. Was this true of all the great WI teams of that era (Sobers,Llloyd and Viv) or just the WI team that defeated Australia in Australia for the first time?

b. Do you think that the history of colonialism was the reason why the behaviour of the West Indians in Australia was so very different from that in India? Or was it just that India did not offer much of a challenge to that great team?

Would think it was from Lloyd onwards. For one, the great series in 61 in Aus was played in great spirit. After that, the future test series b/w them was called the Frank Worrell trophy

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Take Watson out and put Clarke in.

No way. That leaves Symonds to bowl 10 overs on his own, which is a potential problem you shouldn't have in a side with so many options, and Watson isn't far behind Clarke as an ODI batsman anyway, if at all.

I'd have this order, with Watson down the order like in the '07 WC.
Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting (c)
Hussey
Symonds
Bevan
Watson
Lee
Warne
Bracken
McGrath

Hell of an ODI team, really hard to imagine anyone beating them.

 

[abmk]

His average was over 50 for a lot of his career and the way he scored his runs could change a game very quickly. It was a close call tbh

you could split his career into 2: pre-Ashes 2005 and after that !

Massive difference: averaged ~56 before that series. , ~ 30 since the start of Ashes 2005

 

[Borges]

Was not the teams from the early days. I have the impression it was from the 80s onwards. I would think it was different because the Aussies are pricks to play as a rule unlike the Indians of that time, but then again not so sure about now

The Indians today (particularly post Sidney 2008) play just like the Australians; the old guard of VVS, Dravid and Tendulkar are the exceptions now.

 

[Spark]

Take Watson out and put Clarke in.

If you're keeping him at #4 then absolutely. If you're putting him at #7, than nah.

Faaip: It depends how much you rate Clarke's bowling, tbh. He was actually quite a good ODI spinner a few years back.

 

[smash84]

No way. That leaves Symonds to bowl 10 overs on his own, which is a potential problem you shouldn't have in a side with so many options, and Watson isn't far behind Clarke as an ODI batsman anyway, if at all.

I'd have this order, with Watson down the order like in the '07 WC.
Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting (c)
Hussey
Symonds
Bevan
Watson
Lee
Warne
Bracken
McGrath

Hell of an ODI team, really hard to imagine anyone beating them.

A bloody awesome team. Tbh Bracken looks like a weak link in this line up

 

[Spark]

A bloody awesome team. Tbh Bracken looks like a weak link in this line up

Trust me, he isn't. Gun ODI bowler. Makes that attack so well balanced too, out-and-out pace with Lee, unerring accuracy with McGrath and a master of variations in Bracken.

I can't help but think Hussey and Bevan in the same team is overkill though.

 

[smash84]

what i meant is that all the other players in the team are gun......so much so that Bracken looks ordinary when compared to them.....not on an absolute level

 

[Spark]

He doesn't.

 

[Mike5181]

Trust me, he isn't. Gun ODI bowler. Makes that attack so well balanced too, out-and-out pace with Lee, unerring accuracy with McGrath and a master of variations in Bracken.

I can't help but think Hussey and Bevan in the same team is overkill though.

You could say that but Hussey's strike rate is like 90 and Bevan is an ATG ODI player.

 

[Mike5181]

A bloody awesome team. Tbh Bracken looks like a weak link in this line up

Bracken is the smartest ODI bowler in the last decade to be honest. He had so many variations etc. People don't rate him because he never had a great test record.