But that's where we differ. Let me explain.
1. I don't see the need to bat all the way to 11. Same way all your batsmen don't need to be able to bowl.
2. To me the argument with all things being equal go with the better batsman, doesn't quite apply here. For example, for me the 3 best fast bowlers period are Marshall, McGrath and Steyn in that order (and that's not because he is a Barbadian), so ideally that's who one would choose for a hypothetical situation. So to include Hadlee, who I have between anywhere between 4th and at worst 7th, at the expense of the 2nd best bowler, who some may see as a liability with the bat, I'm already weakening the attack, even if a little. The fact that Hadlee and McGrath are some what similar eases that pain a bit though.
Now say that you also then want to replace Steyn the 3rd best bowler, who isn't a rabbit by any means, for someone outside my top 10 and for arguments sake 15th that weakening my bowling even further to add to the chances of at best drawing the game?
Yes there are times a tail saves a team, the other 80 percent of the time, it doesn't, and you weakening the bowling. And let's be honest, a batting lineup of Hadlee, Marshall, Warne & Steyn isn't a batting liability and is a potent attack.
3. This is nit a personal attack on Imran or all-rounders. It's just that from watching the game of cricket all of my 40 plus years, it's become apparent that winning isn't exactly tied to having great all rounders. The 2 greatest teams in history had Warne and Marshall manning the no. 8 position and they performed quite admirable and sufficiently, though they both possessed more batting talent than they displayed at times. And if it's one thing that I've learned from watching American football is that you look at what the great teams do and you try to emulate it. And as most of you would know, I believe it's far more important to have a strong cordon than it is to bat to 11 and that its much more associated with winning teams. But we wouldn't venture there now.
