Brian Lara a true Gent

[smash84]

even that aside, do you think Sobers would play a greater role in an ATXI as a fielder than he will as a bowler?

 

[Red]

Who said it isn't important but you don't get into sides based on something so subjective. If somebody thinks that slip fielding is the most important factor in team selection then they are deluded.

I didn't say it was the most important factor in team selection! But if two batsmen are basically equals in all ways but one is a better slipper/fielder than the other, you'd pick him wouldn't you?

 

[kyear2]

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.

I think Chappell had his moments as well, but he didn't quite go after the bowlers to dominate like Richards or Sobers did.

But basically thats it, unless you want to include what Barry Richards did in WSC and first class cricket.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I didn't say it was the most important factor in team selection! But if two batsmen are basically equals in all ways but one is a better slipper/fielder than the other, you'd pick him wouldn't you?

I'd pick the one who did it for longer

I kid though... Slip fielding as a virtual tie breaker is quite fair

 

[Red]

It's important, yes




Ridiculous. Don't enforce this on everyone. There will be people who think slip fielding as important as you. I think it's important but nowhere near 'vital' to have the best possible slip fielders in your side. As long as they're safe enough, it's ok

I'm not sure what point you're making here? Is it that you'd be equally happy with either the "best possible" slip fielders in your side? Or that you'd be happy with slip fielders who are "safe enough".

I think I know which ones I'd take...

 

[kyear2]

even that aside, do you think Sobers would play a greater role in an ATXI as a fielder than he will as a bowler?

In an ATG XI side with Marshall, Lillee, Akram and Warne he is not going to bowl many overs or take many wickets over a series, but with those bowlers in operation he will be kept quite busy in the cordon.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm not sure what point you're making here? Is it that you'd be equally happy with either the "best possible" slip fielders in your side? Or that you'd be happy with slip fielders who are "safe enough".

I think I know which ones I'd take...

Say there are five batsmen whom I consider to be slightly superior batsmen but inferior slip fielders to another set of five batsmen slippers, then I d pick the superior batsmen eyes closed. A 'safe enough ' slip cordon is all you need imo. Reason being that spectacular slip fielders don't really get too many chances to show off how great they are.

I should probably make you visualize a graph to explain how I feel about this. Say x-axis is the quality of the slip fielder, and y-axis is the value that slip fielder brings to the side. The graph would start off linear... Meaning that with increasing quality, his utility to the side keeps increasing proportionately . But then, you reach a certain level of quality, let's call it the "safe-enough" threshold. Once this threshold is crossed, the increase in quality of the slipper doesn't really add much value to the side... It kind of plateaus off. Beyond that point, no matter how good you are, I basically don't really give a **** as long as you are "safe enough"

 

[Viscount Tom]

Tbf if I've got an ATG line up regardless of which of the two I pick I'm going to be inclined to go for the better slip fielder largely because I've got them bowlers creating the opportunities that would need to be taken.

 

[centurymaker]

I am sure it is harder to score runs against a mediocre attack on a difficult wicket than it is to score against a bowling line-up containing a great on a flat pitch.

Anyhow, what people aren't also taking into consideration is that it is a team sport so if your partners keep falling around you, it is much harder for you to score runs (especially big runs), so you are hardly ever going to see a great batsman destroy a great bowling line-up, unless there is a road. For example, the only two BIG tons that Lara got against McGrath and Warne in Aus over 3 series- came at the Adelaide Oval (flattest pitch around).

To be honest, the stats that are way more meaningful are head to head stats between a bowler and a batsman, not these avg stats against the whole bowling line-up containing a great. Look, Tendulkar averages ridiculously high when there's Steyn & Morkel playing, but does that mean he destroyed Steyn? hell no. Although he was excellent, Steyn did make it difficult for him.

 

[kyear2]

I am sure it is harder to score runs against a mediocre attack on a difficult wicket than it is to score against a bowling line-up containing a great on a flat pitch.

Anyhow, what people aren't also taking into consideration is that it is a team sport so if your partners keep falling around you, it is much harder for you to score runs (especially big runs), so you are hardly ever going to see a great batsman destroy a great bowling line-up, unless there is a road. For example, the only two BIG tons that Lara got against McGrath and Warne in Aus over 3 series- came at the Adelaide Oval (flattest pitch around).

To be honest, the stats that are way more meaningful are head to head stats between a bowler and a batsman, not these avg stats against the whole bowling line-up containing a great. Look, Tendulkar averages ridiculously high when there's Steyn & Morkel playing, but does that mean he destroyed Steyn? hell no. Although he was excellent, Steyn did make it difficult for him.

Tbf if I've got an ATG line up regardless of which of the two I pick I'm going to be inclined to go for the better slip fielder largely because I've got them bowlers creating the opportunities that would need to be taken.

Both are pretty good analysis.

Would have to look it up in greater detail, but great bowlers seems to affect great batsmen stats more that great batsmen affect great bowlers stats. Especially fast bowlers.

 

[watson]

I am sure it is harder to score runs against a mediocre attack on a difficult wicket than it is to score against a bowling line-up containing a great on a flat pitch.

Anyhow, what people aren't also taking into consideration is that it is a team sport so if your partners keep falling around you, it is much harder for you to score runs (especially big runs), so you are hardly ever going to see a great batsman destroy a great bowling line-up, unless there is a road. For example, the only two BIG tons that Lara got against McGrath and Warne in Aus over 3 series- came at the Adelaide Oval (flattest pitch around).

To be honest, the stats that are way more meaningful are head to head stats between a bowler and a batsman, not these avg stats against the whole bowling line-up containing a great. Look, Tendulkar averages ridiculously high when there's Steyn & Morkel playing, but does that mean he destroyed Steyn? hell no. Although he was excellent, Steyn did make it difficult for him.

I didn't think to look at Tendulkar V Steyn + Morkel.

Tendulkar played 3 Tests home, and 3 Tests away against them;

Tendulkar V Steyn + Morkel
Tests = 6
Runs = 539
Ave = 67.37
SR = 48.21
HS = 146
100s = 4
50s = 0

It appears that Tendulkar was in a rich vein of form when he batted against the South African pair. His average was obviously helped by the fact that he converted all his 50s into centuries.

 

[centurymaker]

The pitches & conditions play a huge role.

Flat batting pitches over a whole series: you'd expect the batsman to deliver with support from some of his team-mates.
Enough help from pitch & conditions: you'd expect the great bowling pair to do well & trouble the whole opposition line-up.
Bowling pitches like the ones you see in South Africa from time to time: you'd expect the greats to run through the whole line-up in no time like Donald used to do and like Steyn has done in the past. typical score <150 all out.

Well it only takes 1 ball or 1 little misfortune to get out. Hence great bowlers have the upper hand. Best thing to do is to play them out and make merry against the weaker bowlers in the line-up, like the slow-scorers/grafters tend to do.

 

[watson]

On a roll here, so;

Viv Richards V Lillee + Thomson
Tests = 8
Runs = 678
Ave = 48.42
SR = 72.74
HS = 140
100s = 2
50s = 3

Viv Richards V Imran + Sarfraz
Tess = 6
Runs = 430
Ave = 47.77
SR = ?
HS = 120*
100s = 1
50s = 3

Viv Richards V Willis + (early) Botham
Tests = 7
Runs = 574
Ave = 71.75
SR = 77.56
HS = 145
100s = 2
50s = 3

Viv Richards V Kapil Dev
Tests = 19
Runs = 1018
Ave = 40.72
SR = ?
HS = 120
100s = 4
50s = 5

Viv Richards V Alderman + Lawson
Tests = 7
Runs = 153
Ave = 17.00
SR = 45.67
HS = 76
100s = 0
50s = 1

One cannot build a monument on any of the above stat's, but we can still draw some broad conclusions.

-Viv Richards was able to score well against fast bowlers.
- Viv Richards was less competent against some slower bowlers who bowled in-out-swing
- Kapil Dev dismissed Viv Richards 7 times and as part of a competent Indian attack seemed to have held Viv Richards in-check; unlike the English bowlers.
- Alderman and Lawson dismissed Viv Richards a total of 8 times (!) and he appears to have had real problems with their bowling between 1981 and 1984 when he was otherwise in form and scoring plenty of runs.

I would really like to see Viv Richards up against SF Barnes or Alec Bedser as I think it would be a real battle.

 

[centurymaker]

I didn't think to look at Tendulkar V Steyn + Morkel.

Tendulkar played 3 Tests home, and 3 Tests away against them;

Tendulkar V Steyn + Morkel
Tests = 6
Runs = 539
Ave = 67.37
SR = 48.21
HS = 146
100s = 4
50s = 0

It appears that Tendulkar was in a rich vein of form when he batted against the South African pair. His average was obviously helped by the fact that he converted all his 50s into centuries.

Yeah he was, both the series were played in the same year.
In contrast, he only ever played Pakistan twice before the year 2000. Once in his debut series and the other time in India in 1999 where although he played 1 great innings (136 chennai 4th innings), he was troubled by saqlain mushtaq (his doosras I think). Wonder what happened to him? He was so good.

 

[centurymaker]

I didn't think to look at Tendulkar V Steyn + Morkel.

Tendulkar played 3 Tests home, and 3 Tests away against them;

Tendulkar V Steyn + Morkel
Tests = 6
Runs = 539
Ave = 67.37
SR = 48.21
HS = 146
100s = 4
50s = 0

It appears that Tendulkar was in a rich vein of form when he batted against the South African pair. His average was obviously helped by the fact that he converted all his 50s into centuries.

Just remembered that it includes this particular test as well from 2008- (it was the only test Tendulkar played in the series as he got injured during the game iirc). Sehwag scored 319. Tendulkar duck.

1st Test: India v South Africa at Chennai, Mar 26-30, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[centurymaker]

On a roll here, so;

Viv Richards V Lillee + Thomson
Tests = 8
Runs = 678
Ave = 48.42
SR = 72.74
HS = 140
100s = 2
50s = 3

Viv Richards V Imran + Sarfraz
Tess = 6
Runs = 430
Ave = 47.77
SR = ?
HS = 120*
100s = 1
50s = 3

Viv Richards V Willis + (early) Botham
Tests = 7
Runs = 574
Ave = 71.75
SR = 77.56
HS = 145
100s = 2
50s = 3

Viv Richards V Kapil Dev
Tests = 19
Runs = 1018
Ave = 40.72
SR = ?
HS = 120
100s = 4
50s = 5

Viv Richards V Alderman + Lawson
Tests = 7
Runs = 153
Ave = 17.00
SR = 45.67
HS = 76
100s = 0
50s = 1

One cannot build a monument on any of the above stat's, but we can still draw some broad conclusions.

-Viv Richards was able to score well against fast bowlers.
- Viv Richards was less competent against some slower bowlers who bowled in-out-swing
- Kapil Dev dismissed Vic Richards 7 times and as part of a competent Indian attack seemed to have held Viv Richards in-check; unlike the English bowlers.
- Alderman and Lawson dismissed Viv Richards a total of 8 times (!) and he appears to have had real problems with their bowling between 1981 and 1984 when he otherwise in form and scoring plenty of runs.

I would really like to see Viv Richards up against SF Barnes or Alec Bedser as I think it would be a real battle.

The thing that stands out is the number of games he played against Kapil and co- 19 Tests! This is the only big enough sample size that can't really have an aberration when it comes to performance. The rest can all be argued against either way. (you know, you become unlucky in a series and your whole stats become ruined).

 

[watson]

The thing that stands out is the number of games he played against Kapil and co- 19 Tests! This is the only big enough sample size that can't really have an aberration when it comes to performance. The rest can all be argued against either way. (you know, you become unlucky in a series and your whole stats become ruined).

Just looking at Kapil Dev's stat's. Appears to be one of the most under-rated bowlers on CW. For an entire decade during the 80s he was superb - worth analysis in another thread I think.

 

[Red]

Kapil Dev was a great fast bowler. No doubt.

 

[centurymaker]

Wow ridiculous stats against the best two teams of the time, namely WI and Aus. He averaged <25 against both of them over many Tests and not just in total but away from home as well.

Although his stats don't seem too good in Pakistan, maybe the partial umpiring was a factor. Therefore, I think the only big mark on his stats is his performance against England. For a swing bowler like him, you'd have expected him to have done much better in English conditions. I wonder what went wrong?

 

[smash84]

Yeah English conditions should have been ideal for him. Funny that he did so much better in Aus