kyear2
International Coach
You are twisting people's words. No one ever said it is the most important factor in team selection.
-
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.
Brian Lara a true Gent
- Thread starter Singh Is King
- Start date
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I do agree that it's close between Chappell and Tendulkar. Certainly wouldn't scoff at anyone who picked him over Tendulkar as a batsman.
The fact that he scored big against some of the greatest attacks ever showed his class. Few have done so well against similar attacks
The fact that he scored big against some of the greatest attacks ever showed his class. Few have done so well against similar attacks
smash84
The Tiger King
The same kind of word twisting that was being done to my words.
And yes, slip fielding is vital but the difference between safe slip fielders and great slip fielders is not a deal breaker for me (and I reckon for a LOT of other people)
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Surely a Pakistani supporter should hold the ability to field higher than others.
kyear2
International Coach
Everyone is blowing this out of proportion. A cricket team is all about balance. It's important to have a capable 5th bowler to spell your 4 main bowlers and to aide with the rotation,he doesn't have to be a world beater, just not a liability and any wickets taken is a bonus. It's a luxury if your wicket keeper can bat a bit while not being a liability with the gloves, it's just as much of a bonus to have a number 8 who can bat and stick around with the last recognized batsman or shepherd the tail for a few extra runs or even toss in the occasional half century or save their team from an early collapse. If you have a great fast bowling attack it's just or even more important to have a good to great slip cordon who can take advantage of the edges produced. If your fast bowlers are not that great then it's just as vital to take what chances are presented and they may not come as often.
When everyone selects teams they always look to include a batting and bowling all rounder and the cordon is an after thought if though of at all which would lead to the conclusion that it's more important to have a bowler who can average above the mid twenties than to have a strong cordon, or Smali's theory that a cordon can be coached up.
History though tells us different. A great team is likely to have a pretty good batting lineup so collapses while they do happen are far less frequent and they don't rely as much on your no. 8 or other lower order batsmen to score. Likewise most good to great teams also have strong bowling attacks and while a Kallis is always a bonus the front four can manage more than not to take the wickets required and a part timer like a Viv or Waugh is good enough to fill the 5th bowler role. What they do need and did have were strong cordons to take the catches they produced.
The greatest teams to play in the modern era, the South African team of the late '60's, the great West Indies unit and the later Australia Team of the 2000's and also the post war '48 team had a few things in common a great opening combination, a dominating ATG no. 3/4, two great/ ATG bowlers and great cordons. Even the current South African team comes fairly close To filling that criteria.
Australia (2000's edition) and the West Indies never had batting of bowling all rounders. Viv or the Waughs and later on no one in particular filled the 5th bowler spot while Marshall and Warne capably handled the no. 8 batting position. They did have two of the best slip cordons in history and not because they got more opportunities it's because they took them. Lloyd/ Richards/ Richardson and Taylor/ Waugh/ Warne and even later versions with Ponting and Hayden/Langer were brilliant and helped turn many a game.
So given a choice on a strong team between Sobers/ Kallis bowling or Hadlee or Imran's batting or having Chappell/ Hammond/ Sobers/ Lara slip fielding to support my bowlers (and of course given the opportunity I would take all three) I would take the great batsman who is also a great slipper over the batsman who is a good 5th bowler or the great bowler who can bat. I think history of success supports me as well.
When everyone selects teams they always look to include a batting and bowling all rounder and the cordon is an after thought if though of at all which would lead to the conclusion that it's more important to have a bowler who can average above the mid twenties than to have a strong cordon, or Smali's theory that a cordon can be coached up.
History though tells us different. A great team is likely to have a pretty good batting lineup so collapses while they do happen are far less frequent and they don't rely as much on your no. 8 or other lower order batsmen to score. Likewise most good to great teams also have strong bowling attacks and while a Kallis is always a bonus the front four can manage more than not to take the wickets required and a part timer like a Viv or Waugh is good enough to fill the 5th bowler role. What they do need and did have were strong cordons to take the catches they produced.
The greatest teams to play in the modern era, the South African team of the late '60's, the great West Indies unit and the later Australia Team of the 2000's and also the post war '48 team had a few things in common a great opening combination, a dominating ATG no. 3/4, two great/ ATG bowlers and great cordons. Even the current South African team comes fairly close To filling that criteria.
Australia (2000's edition) and the West Indies never had batting of bowling all rounders. Viv or the Waughs and later on no one in particular filled the 5th bowler spot while Marshall and Warne capably handled the no. 8 batting position. They did have two of the best slip cordons in history and not because they got more opportunities it's because they took them. Lloyd/ Richards/ Richardson and Taylor/ Waugh/ Warne and even later versions with Ponting and Hayden/Langer were brilliant and helped turn many a game.
So given a choice on a strong team between Sobers/ Kallis bowling or Hadlee or Imran's batting or having Chappell/ Hammond/ Sobers/ Lara slip fielding to support my bowlers (and of course given the opportunity I would take all three) I would take the great batsman who is also a great slipper over the batsman who is a good 5th bowler or the great bowler who can bat. I think history of success supports me as well.
watson
Banned
Decided to look a bit more closely at Tendulkar, Lara, and G.Chappell;
Tendulkar V McGrath + Warne
Tests = 7
Runs = 592
Ave = 42.28
SR = 55.48
HS = 126
100s = 2
50s = 4
Tendulkar V Wasim + Waqar
Tests = 4
Runs = 278
Ave = 39.71
HS = 136
SR = 49.55
100s = 1
50s = 1
Tendulkar V Donald + Pollock
Tests = 5
Runs = 387
Ave = 38.70
SR = 53.67
HS = 169
100s = 1
50s = 1
Tendulkar V Murali + Vaas
Tests = 9
Runs = 570
Ave = 40.71
SR = 48.51
HS = 143
100s = 3
50s = 0
Tendulkar V Ambrose + Walsh
Tests = 4 (4 innings only)
Runs = 193
Ave = 64.33
SR = 36.41
HS = 88
100s = 0
50s = 2
Lara V McGrath + Warne
Tests = 16
Runs = 1429
Ave = 51.03
SR = 58.80
HS = 226
100s = 4
50s = 5
Lara V Wasim + Waqar
Tests = 6
Runs = 354
Ave = 32.18
SR = 60.72
HS = 96
100s = 0
50s = 2
Lara V Donald + Pollock
Tests = 9
Runs = 600
Ave = 33.33
SR = 46.87
HS = 83
100s = 0
50s = 5
Lara V Murali + Vaas
Test = 5
Runs = 987
Ave = 123.37
SR = 58.92
HS = 221
100s = 4
50s = 2
G.Chappell V Holding + Roberts
Tests = 9
Runs = 872
Ave = 62.28
SR = 53.59
HS = 182
100s = 4
50s = 2
G. Chappell V Snow + Underwood
Tests = 10
Runs = 395
Ave = 26.33
SR = 40.18
HS = 113
100s = 1
50s = 2
G.Chappell V Imran + Sarfraz
Tests = 9
Runs = 739
Ave = 49.26
SR = 50.47
HS = 201
100s = 2
50s = 4
G. Chappell V Willis + (early) Botham
Tests = 10
Runs = 792
Ave = 49.50
SR = 51.26
HS = 117
100s = 3
50s = 2
After looking at their respective records against the greatest pairs of bowlers of their time it appears that;
-Tendulkar is consistent across the board without being outstanding against any one pair.
-Lara made his name against McGrath, Warne, and Murali, but was ordinary against Donald + Pollock, and Wasim + Waqar.
-Chappell was outstanding against Holding and Roberts, coped well enough with Imran, Willis, and Botham, but had problems against Snow and Underwood.
TBH - not sure who's record I prefer the most. Feel slightly underwhelmed. Perhaps great bowlers are better at getting great batsman out, rather than great batsman scoring a load of runs against them.
Tendulkar V McGrath + Warne
Tests = 7
Runs = 592
Ave = 42.28
SR = 55.48
HS = 126
100s = 2
50s = 4
Tendulkar V Wasim + Waqar
Tests = 4
Runs = 278
Ave = 39.71
HS = 136
SR = 49.55
100s = 1
50s = 1
Tendulkar V Donald + Pollock
Tests = 5
Runs = 387
Ave = 38.70
SR = 53.67
HS = 169
100s = 1
50s = 1
Tendulkar V Murali + Vaas
Tests = 9
Runs = 570
Ave = 40.71
SR = 48.51
HS = 143
100s = 3
50s = 0
Tendulkar V Ambrose + Walsh
Tests = 4 (4 innings only)
Runs = 193
Ave = 64.33
SR = 36.41
HS = 88
100s = 0
50s = 2
Lara V McGrath + Warne
Tests = 16
Runs = 1429
Ave = 51.03
SR = 58.80
HS = 226
100s = 4
50s = 5
Lara V Wasim + Waqar
Tests = 6
Runs = 354
Ave = 32.18
SR = 60.72
HS = 96
100s = 0
50s = 2
Lara V Donald + Pollock
Tests = 9
Runs = 600
Ave = 33.33
SR = 46.87
HS = 83
100s = 0
50s = 5
Lara V Murali + Vaas
Test = 5
Runs = 987
Ave = 123.37
SR = 58.92
HS = 221
100s = 4
50s = 2
G.Chappell V Holding + Roberts
Tests = 9
Runs = 872
Ave = 62.28
SR = 53.59
HS = 182
100s = 4
50s = 2
G. Chappell V Snow + Underwood
Tests = 10
Runs = 395
Ave = 26.33
SR = 40.18
HS = 113
100s = 1
50s = 2
G.Chappell V Imran + Sarfraz
Tests = 9
Runs = 739
Ave = 49.26
SR = 50.47
HS = 201
100s = 2
50s = 4
G. Chappell V Willis + (early) Botham
Tests = 10
Runs = 792
Ave = 49.50
SR = 51.26
HS = 117
100s = 3
50s = 2
After looking at their respective records against the greatest pairs of bowlers of their time it appears that;
-Tendulkar is consistent across the board without being outstanding against any one pair.
-Lara made his name against McGrath, Warne, and Murali, but was ordinary against Donald + Pollock, and Wasim + Waqar.
-Chappell was outstanding against Holding and Roberts, coped well enough with Imran, Willis, and Botham, but had problems against Snow and Underwood.
TBH - not sure who's record I prefer the most. Feel slightly underwhelmed. Perhaps great bowlers are better at getting great batsman out, rather than great batsman scoring a load of runs against them.
Last edited:
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Averages of batsmen vs bowler are never a good indicator of how they actually played against each other. It's never a one on one duel. Fir instance in matches vs the two W's, he wasn't even dismissed by them that often. These types of stats are generally irrelevant.
Lara, as much as I love him never really impressed me against top attacks apart from McWarne. I don't think he ever got a big score against the W's or against Donald. I remember being constantly disappointed by Lara when he faced Donald... Used to anticipate their duels greatly, but it never once ended in Lara's favour. Tendulkar was never terrible against anyone and produced at the very least a couple of outstanding innings against each great attack he faced. Chappell's stats do look outstanding on the surface I agree, but I didn't watch him play at all so no judgement to be made there.
Lara, as much as I love him never really impressed me against top attacks apart from McWarne. I don't think he ever got a big score against the W's or against Donald. I remember being constantly disappointed by Lara when he faced Donald... Used to anticipate their duels greatly, but it never once ended in Lara's favour. Tendulkar was never terrible against anyone and produced at the very least a couple of outstanding innings against each great attack he faced. Chappell's stats do look outstanding on the surface I agree, but I didn't watch him play at all so no judgement to be made there.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
50-50 imo. Got him out plenty of times but on the occasions he didn't get him out, Lara took full toll and got huge scores
watson
Banned
16 Tests is a good number of matches to make a judgement. Therefore, an average of 51.03 with a SR of 58.80 would clearly indicate that Lara had few major problems batting in games that featured McGrath.
On the other-hand, I would guess that Lara had issues coping with a pair of very good fast bowlers. Even if he wasn't dismissed that often by Donald/Pollock or Wasim/Waqar doesn't mean that the pressure didn't get to him. It's amazing how many batsman survive a spell of fast bowling only to give their wicket away to the likes of a Doug Walters.
Last edited:
watson
Banned
Despite Tendulkar and Lara playing a mountain of Test matches between them, I wonder what percentage of their Test matches actually featured at least a pair of great bowlers??
At the minute I've got;
29/200 (15%) for Tendulkar.
36/131 (27%) for Lara
38/87 (44%) for G.Chappell
At the minute I've got;
29/200 (15%) for Tendulkar.
36/131 (27%) for Lara
38/87 (44%) for G.Chappell
Last edited:
kyear2
International Coach
TBH - not sure who's record I prefer the most. Feel slightly underwhelmed. Perhaps great bowlers are better at getting great batsman out, rather than great batsman scoring a load of runs against them.[/QUOTE]
Always found that great bowling trumps great batting. Don't think it's possible to consistently dominate any great bowling attack and especially an great fast bowling attack or fast bowler even over a series. Very few have ever done it.
Always found that great bowling trumps great batting. Don't think it's possible to consistently dominate any great bowling attack and especially an great fast bowling attack or fast bowler even over a series. Very few have ever done it.
kyear2
International Coach
I dont believe so, but we can agree to disagree.
Coronis
International Coach
This is what I've taken from this thread.
I think it depends on the expectations one has. For me, you can replace Lara's name in your quote with Sachin's. I would hear the talk in media about Sachin being second only to Don, and then I would see he and his team being blown away by Donald for totals of 100 and 66 etc. I don't recall seeing him have a stellar series against either Donald or McGrath, like the kind of series he had against Aus in 98 when McGrath was absent. I would see him and his team being very vulnerable against these bowlers. I think he had very ordinary stats whenever these bowlers were in the opposition playing XI. For a long time, this was true even in big ODI matches as well. WC 1999 super-six match between India and Aus comes to my mind. It was a very crucial match for both sides. Tendulkar had scores of 100,15,80,143,134,141 in his previous 6 ODIs against Australia, with one crucial factor (for me) - McGrath missed all those matches. In a dazzling display of fast bowling, McGrath removes him for a duck.
After seeing batting line-ups getting frequently pasted by the great WI fast bowlers, I always longed for a batsman who would take on such fast bowlers and dominate them successfully in Test match cricket - at least in 40% of their encounters. To my eyes, neither Sachin nor Lara fit the bill. Both have their own short-comings.
Viv Richards and Gilchrist (in the early part of his career) did that with some consistency. But in general, I found flamboyant batsmen being very vulnerable against great fast bowling attacks. Grinders (like Steve Waugh or Gooch or Allan Border) seemed to do better against these attacks than great strokeplayers.
Batsmen vs Bowlers stats do have some relevance. For example, if Tendulkar's average of 62 against Australia in McGrath's absence, collapses to 37 in McGrath's presence, and McGrath has bowled an average of 20 overs per innings in those matches, then McGrath's presence certainly must have been a factor (directly or indirectly) for the fall.
smash84
The Tiger King
tbf I don't think there has ever been a batsman who has ever really dominated serious pace. Even Bradman's otherwise avg of 100 came down to 56 in the bodyline didn't it?
In the post 70s era Richards was probably somebody who stood out from the pack by standing up to some serious pace. I didn't watch Garry Sobers bat but apparently he could face the pacers well too.
In the post 70s era Richards was probably somebody who stood out from the pack by standing up to some serious pace. I didn't watch Garry Sobers bat but apparently he could face the pacers well too.
kyear2
International Coach
Which you both have to know was a error and should have read as a bowler.
But why let logic stop you from condemning.
Additionally if you are going to quote. Kindly use the whole context.
That Sobers would probably play a bigger role in an ATG XI as a slip fielder that he would as a bowler or than Hadlee would probably play as a batsman. Especially considering the bowling attack at their disposal.
Last edited: