CW All-Time XI Middle Order

[Prince EWS]

I would go in with all fast bowlers, so I don't know if it's 'obvious'.

Haha okay; include both spinners in the poll combinations then.

I definitely can't see someone here picking less than two openers, three middle order batsmen, a wicket keeper and two fast bowlers though.

 

[watson]

You could say that exact same thing the other way around though. Why do you Grimmett at third change when your first four bowlers can blast them out for nothing? Why do you need Tallon's keeping when there'll be a chance a minute?

Never mind that a lower order that gets your side from 400 to 600 is going to be far more useful than an amazing 5th bowler who's twiddling his thumbs at fine leg.

Or, maybe selection based around assuming you're bound to do perfectly isn't the best idea.

We can assume that 4 great fast bowlers would knock over the top order of the opposition. But if Bradman's bowlers came up against Gavaskar and Hobbs then they MIGHT NOT. If you look at Gavaskar's scores against the West Indies he made plenty of crap scores. However, his long term average was good against them because he would sometimes get a century or even double century in quick order. So, if Gavaskar or Hobbs 'take off' then Bradman will need Grimmett to get them out, not be 'twiddling his thumbs at fine leg'.

 

[Prince EWS]

We can assume that 4 great fast bowlers would knock over the top order of the opposition. But if Bradman's bowlers came up against Gavaskar and Hobbs then they MIGHT NOT. If you look at Gavaskar's scores against the West Indies he made plenty of crap scores. However, his long term average was good against them because he would sometimes get a century or even double century in quick order. So, if Gavaskar or Hobbs 'take off' then Bradman will need Grimmett to get them out, not be 'twiddling his thumbs at fine leg'.

Quite.

You can say the same thing about the assumption that the team would be 300/4 though. If they had to come up against an all-time great bowling unit they may not be, so in the end it's just like any other cricket side - you have to pick a balanced team, which was Howe's point. A tail that starts at six isn't balanced in anyone's language.

 

[Jager]

no, he has 5 batsmen, 5 bowlers (bit of a pinch to call Lindwall an all-rounder) and a keeper with a Test average of 17 batting at 6.

I obviously failed to imply that Bradman is worth two batsmen

 

[zaremba]

Sorry, that was me being dim. And yes he was worth two batsmen, but he's managed to throw that advantage away completely by the selection of the rest of the team. Specifically, he's traded that advantage for the pointless luxury of a sixth bowler, alongside a keeper who was no great shakes with the bat.

If we regard Bradman's team as the 1st XI, I reckon we could come up with a 2nd XI that was stronger.

Off the top of my head:

Hutton
Gavaskar
Viv Richards
Hammond
Lara
Gilchrist
Imran
Hadlee
Warne
Marshall
Murali

And there's a huge scope for changing the balance of the team and the personnel.

 

[zaremba]

In fact with Hammond in there I've maybe fallen into the same trap as the Don. You could easily drop one of the bowlers and make room for another middle order batsman.

Hutton
Gavaskar
Viv Richards
Headley
Hammond
Lara
Gilchrist
Imran
Hadlee
Warne
Marshall

A significantly stronger batting line up than the Don's, even including the Don. And the bowling is still comparable I'd say.

 

[marc71178]

However, his long term average was good against them because he would sometimes get a century or even double century in quick order.

Yes, he did get runs at times against them. Coincidentally he got almost all of those runs when the Windies attack was clearly not the legendary 4-prong quick attack.

 

[kyear2]

Most of his runs came againts the W.I either before the four pronged attack, on one occasion, againts a ttack comprising three spinners, or during WSC when the primary attack was away.

 

[watson]

Quite.

You can say the same thing about the assumption that the team would be 300/4 though. If they had to come up against an all-time great bowling unit they may not be, so in the end it's just like any other cricket side - you have to pick a balanced team, which was Howe's point. A tail that starts at six isn't balanced in anyone's language.

True, which is why Bradman's choice of Don Tallon batting at number 6 is probably not a good a idea. Maybe.

However, if Gilchrist is batting at 6 and is then followed by 2 allrounders who average 30+ with the bat then the team does not really have a long tail. Gilchrist did score regular centuries (eg against Akram and Wasim in Hobart). Imran and Hadlee both scored centuries against the best West Indian pace attacks.

In 2005 Flintoff batted at No.6 against Australia. He was an effective hitter but you would never call him a class batsmen. Yet somehow he managed to survive against Warne and then be a frontline bowler. I doubt very much whether Engalnd could have won the series without playing 5 top notch bowlers. In the end, the variety and options they offered Michael Vaughan were simply too much for the Aussie top order.

But yes you're right, as a general principle having a 'batting allrounder' at No.6 followed by the keeper at No.7 is the most 'balanced side'. However, that 2005 England side was pretty dynamic due to the risk taken at fourth drop. And hugely entertaining!

 

[smash84]

Most of his runs came againts the W.I either before the four pronged attack, on one occasion, againts a ttack comprising three spinners, or during WSC when the primary attack was away.

Incidentally this criticism never seems to crop up against Botham's "peak".

Botham did **** against the WI and most of his "peak" coincided with the best players playing the WSC

 

[watson]

Most of his runs came againts the W.I either before the four pronged attack, on one occasion, againts a ttack comprising three spinners, or during WSC when the primary attack was away.

There seems to be some truth in this.

Gavaskar's batting average after 28 innings against the West Indies when their bowlers were really ****ty between 1971 and 1979 was 83.50. (HS = 220 and 100s = 10)

On the other hand, when the West Indies were at their peak between 1980 and1987 his batting average over 20 innings was a mere 41.38 (HS = 236 and 100s = 3)

Mind you, I think that any captain would be happy with one of his openers attaining an average of 41 runs against Holding et al.

Incidently, that highest score of 236 was made against Holding, Roberts, Marshall, and Davis in 1983.

 

[The Sean]

Incidentally this criticism never seems to crop up against Botham's "peak".

Botham did **** against the WI and most of his "peak" coincided with the best players playing the WSC

It crops up all the time TBH.

 

[vic_orthdox]

There seems to be some truth in this.

Gavaskar's batting average after 28 innings against the West Indies when their bowlers were really ****ty between 1971 and 1979 was 83.50. (HS = 220 and 100s = 10)

On the other hand, when the West Indies were at their peak between 1980 and1987 his batting average over 20 innings was a mere 41.38 (HS = 236 and 100s = 3)

Mind you, I think that any captain would be happy with one of his openers attaining an average of 41 runs against Holding et al.

Incidently, that highest score of 236 was made against Holding, Roberts, Marshall, and Davis in 1983.

Yup, be interesting to see how many players averaged 40 over 15+ innings against the Windies in the same period. Doubt there'd be that many.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yup, be interesting to see how many players averaged 40 over 15+ innings against the Windies in the same period. Doubt there'd be that many.

5. Border and Vengsarkar comfortably with the best record.

But if you look at openers, only Gooch and Boycott managed it (and only just). Sunny averaged 28 when he opened in these cases, he scored most of his runs against the 80s Windies from the middle order.

(disclaimer: mere point of interest, samplesizelol, etc)

 

[smash84]

There seems to be some truth in this.

Gavaskar's batting average after 28 innings against the West Indies when their bowlers were really ****ty between 1971 and 1979 was 83.50. (HS = 220 and 100s = 10)

On the other hand, when the West Indies were at their peak between 1980 and1987 his batting average over 20 innings was a mere 41.38 (HS = 236 and 100s = 3)

Mind you, I think that any captain would be happy with one of his openers attaining an average of 41 runs against Holding et al.

Incidently, that highest score of 236 was made against Holding, Roberts, Marshall, and Davis in 1983.

Pretty good record that

It crops up all the time TBH.

Not that his peak coincided with the best players playing WSC

That he was **** against the WI does get thrown around

 

[Cevno]

Mohinder Amarnath has the best record easily against Marshall, Garner, Roberts and Holding toghether IIRC.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Viv Richards didn't have to face the WI bowlers, FTR.

 

[smash84]

Viv Richards didn't have to face the WI bowlers, FTR.

valid criticism as far as CW goes

 

[ankitj]

Mohinder Amarnath has the best record easily against Marshall, Garner, Roberts and Holding toghether IIRC.

They together played just a handful of games. Single digit I am guessing.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, it's all well and good pointing out holes in Gavaskar's record against the WI bowlers when there was a celebrated contemporary of his who didn't have to face them at all. Logic dictates that a higher standard of bowling attack will in all likelihood lower your batting average. It's just what's naturally expected. It isn't the huge revelation people constantly make it out to be.