Best Attack

[smash84]

You guys keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it true.


And no, nah never. Watched the two greatest teams ever and never watched either bat.

It is not me repeating it to make it true. What do you not understand about the part where to win a game you have to get the other team out? So everyone has to bat? Is that not part of cricket by design?

I can tell you didn't watch them bat because Steyn and Warne were pretty bad with the bat in general.. a couple of 50s not withstanding.

 

[kyear2]

I don't rate bats and bowlers the exact same way. I use the number one era to identify bats in the top tier because there are simply more bats, they are all statistically closer and rep helps sift out the best of the best.

But nice deflection.

Really dude, I expected better.

Hypocrisy bro, or do you prefer double standards

 

[kyear2]

No stake in this argument but lets be real, even the great batsmen fail more often than they don’t.

Carry on.

As I mentioned in another thread, what's the point?

 

[Coronis]

As I mentioned in another thread, what's the point?

Well because you’re bringing it up as a reason to discredit the contributions of lower order batsmen or bowling allrounders when it also applies to ATG batsmen?

 

[kyear2]

It is not me repeating it to make it true. What do you not understand about the part where to win a game you have to get the other team out? So everyone has to bat? Is that not part of cricket by design?

I can tell you didn't watch them bat because Steyn and Warne were pretty bad with the bat in general.. a couple of 50s not withstanding.

Yes, to win a game you have to get the other team out, hence the best bowlers are required to do so.

I was talking about Marshall and Warne, not Steyn. And yes I would have seen Marshall and Warne bat.

 

[smash84]

Yes, to win a game you have to get the other team out, hence the best bowlers are required to do so.

So, if everyone has to bat, then an ATG bowler who has good batting skills becomes extremely valuable. More so than a batsman who just turns his arm over, and definitely more so than a bowler who is equivalent in bowling but isn't able to hold a bat to save his life.

 

[kyear2]

Well because you’re bringing it up as a reason to discredit the contributions of lower order batsmen or bowling allrounders when it also applies to ATG batsmen?

No, it's being mentioned like it's a cheat code, when really it's not.

How do I phrased this. Yes, ATG batsmen fail, they aren't consistent contributors, even Bradman failed more than one would think.
The thing about secondary skills are that none of these guys are great at them, far less ATG and honestly closer to decent. One wouldn't expect Carl Hooper to consistently save the WI's bacon, yet we're speaking as if these guys do, and Carl Hooper was a better batsman than any of them.

So two points
1. Yes there's an added value for a bowler who can bat, there's also added value for a batsman who can bowl, there's also added value for a batsman who's a specialist slip, none greater than the other. But that's not how many here see's it and the bat deep thing is getting ridiculous.

As I've said in the other post, they've never been proven to be a key building block to any great teams and quite franks were notably absent from any.
Sobers unquestionably makes the team because he's one of the 4 best batsmen, who happens to do the other ****, Imran the 8th best bowler but to some it's not only justifiable, but heresy to suggest otherwise, despite the fact mind you, that more people voted against the Imran option than for it.

If I'm going to sacrifice primary skill for anything,
1. Wouldn't be one of the 4 bowlers tasked with bowling out the opposition, it might be one of the batsmen of which they are 6, and would be likely for one of the unicorn 3 way guys who could bat at an ATG level, fill in the rope of 5th bowler and catch everything.

And let's not forget, that unlike the other secondary disciplines, there's no drop off or depreciation for the slip guys, they are great at what they do, ATG even in some cases.

I'm beginning to rant again, but if you're going to weaken the bowling and offer them no specialist catching support, you're not going to win no matter how many runs your tail scores. IT MAKES NO SENSE.


edit.... Never mind, it all makes sense now.

 

[kyear2]

Back to topic though, the Wasim team.bejnf that close is a surprise, and @Pap Finn Keighl hasn't even voted as yet.

Is it that he's believed to be better than Steyn or we value the variety that much?

Anyways, @Bolo has brought me around somewhat that having the variety and added skill of reverse beings more value to an attack, though I'm sure they made out quite well before it. Still....

So now the question is (for me at least), is Hadlee's batting more beneficial than McGrath's continued dominance into the flat era.

 

[subshakerz]

@kyear2 please answer the below. You skipped it.

Please explain what in Steyns overall record distances him from Imran?

Please explain why Hadlee in England and McGrath in SA meet ATG standards but not Imran in WI?

It just seems obvious that in one case averages don't matter and in the other they do.

 

[subshakerz]

No, it's being mentioned like it's a cheat code, when really it's not.

How do I phrased this. Yes, ATG batsmen fail, they aren't consistent contributors, even Bradman failed more than one would think.
The thing about secondary skills are that none of these guys are great at them, far less ATG and honestly closer to decent. One wouldn't expect Carl Hooper to consistently save the WI's bacon, yet we're speaking as if these guys do, and Carl Hooper was a better batsman than any of them.

So two points
1. Yes there's an added value for a bowler who can bat, there's also added value for a batsman who can bowl, there's also added value for a batsman who's a specialist slip, none greater than the other. But that's not how many here see's it and the bat deep thing is getting ridiculous.

As I've said in the other post, they've never been proven to be a key building block to any great teams and quite franks were notably absent from any.
Sobers unquestionably makes the team because he's one of the 4 best batsmen, who happens to do the other ****, Imran the 8th best bowler but to some it's not only justifiable, but heresy to suggest otherwise, despite the fact mind you, that more people voted against the Imran option than for it.

If I'm going to sacrifice primary skill for anything,
1. Wouldn't be one of the 4 bowlers tasked with bowling out the opposition, it might be one of the batsmen of which they are 6, and would be likely for one of the unicorn 3 way guys who could bat at an ATG level, fill in the rope of 5th bowler and catch everything.

And let's not forget, that unlike the other secondary disciplines, there's no drop off or depreciation for the slip guys, they are great at what they do, ATG even in some cases.

I'm beginning to rant again, but if you're going to weaken the bowling and offer them no specialist catching support, you're not going to win no matter how many runs your tail scores. IT MAKES NO SENSE.


edit.... Never mind, it all makes sense now.

Am I the only one who noticed you never really clarified your main point about a lower order batsman failing more often than not as a reason to equate them to a tailender? Just a barrage of the same points you have been saying before to obfuscate.

Can you just admit that was a weak nonsensical point you added, similar to 'McGrath was a winner' and other gut check stuff?

 

[reyrey]

It is not me repeating it to make it true. What do you not understand about the part where to win a game you have to get the other team out? So everyone has to bat? Is that not part of cricket by design?

I can tell you didn't watch them bat because Steyn and Warne were pretty bad with the bat in general.. a couple of 50s not withstanding.

Bit harsh on Warne. I always felt he was a decent tailender, although I don't think he should have batted ahead of Brett Lee as often as he did.

 

[subshakerz]

So now the question is (for me at least), is Hadlee's batting more beneficial than McGrath's continued dominance into the flat era.

It obviously is.

McGrath's flat bat dominance, which a good achievement, also is overplayed. Needs to be also looked at relative to the fact that some of the sides he faced in the 2000s were weaker batting sides than in the 90s. He never faced India at home and sucked against SA at home.

 

[reyrey]

IMO, there is no sacrifice in bowling quality by picking Hadlee. Imran complements Marshall and Hadlee better than anyone except maybe Akram. But he's a step down in both batting and bowling.

Akram doesn't quite cut it as a new ball bowler amongst the quicks in this poll, but he wouldn't need to do much new ball bowling here so it becomes something of a moot point. He isn't giving anything up as a 3rd seamer and especially as an old ball bowler.

As for his other strings, it's not like his batting weakens a tail and he is comfortably the best fielder.

 

[Bolo.]

Akram doesn't quite cut it as a new ball bowler amongst the quicks in this poll, but he wouldn't need to do much new ball bowling here so it becomes something of a moot point. He isn't giving anything up as a 3rd seamer and especially as an old ball bowler.

As for his other strings, it's not like his batting weakens a tail and he is comfortably the best fielder.

With all the other guys in the pole (and possibly Akram), you are going to be doing a bit of rotating of opening bowlers depending on form/conditions/who is batting. A good first change bowler still going to get pieces of the new ball anyway.

Anyway, while you have a point about fielding, Imran is ahead on batting and bowling. It would be nice to have a lefty, but that aside, Wasims variety doesn't mean as much in this team as most others. His deck movement is well covered by Marshall and Hadlee/Mcgrath. Reverse is the big hole, and Imran is better in this department. If you pick Mcrgath, there is a minor hole in conventional swing that Imran better covers.

 

[reyrey]

With all the other guys in the pole (and possibly Akram), you are going to be doing a bit of rotating of opening bowlers depending on form/conditions/who is batting. A good first change bowler still going to get pieces of the new ball anyway.

Anyway, while you have a point about fielding, Imran is ahead on batting and bowling. It would be nice to have a lefty, but that aside, Wasims variety doesn't mean as much in this team as most others. His deck movement is well covered by Marshall and Hadlee/Mcgrath. Reverse is the big hole, and Imran is better in this department. If you pick Mcrgath, there is a minor hole in conventional swing that Imran better covers.

It's debatable if Imran was better at reverse swing. Imran could probably get more movement, but Wasim could get it to go both ways. Wasim with reverse swing poses far more challenges. Wasim also eventually added conventional swing to his repertoire.

 

[subshakerz]

If we are playing Steyn, either he should take the new ball or not play at all. He is too scattergun to be effective without the new shine unless the ball is sufficiently old.

 

[subshakerz]

It's debatable if Imran was better at reverse swing. Imran could probably get more movement, but Wasim could get it to go both ways. Wasim with reverse swing poses far more challenges. Wasim also eventually added conventional swing to his repertoire.

Wasim more skilled, Imran more brutally effective overall IMO.

 

[Bolo.]

It's debatable if Imran was better at reverse swing. Imran could probably get more movement, but Wasim could get it to go both ways. Wasim with reverse swing poses far more challenges. Wasim also eventually added conventional swing to his repertoire.

Never heard of Wasim not being able to bowl conventional. He always could when I watched him. I just don't think he was as effective at it as the other top swing bowlers, for the same (main) reason I don't rate his reverse as highly. He put the ball in the wrong area for the delivery too often. He made the bats miss more than probably anyone else, but it didn't translate into wickets enough.

 

[subshakerz]

Never heard of Wasim not being able to bowl conventional. He always could when I watched him. I just don't think he was as effective at it as the other top swing bowlers, for the same (main) reason I don't rate his reverse as highly. He put the ball in the wrong area for the delivery too often. He made the bats miss more than probably anyone else, but it didn't translate into wickets enough.

Not sure if I agree with this but it is true to say Wasim wasn't the thinking mans bowlers. He said he often didn't know what he was going to bowl next.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If we are playing Steyn, either he should take the new ball or not play at all. He is too scattergun to be effective without the new shine unless the ball is sufficiently old.

You hugely overplay this. His marginally higher economy rate was due to his uber aggressive approach of bowling fuller, drivable lengths, relentlessly chasing the edge. He wasn't quite a metronome like Mcgrath but I feel like describing him as a scattergun is completely inaccurate (The duke was the only ball he lost control with at times but even there as I've pointed out before, he ouperformed Anderson and Broad in their own conditions.). The guy had ungodly good control of swing at his peak , especially considering his outswinger moved more prodiguously on a consistent basis than any bowler I've seen.