Selfish mother ****ers

[Burner]

Yeah, they are. Declaration time mostly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

In test matches, the situations where you actually 'need' to raise the tempo are a bit rare.

Yeah, they are. Declaration time mostly.

Not true at all. Quicker scoring in general is invaluable, whether it be 2nd innings declaration batting or the 1st morning. The quicker you score the runs the more time you have to bow the opposition out and force a result.

It's a big part of why the Australian side of the 00's was so successful

 

[StephenZA]

Not true at all. Quicker scoring in general is invaluable, whether it be 2nd innings declaration batting or the 1st morning. The quicker you score the runs the more time you have to bow the opposition out and force a result.

It's a big part of why the Australian side of the 00's was so successful

Yes but they had the players to be that successful... its not done very well for the recent Aus side. When SA had Smith, Amla, Kallis and DeVillers it fine for to be more attacking... but not when your entire batting unit is mainly built around one player.

 

[indiaholic]

Not true at all. Quicker scoring in general is invaluable, whether it be 2nd innings declaration batting or the 1st morning. The quicker you score the runs the more time you have to bow the opposition out and force a result.

It's a big part of why the Australian side of the 00's was so successful

Disagree. It was because they had bowlers who were consistently able to take 20 wickets. There is usually a tradeoff between the scoring rate and the runs you can score. More often than not I would prefer the balance to tilt in favour of maximizing the runs scored. Of course this tradeoff doesnt affect you when Gilchrist comes in at 7.

 

[fredfertang]

His elbow was gone wasn't it?

I think he left the squad too though didn't he, which was kinda ****.

Was worried his cat was back under the floorboards

 

[CricAddict]

Chanders and Bhajji were the 2 names that struck my mind immediately as I read the opening post. And there are opening batsmen who go `**** the team. My wicket is more important` and take all reviews. Not sure if Watson can be classified as selfish or dumb in that specific case.

 

[Smudge]

The "All About Me" XI

Boycott
Gavaskar
Chanderpaul
Tendulkar
Kallis
Al Hasan/ Pietersen
Dhoni
Hadlee
Warne
McDermott
Akhtar

I can't believe it took until the 15th post in the thread for Boycott's name to get mentioned. Kids these days . . . sheesh.

The stories of Boycott are legendary. His partner took an eternity to read a spin bowler's deliveries; upon finally learning the key and mentioning it to Geoffrey in the middle, Geoff replied, ''oh, I figured him out ages ago''. Running out partners was pretty much routine for Boycott. In his defense he carried the Tyke batting through a tumultuous time in Yorkshire cricket when Yorkshire were left behind the other clubs who were recruiting from overseas through their ''Yorkshire born'' policy.

There's a great line from some after-dinner speaker (can't remember who):
"Geoffrey Boycott is the only man I know who puts the windscreen wipers on so people can see in."

 

[TheJediBrah]

Disagree. It was because they had bowlers who were consistently able to take 20 wickets. There is usually a tradeoff between the scoring rate and the runs you can score. More often than not I would prefer the balance to tilt in favour of maximizing the runs scored. Of course this tradeoff doesnt affect you when Gilchrist comes in at 7.

No, the whole point is that you're scoring quicker regardless of total runs. The tradeoff you speak of is not relevant to what I'm saying. If you have to sacrifice runs scored for scoring rate then that's a completely different thing.

Of course someone averaging 55 with a strike rate of 50 is preferred to someone averaging 35 with a strike rate of 100, but that is not at all relevant.

Scoring 600 in 140 overs is clearly better than scoring 600 in 220 overs, if you want to win a game of Test cricket. This really shouldn't have to be explained. And no **** it wasn't the only reason or even the main reason the Aus side in 00s was so dominant, but you're kidding yourself if you think it didn't play a big part.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Scoring 600 in 140 overs is clearly better than scoring 600 in 220 overs, if you want to win a game of Test cricket.

More often than not, yes. But not always. Keeping the opposition bowlers out there for longer tires them out more, and it also helps in other ways, like the pitch potentially deteriorating , thus not giving the opportunity to the other team to bat on it while it's a good surface.

It can also backfire, like in Adelaide 03/04. I'm not even talking about the second innings collapse, but the first innings where Aus smashed 550+ at 4+rpo. If they'd got the same runs at 3 rpo, it might have actually ended up as a draw. But because Aus finished their innings quickly, it gave India tons of time to build their first innings and bat in prime conditions while still leaving enough time to win the game.

 

[TheJediBrah]

More often than not, yes. But not always. Keeping the opposition bowlers out there for longer tires them out more, and it also helps in other ways, like the pitch potentially deteriorating , thus not giving the opportunity to the other team to bat on it while it's a good surface.

It can also backfire, like in Adelaide 03/04. I'm not even talking about the second innings collapse, but the first innings where Aus smashed 550+ at 4+rpo. If they'd got the same runs at 3 rpo, it might have actually ended up as a draw. But because Aus finished their innings quickly, it gave India tons of time to build their first innings and bat in prime conditions while still leaving enough time to win the game.

You're not wrong, but you're talking about the minority of occasions.

 

[Burgey]

I can't believe it took until the 15th post in the thread for Boycott's name to get mentioned. Kids these days . . . sheesh.




There's a great line from some after-dinner speaker (can't remember who):
"Geoffrey Boycott is the only man I know who puts the windscreen wipers on so people can see in."

Thats a brilliant line.

 

[DriveClub]

I think guys like sehwag and maybe Warner as well who can't be fkd to change their game to adapt to overseas conditions?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

No, the whole point is that you're scoring quicker regardless of total runs. The tradeoff you speak of is not relevant to what I'm saying. If you have to sacrifice runs scored for scoring rate then that's a completely different thing.

Of course someone averaging 55 with a strike rate of 50 is preferred to someone averaging 35 with a strike rate of 100, but that is not at all relevant.

Scoring 600 in 140 overs is clearly better than scoring 600 in 220 overs, if you want to win a game of Test cricket. This really shouldn't have to be explained. And no **** it wasn't the only reason or even the main reason the Aus side in 00s was so dominant, but you're kidding yourself if you think it didn't play a big part.

Having the option to score quickly is definitely always an advantage in test cricket, but scoring quickly isn't always an advantage in itself.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Having the option to score quickly is definitely always an advantage in test cricket, but scoring quickly isn't always an advantage in itself.

deep

 

[Zinzan]

There's a great line from some after-dinner speaker (can't remember who):
"Geoffrey Boycott is the only man I know who puts the windscreen wipers on so people can see in."

Sir Dick Hadlee told that story in one of his autobiographies, and given he's in most Xis I've seen in this thread, that's saying something.

 

[AndrewB]

SF Barnes was somewhat selfish, in that his attitude to cricket was "I'm here to do one thing only: take wickets". Rarely did Barnes ever display any ambition to become a better batsman, fielder or team man.

Not sure about Barnes - the attitude of "a bowler's job is to bowl" wasn't unusual back then: Bowes (a few decades later) wasn't allowed by Yorkshire to take his batting or fielding seriously, in case it impaired his bowling. (Barnes, incidentally, batted up the order at least some of the time for Staffordshire).

OTOH, Barnes does tend to come across as an awkward bugger. That said, so to some extent does Rhodes, and he would famously focus on batting or bowling depending on what Yorkshire (or to a degree England) needed of him. (I've also read - can't remember where - that Barnes was quite willing to show people how he bowled his fastish leg-breaks; they just weren't able to copy him anyway).

How about Wally Hammond? The impression I have (e.g. from David Foot's biography) is that his Gloucestershire team-mates would have liked him to bowl more often (they weren't exactly well-stocked with pace bowling, and he was good enough to take 9-28 on one occasion), but he preferred to stand in the slips.

 

[burr]

Shane Warne will be fuming Steve Waugh's name hasn't been mentioned in this thread.

 

[Red]

Honestly never thought Steve Waugh was selfish. His whole mode of operating as a leader was to encourage others to believe in their abilities.

I mean McGrath went from being a complete bunny to a more accomplished bunny during his career. Going from averaging 2 a season to averaging 10+ might not sound much, but it means he was batting 5 times longer later in his career than he was earlier.

In addition, Waugh's teams contained a tail of Gilchrist (!), Warne, Lee/Kaspa/Bichel, Gillespie and McGrath. There was never really cause to shield any of them from the strike, because all of them apart from McGrath all could have been legit #8s with the bat. Waugh's philosophy was to put his faith in them and from a team perspective it worked. Think Waugh has been unfairly tarnished as someone chasing the red ink when in fact he believed in his players.

 

[zaremba]

I've always had a high regard for Chanderpaul, but buggering off to an awards ceremony in the middle of your innings takes some beating.

Apart from that, Boycott opens the batting from both ends, bats 3, captains the team, and at the end of the day takes the time to explain how great he was.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Which bowler did the bowling equivalent. "Nup, not worried about wickets - gonna keep my economy low",

the poisonous trio. anderson, broad and swann.