• 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.

All time ODI XI

Adorable Asshole

Adorable Asshole

International Regular
Having both Garner or Mcgrath in a team is useless. Both are similar bowler and can't bat. Replacing one for Hadlee, Starc or Roberts is better.
 
Adorable Asshole

Adorable Asshole

International Regular
trundler said:
Yeah having both of the greatest ODI bowlers of all time is a bad idea because they're both tall.
Click to expand...
and can't bat.

U need to understand that players like Akram, Starc, Warne or Hadlee who are marginally worse than them with the ball but are much better bat are more valuable for the team.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Godard said:
Kapil was revolutionary in his approach to the game with his batting. Imran more adaptable, but never a batting match winner at any position. I rate Kapil as more revolutionary in his approach, not as better batsmen. Imran and Kapil were better than each other at different roles. Imran was decent at two roles, Kapil was great at one, an approach he continued well late into his career.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Buried in your analysis is the fact that Imran is a better bat, just not more 'revolutionary'.

Also at their respective bowling peaks Imran was at least a slightly better bowler, even by your figures. Though I would argue he was notably better.

And Imran was better at maintaining batting form while in his bowling peaks, which you didn't reference.

Based on the above, to me he is clearly better as an all-rounder than Kapil. To bat well in the top six while being a worldclass opening bowler in ODIs is a great achievement that you can acknowledge, just like how Kapil was unusually destructive, though not that productive, down the order for his time.

The only thing debatable is who was a better lower order bat, which you claim is Kapil based on his high SR, which is fine.
 
Migara

Migara

International Coach
Adorable Asshole said:
and can't bat.

U need to understand that players like Akram, Starc, Warne or Hadlee who are marginally worse than them with the ball but are much better bat are more valuable for the team.
Click to expand...
Agree on Akram and Hadlee. But Starc and Warne are inferior by some margin to their competitors. (Starc vs McGrath / Garner, Warne vs Murali / Saqlain)
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
trundler said:
The way I see it Klusener would be at their level in an all time context and these guys would just get murdered.
Click to expand...
Not a huge fan of Klusener's bowling, whatever the context, but comparing him to these part-timers is massive hyperbole.

He was a full time bowler. 7.x OPM in a team that had Cronje and Kallis making the team as specialist bats (plus other ARs), so typically 6 genuine options. Pollock and Donald were 8.x for comparison.

He averaged sub 30. You are comparing him to bowlers in the late 30s+.

His ER, while poor for his era (4.7), was better than them, and heavily influenced by the fact that he bowled a lot of death. They all played in eras when there was a huge difference ER difference between death bowling and other stages.

His styles of bang it in and rely on lift, or cutters with variation are more likely to give quality bats issues in scoring than throwing another mediocre spinner at the issue.

Playing Klusener as a 5th bowler in an ATG team is going to leave a big weakness, but let's not pretend it's anywhere near the level of weakness relying on part-timers is.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Bolo. said:
Not a huge fan of Klusener's bowling, whatever the context, but comparing him to these part-timers is massive hyperbole.

He was a full time bowler. 7.x OPM in a team that had Cronje and Kallis making the team as specialist bats (plus other ARs), so typically 6 genuine options. Pollock and Donald were 8.x for comparison.

He averaged sub 30. You are comparing him to bowlers in the late 30s+.

His ER, while poor for his era (4.7), was better than them, and heavily influenced by the fact that he bowled a lot of death. They all played in eras when there was a huge difference ER difference between death bowling and other stages.

His styles of bang it in and rely on lift, or cutters with variation are more likely to give quality bats issues in scoring than throwing another mediocre spinner at the issue.

Playing Klusener as a 5th bowler in an ATG team is going to leave a big weakness, but let's not pretend it's anywhere near the level of weakness relying on part-timers is.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree with this. Klusener was a real frontline bowler, he just wasn't that good. I think at this imaginary higher level we're creating he would effectively be a part-timer, but bowlers who were already part-timers in their eras would just be total non-bowlers.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Klusener was at his best with the ball only till 98. He kinda had to change his bowling style since then due to back injuries IIRC. And he also became a very consistent and match-winning lower order batsman at the same time.


I mean that ball that broke Azhar's stumps is still in my mind. Guy had serious pace and lift from a very laidback action. No wonder he did his back so much i guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top