How much did slip cordons affect McGrath's and Wasim's records?

[subshakerz]

I want to come back to this. If you watched today, and I know it's T20, but we've seen him do it in tests as well, how can you defend the nonsense about bowlers being able to know how to bat?

According to your thought process, guys like him shouldn't be selected. If you were choosing a team to represent earth of current players, is he making it or does he weaken the batting too much?

@smash84 welcomed to answer as well.

You'll be full of **** sometimes.

Did you watch the same game? SA lost because their tail were full of bunnies who couldn't even scores singles.

 

[smash84]

I want to come back to this. If you watched today, and I know it's T20, but we've seen him do it in tests as well, how can you defend the nonsense about bowlers being able to know how to bat?

According to your thought process, guys like him shouldn't be selected. If you were choosing a team to represent earth of current players, is he making it or does he weaken the batting too much?

@smash84 welcomed to answer as well.

You'll be full of **** sometimes.

Lol, you clown South Africa lost because they couldn't bat deep.. especially Maharaj unable to put bat to ball at the most crucial time

 

[kyear2]

Except you just admitted you will drop Sobers for Martin. Congrats.

Now please answer my question below.

Please dear God show me where I said that.

No one would ever do that. One's a ****ing batsman and ones a bowler.

 

[kyear2]

The degree to which tail runs will change games is a difference in how we see the game. Claiming a 50 run batting average difference will just be used as a tiebreaker between bowlers is being obstinately wrong.

You grew up watching the WIs dominate without a spinner. How can you conclude that a spinner is necessary? The answer is because no spinner was a limitation that that they were good enough to overcome. Like having a weaker tail is a limitation that some teams have been able to overcome.

I grew up watching RSA (who had some serious quality issues with specialists) manage results similar to Aus (a GOAT candidate) for several years. The specialists were weaker than AUS in both departments. How could I not conclude ARs make a difference? RSA was never hitting the number 1 rank without them. Not even close.

Did it ever occur to you that the better bowling attack would make up that difference?

I'm not even arguing against possibly a no. 8, but by your premise guys like Bumrah and McGrath shouldn't be selected. That's lunacy if not idiocy.

So yes, would be a tie breaker, but no way can you justify not playing your best bowler, even at no. 11.

 

[kyear2]

Did you watch the same game? SA lost because their tail were full of bunnies who couldn't even scores singles.

Jesus, are you serious?

So the best bowler on the world didn't win it?

India took care of business and it never got to the tail and Rabada fell apart at the end. Wtf did you watch?

 

[kyear2]

@subshakerz the craziest thing about this argument for you is that you also have McGrath in your all time team. Positive you're just arguing for arguments sake.

 

[kyear2]

Lol, you clown South Africa lost because they couldn't bat deep.. especially Maharaj unable to put bat to ball at the most crucial time

So be clear. You agree with Bolo that guys like Bumrah shouldn't play because they weaken the batting too much? Even if batting at 11?

And you don't believe that without Bumrah SA would have won today?

 

[subshakerz]

Jesus, are you serious?

So the best bowler on the world didn't win it?

India took care of business and it never got to the tail and Rabada fell apart at the end. Wtf did you watch?

No Bumrah didn't win it himself. Even after his over, SA were technically still in the game but their tail ate up precious deliveries until it was too late.

I find this hilarious because the commentators at the beginning of the game were pointing to SAs weak tail as a weakness, yet you deny that.

 

[subshakerz]

@subshakerz the craziest thing about this argument for you is that you also have McGrath in your all time team. Positive you're just arguing for arguments sake.

Yes but I accept out of principle I should have Hadlee instead of him.

I just prefer not to have three pacers from the same era because it's boring.

 

[subshakerz]

Please dear God show me where I said that.

No one would ever do that. One's a ****ing batsman and ones a bowler.

You said it here when Bolo asked you.

Martin played over 70 tests. And for a normal team, I'm always going best bowler.

 

[smash84]

So be clear. You agree with Bolo that guys like Bumrah shouldn't play because they weaken the batting too much? Even if batting at 11?

And you don't believe that without Bumrah SA would have won today?

I agree with Bolo that if India had another bowler slightly worse than Bumrah and he averaged 40 with the bat, I'd play him ahead of Bumrah.

South Africa were still in with a very good chance after Bumrah had bowled out, yet their **** tail couldn't get them through. So yeah, tailend batting matters a lot.

 

[subshakerz]

I agree with Bolo that if India had another bowler slightly worse than Bumrah and he averaged 40 with the bat, I'd play him ahead of Bumrah.

South Africa were still in with a very good chance after Bumrah had bowled out, yet their **** tail couldn't get them through. So yeah, tailend batting matters a lot.

Depends how much worse really. He still has to be a worldclass pacer IMO.

 

[kyear2]

You said it here when Bolo asked you.

Dude, you really think that was in response to chosing Martin over one of the two greatest cricketers ever?

 

[smash84]

Depends how much worse really. He still has to be a worldclass pacer IMO.

I said slightly. Or course that means that the margin is really small.

 

[kyear2]

I agree with Bolo that if India had another bowler slightly worse than Bumrah and he averaged 40 with the bat, I'd play him ahead of Bumrah.

South Africa were still in with a very good chance after Bumrah had bowled out, yet their **** tail couldn't get them through. So yeah, tailend batting matters a lot.

This slightly less argument always comes up.

Bumrah is the best bowler on earth right now. How the hell is it a consideration that he's not selected for anything based on his batting.

There's no scenario if I had to choose between McGrath or Bumrah and Pollock where I'm chosing Pollock.

Have we somehow forgotten that the primary responsibility of the bowlers is to bowl?

 

[kyear2]

I said slightly. Or course that means that the margin is really small.

That's never the case though.

If Hazelwood averaged 35 are you choosing him over Bumrah? Is @capt_Luffy

We've already established that @Bolo wouldn't even have Bumrah in his side.

 

[subshakerz]

Dude, you really think that was in response to chosing Martin over one of the two greatest cricketers ever?

Yes. As a member of your bowling attack. Sobers' batting wasn't good enough for you to change that. You will bench Sobers then.

Please answer the below question:

for an average bowler, how many wickets do you reckon over the course of a career would a poor slip versus a great slip differential be?

 

[subshakerz]

There's no scenario if I had to choose between McGrath or Bumrah and Pollock where I'm chosing Pollock.

What if Pollock was a Kohli-level bat?

 

[kyear2]

Yes. As a member of your bowling attack. Sobers' batting wasn't good enough for you to change that. You will bench Sobers then.

Please answer the below question:

Sobers isn't a member of my bowling attack. He's in the team as my premier batsman, the scenario is stupid.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I want to come back to this. If you watched today, and I know it's T20, but we've seen him do it in tests as well, how can you defend the nonsense about bowlers being able to know how to bat?

I refuse to believe you watched the game because that's literally the exact opposite conclusion everyone came away with.