_00_deathscar
International Regular
Are we back to <25 = struggling?
-
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.
2nd greatest living cricketer
- Thread starter Fuller Pilch
- Start date
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
FP was pumping up NZ. May be just invite them to Australia this summer to give them the routine hiding, after they have been trounced in India. Ashes can wait for another season.
Victor Ian
International Coach
When is the next Aus NZ test? We need this now while NZ are world champs. **** England and their complaints. If they come over, I'm going to laugh so hard if they get trapped in Victoria's prison with the rest of us.
SillyCowCorner1
Moooo
Did IK get all these votes because he's a head of state?
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Do you mean >25
Migara
International Coach
Averaging 32 odd in gestation period, I'd take it for a Lankan spinner as for a whole career.
Migara
International Coach
That ATG XI will be playing Klingon XI who will have equally better bowlers. So any batting ability is an advantage.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Yes.
Bijed
International Regular
I do agree with this. Presuming the ATG sides we propose on this forum were to play each other (with players being cloned as necessary), you'd expect a normal match between them to be close, so the potential for runs (or more importantly, partnerships with a batsman) all the way down the order is valuable. Whether it's worth the trade off in bowling between players x and y is obviously a debate with a fair number of permuations and conclusions, but I don't think it's an issue that can just be totally ignored because your top 6/7 are so strong on paper.
_00_deathscar
International Regular
Yea it depends on what the tradeoff is. At the top end, Hadlee is more valuable than McGrath because they're practically identical in terms of bowling ability etc but Hadlee could bat a bit from time to time and that's a huge edge over not being able to at all.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Yeah..
Same as Kallis vs Dravid.
kyear2
International Coach
Or, or just..you actually want the best possible bowlers to bowl them out. If you're relying on the no. 11 , you have bigger issues.
Last edited:
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Having a weak tail is a liability though. The ability of a number 8 or 9 to stretch the innings with the rest of the tail when the bowlers are tired has been shown to be incredibly useful.
The preference then is for an ATG bowler who has some batting ability versus an ATG bowler who is completely hopeless with the bat. The value of a Imran/Hadlee/Marshall/Warne tail over a Wasim/McGrath/Ambrose/Murali tail then makes sense in a Klingon match.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Drinks and smokes…
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Now now…
kyear2
International Coach
First of all I wasn't talking about a weak tail. I'm taking about a weak no. 11, where you are actually picking the best available bowler.
Picking the best batsmen of the bowlers is so very overplayed on here. You think that if the opposition are able to run through Hutton, Bradman, Sobers and co, that Hadlee and Warne will stand a chance? A good no 8 and a handy 9 is sufficient.
They are picked to bowl out the opposition. That's the primary objective.
Picking the best batsmen of the bowlers is so very overplayed on here. You think that if the opposition are able to run through Hutton, Bradman, Sobers and co, that Hadlee and Warne will stand a chance? A good no 8 and a handy 9 is sufficient.
They are picked to bowl out the opposition. That's the primary objective.
kyear2
International Coach
The most obvious example. 90% of cricinfo thinks that McGrath is a top 2 or the 2nd best bowler ever. We are saying that he's automatically disqualified because he can't bat? Against a equally strong opponent, we don't want the 2nd best available option to bowl, because we want a stronger no 11?
Wasim, Marshall, Warne, McGrath.
Or for arguments sake,
Hadlee, Marshall, Warne, Steyn.
We can agree to take at least one pure specialist. If your no. 11 makes u loose the game, you're going to loose the game.
And yes balance is important. A strong no 8 is a good thing to have, some of the batsmen being able to hold on to the chances in the slips is a must and a batsman who can roll over his hand to spell the front line bowlers is always handy.
But enough of the bat deep.
Wasim, Marshall, Warne, McGrath.
Or for arguments sake,
Hadlee, Marshall, Warne, Steyn.
We can agree to take at least one pure specialist. If your no. 11 makes u loose the game, you're going to loose the game.
And yes balance is important. A strong no 8 is a good thing to have, some of the batsmen being able to hold on to the chances in the slips is a must and a batsman who can roll over his hand to spell the front line bowlers is always handy.
But enough of the bat deep.
ataraxia
International Coach
This isn't how cricket works. If a team is 50-5, odds are they reach 150+. Tails so often score handy runs and having a much stronger tail is better than a marginally better bowling attack.