Brian Lara a true Gent

[benchmark00]

I consider myself CW's answer to Nelson Mandela.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I consider myself CW's answer to Nelson Mandela.

Your relatives drag your name through the mud arguing about where your kids should be buried too? Bad luck.

 

[fredfertang]

I consider myself CW's answer to Nelson Mandela.

I suppose you have spent a deal of time on CW's answer to Robben Island, but suspect the similarities end there

 

[benchmark00]

Done time for a crime that didn't deserve time, now a symbol of unity across the land.

Will be played by Morgan Freeman in the motion picture.

 

[fredfertang]

Can I write the screen play

 

[kyear2]

I've noticed slip fielding is an aspect which is so overrated on here. They're the most important fielding positions by far but not important enough to pick a batsman which you consider inferior. Kyear2 did say he considers Tendulkar a superior batsman. Surely that's more important than who's better in the slips

When did I choose Chappell over Tendulkar? No slip fielding is not important enough to use as a decider if there is a clearly inferior batsman, but as Monk sees them as equals batting wise the slip catching is enough for him to include Chappell in his first XI over Sachin and there is nothing wrong with that.

I personally believe that Sachin is the better batsman, but only marginally and actually also rate Lara higher than Sachin as a batsman and his (under rated) slip fielding pushes him further ahead. But as I have said previously for me Lara was the better batsman, Sachin had the better career and is picked (like McGrath) for their volume of work and consistency over time and it's supposed to be a World XI not a West Indies and Australia XI.

Pews has an all rounder fetish and doesn't play bowlers unless they can bat, thus automatically eliminating McGrath (arguably the second best ever pacer IMHO), I believe that if you are selecting an ATG side then to properly support the bowlers there needs to be three very good to great slip fielders and there are many ATG batsmen who are equal or a hair below Sachin who were superb slip fielders: Hammond, Chappell, Sobers, Lara ect. For my money, in an ATG XI Sobers would play a greater role in the team as a slip fielder than as a batsman or than Hadlee would probably play as a batsman.

Regarding the perception that I over rate slip fielding, anyone growing up watching the W.I in the '80's and 90's wouldn't think it was over rated. Our superb bowlers would not have been quite as successful with out some of the greatest cordons the game have seen, similarly that also applies for McGrath and Lillee and for lesser bowlers it's even more important as when chances are fewer they are even more important to take them when they come.

 

[Spikey]

Done time for a crime that didn't deserve time, now a symbol of unity across the land.

Will be played by Morgan Freeman in the motion picture.

Pretty sure you deserved it

 

[GuyFromLancs]

When did I choose Chappell over Tendulkar? No slip fielding is not important enough to use as a decider if there is a clearly inferior batsman, but as Monk sees them as equals batting wise the slip catching is enough for him to include Chappell in his first XI over Sachin and there is nothing wrong with that.

I personally believe that Sachin is the better batsman, but only marginally and actually also rate Lara higher than Sachin as a batsman and his (under rated) slip fielding pushes him further ahead. But as I have said previously for me Lara was the better batsman, Sachin had the better career and is picked (like McGrath) for their volume of work and consistency over time and it's supposed to be a World XI not a West Indies and Australia XI.

Pews has an all rounder fetish and doesn't play bowlers unless they can bat, thus automatically eliminating McGrath (arguably the second best ever pacer IMHO), I believe that if you are selecting an ATG side then to properly support the bowlers there needs to be three very good to great slip fielders and there are many ATG batsmen who are equal or a hair below Sachin who were superb slip fielders: Hammond, Chappell, Sobers, Lara ect. For my money, in an ATG XI Sobers would play a greater role in the team as a slip fielder than as a batsman or than Hadlee would probably play as a batsman.

Regarding the perception that I over rate slip fielding, anyone growing up watching the W.I in the '80's and 90's wouldn't think it was over rated. Our superb bowlers would not have been quite as successful with out some of the greatest cordons the game have seen, similarly that also applies for McGrath and Lillee and for lesser bowlers it's even more important as when chances are fewer they are even more important to take them when they come.

But in your signature, SRT makes your first XI, and Lara only your second.

 

[kyear2]

Probably only kyear2 mentions slip fielding as an important thing (and maybe Watson and Monk). Before kyear2's arrival there wasn't really any mention of slip fielding being such an important position. Kyear2 thinks a good slip fielder brings more to the side than a good captain. That is what he feels.

Yup, without doubt. Richards, Lloyd and Ponting are not seen to be particularly great captains, yet led three of the greatest teams in test history.

Hummm

 

[smash84]

Regarding the perception that I over rate slip fielding, anyone growing up watching the W.I in the '80's and 90's wouldn't think it was over rated. Our superb bowlers would not have been quite as successful with out some of the greatest cordons the game have seen, similarly that also applies for McGrath and Lillee and for lesser bowlers it's even more important as when chances are fewer they are even more important to take them when they come.

Don't you think the slip cordon only developed because there were bowlers who would produce those chances in the first place. If you have those kind of bowlers then you can always train a good slip fielder to be a great slip fielder? Thoughts?

 

[smash84]

Regarding the perception that I over rate slip fielding, anyone growing up watching the W.I in the '80's and 90's wouldn't think it was over rated. Our superb bowlers would not have been quite as successful with out some of the greatest cordons the game have seen, similarly that also applies for McGrath and Lillee and for lesser bowlers it's even more important as when chances are fewer they are even more important to take them when they come.

Don't you think the slip cordon only developed because there were bowlers who would produce those chances in the first place. If you have those kind of bowlers then you can always train a good slip fielder to be a great slip fielder? Thoughts?

 

[kyear2]

Don't you think the slip cordon only developed because there were bowlers who would produce those chances in the first place. If you have those kind of bowlers then you can always train a good slip fielder to be a great slip fielder? Thoughts?

Interesting. Gayle and Chanderpaul have been in the slips over the years but they are still relatively poor. Dhoni has been a wicketkeeper his entire career and I assume he Practices and he is still quite poor. It takes more than practice, Chappell, Hammond, Sobers were special in the field period.

Though your premise is interesting. Is it similar to the fact that Imran became a better batsman in the latter part of his career during and after his injury when he couldn't bowl and focused more on his batting.
So conversely any decent lower order batsman like say Marshall or Warne could have been coached up to be better batsmen if they focused more on their batting.
Also, according to your theory if Marshall or Warne played on weaker batting teams where it was required for them to contribute more with the bat similar to Hadlee and Imran and coupled with more practice then they too could have been great bowling all rounders.
Thats good to know. You can always train a good batsman to be a great bowling allrounder.

 

[smash84]

Interesting. Gayle and Chanderpaul have been in the slips over the years but they are still relatively poor. Dhoni has been a wicketkeeper his entire career and I assume he Practices and he is still quite poor. It takes more than practice, Chappell, Hammond, Sobers were special in the field period.

Though your premise is interesting. Is it similar to the fact that Imran became a better batsman in the latter part of his career during and after his injury when he couldn't bowl and focused more on his batting.
So conversely any decent lower order batsman like say Marshall or Warne could have been coached up to be better batsmen if they focused more on their batting.
Also, according to your theory if Marshall or Warne played on weaker batting teams where it was required for them to contribute more with the bat similar to Hadlee and Imran and coupled with more practice then they too could have been great bowling all rounders.
Thats good to know. You can always train a good batsman to be a great bowling allrounder.

LOL.....why getting so touchy mate?

Do Gayle and Chanderpaul have anywhere near as good a bowling attack as the WI of the 80s and 90s?

If you read my post I said good slip fielders could be made great or that good fielders in other areas such as short leg can be made good slip fielders. Do you think Ponting or Rhodes or Symonds will do a worse job than Brian Lara in the slips?

 

[smash84]

and besides how do you decide whose slip fielding is so much better than the other person that they can be differentiated on that aspect?

Is Jacque Kallis a better slip fielder or Shane Warne?

 

[kyear2]

What does the cordon have to do with the quality of the attack. If you drop for poor bowlers, you would for great ones as well.
Ponting was actually equally superb in the slips and some of the best slippers like Weekes, Harvey and Ponting migrated from the slips.

 

[smash84]

You didn't answer the question. How would you decided who is the better slip fielder?

And no, the poorer bowlers wouldn't even serve you that many good chances to pouch upon. It necessarily doesn't have to be equal skill always. It might well be and probably is that the more you field in a certain position the better you get. The more chances you get the better you get at pouching them.

 

[Prince EWS]

You didn't answer the question. How would you decided who is the better slip fielder?

By watching them field in slips I presume.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Interesting. Gayle and Chanderpaul have been in the slips over the years but they are still relatively poor. Dhoni has been a wicketkeeper his entire career and I assume he Practices and he is still quite poor. It takes more than practice, Chappell, Hammond, Sobers were special in the field period.

Though your premise is interesting. Is it similar to the fact that Imran became a better batsman in the latter part of his career during and after his injury when he couldn't bowl and focused more on his batting.
So conversely any decent lower order batsman like say Marshall or Warne could have been coached up to be better batsmen if they focused more on their batting.
Also, according to your theory if Marshall or Warne played on weaker batting teams where it was required for them to contribute more with the bat similar to Hadlee and Imran and coupled with more practice then they too could have been great bowling all rounders.
Thats good to know. You can always train a good batsman to be a great bowling allrounder.

No

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Done time for a crime that didn't deserve time, now a symbol of unity across the land.

Will be played by Morgan Freeman in the motion picture.

Spikey to played by Tim Robbins.

 

[harsh.ag]

You didn't answer the question. How would you decided who is the better slip fielder?

And no, the poorer bowlers wouldn't even serve you that many good chances to pouch upon. It necessarily doesn't have to be equal skill always. It might well be and probably is that the more you field in a certain position the better you get. The more chances you get the better you get at pouching them.

I get your point, but a team can't be picked based on the belief that the slip cordon will get better over time. Perhaps this is more applicable to domestic cricket, where your theory gains weight, I think. If the domestic fast-bowling circuit is strong, then the slip fielders available to the test team should be a quality one thanks to all the practice, and necessity. If a player hasn't learned to be a good catcher through his domestic career, then the probability of him making strides later reduces a lot, regardless of the quality of bowling the test team may have.