On Miller at 5, it's where he preferred to bat and his average in that spot was 40plus. On Hayden, I'd be curious to know how your rankings work, because I always thought Hayden went missing when the opposition were good, particularly early and late in his career. He also didn't seem really comfortable against high quality pace bowling. I reckon in the end, Langer ended up the better opening batsman out of the two of them.
Well, if we only count the very best top opposition of the day, the adjusted averages end up as:
Interesting there on Taylor and Simpson. I've always loved Taylor a lot. It certainly improves the slip cordon if we use this ranking and then have Greg Chappell in the side!
I don't know where this not taking tail enders seriously stuff originated, with Miller there is always an excuse to explain a shortfall in his stats. With his batting, it's because he didn't take it seriously, his wpm, didn't take tail enders seriously. What is the excuse for his srtike rate? We can only judge players based on what they did, not what they were capable of.
Whats that supposed to mean?? WI made their initial mark in test cricket on the back of two rotating spinners (Valentine/Ramadhin 1950s England). If I were an Australia selector and I had to choose a 5 man bowling attack, then I'd find space for Davidson myself. In a matchup of great fast bowlers and great spinners, inevitably the fast bowlers have the advantage.
The ATG WIs team that was voted for on here includes no spinner. I'd say it's fairly obvious what it's supposed to mean.
The West Indian fast bowling quartet won Test matches because they were all superb bowlers not just because they were a fast bowling quartet. After all, England tried to copy their format in the 1989 series against Australia and got hammered. Ian Chappell remarked at the time that its "quality, not quantity" that matters in a bowling attack and he was completely right.
So if Warne was a West Indian, would you select him in the WI's ATG team?
It may have been that he wanted 4 fast bowlers. Or it may have been that he had no spinners of a comparable skill level to choose from. Considering the bowlers they had, Marshall, Garner, Holding and Roberts, among others, is it that much of a surprise? Say for example, if Australia had McGrath/Lillee/Lindwall/Davidson playing at the same time, would we really be playing a spinner who was of an inferior skill level? I'm sure there would've been occasions when Lloyd would've loved to have a good spinner alongside his quicks.
Of course I understand the need for a spinner who is debating that slow ur role. If a spinner of Warne or Oreiley or even Underwoods caliber were available I'd make room for them in an all time WI XI. I just dont see the need for 2, especially when both are of similar style (ie both leg spinners)
Warne or Murali, yes. Any of the others, probably not. Additionally though I was not questioning the use of one spinner, the argument was about whether or not two are required, especially at the expense of weakening the batting.
I think that you have a valid point with respect to the ATG West Indian team kyear as it's difficult to argue that Lance Gibbs is a better/greater bowler than Joel Garner or Michael Holding. In order for Gibbs to make the team you would have to assume that an attack is always better with a spinner in it regardless. I kind of agree, but we are in a very grey area.
It was by design and inspired by facing Australia and suffering at the hands of Lillee and Thomson, "it was not lost on him that, in the course of a long series, the sheer weight and intimidatory reality of four pace bowlers had proved more than his talented array of young batting stars could handle" "Lloyd was convinced that if three fast bolwers were effective, then four could be devastating. He had witnessed and personally experienced the fire of sustained pace and quality. It had been indelibly imprinted in his mind that it is virtually impossible for any batting side to stand up to hour afterf hour of this type of attack. Sporadic counter attack is possible. Sustained response is not. The combined mental and physical effort required cannot be maintained indefinately."
