Best Attack

[subshakerz]

I don't think they would add as much as that extra, at least not off their own bats. They managed 50 or so per innings against WIs. Lower against a world XI. With Steyn and Mcgrath adding close to 10, its probably a bit more than 30 extra combined. Which is still a lot. The middle order bats are only adding 40 or so RPI against an ATG attack- it's close to a free ATG bat. Plus there are partnership runs... sticking around when someone like Sobers is on a rampage is potentially worth a lot.

You are off about the reliability. Bats of all quality get out cheap before they are set. And you don't have an opportunity to score 400 from 8 or 9. They will manage 50 or so far more frequently than a single specialist bat would.

That's actually where Imran and Hadlee have potentially the most value. Just sticking around as Sobers or Gilly take attack apart. Can't believe Kyear can't see this.

 

[Bolo.]

That's actually where Imran and Hadlee have potentially the most value. Just sticking around as Sobers or Gilly take attack apart. Can't believe Kyear can't see this.

With a tail as strong as we are selecting, I reckon the tail runs will be more valuable.

But patnerships with the tail do swing matches do swing matches often, even when involving much weaker specialists.

 

[kyear2]

That's not true. I've had many polite disagreements with others. But they are very easy becuz they don't hide anything behind passive aggressive jibes and extra long posts.

The problem is that you aren't straightforward with the reasons you come up with your positions and hide them behind abstract logic and supposed principles that you contradict on a regular basis.

And I almost never see you admit when you have made an error. Like in a reasonable world you would admit tradeoffs and costs to your position, modify them and still hold the same teams even.

You are so full of ****. The last time you got into an argument I was the only one who even defender you as literally the entire indian contingent was coming after you.

I'm sorry is nuance is lost on you. There's morning abstract about what I've typed. Your problem is that I don't agree with you. Then you try to position it like everyone agrees with you and it's just me with my positions, when that's clearly not the case.

And what errors? You want me to admit my actual personal opinions are wrong? And this is coming from you who literally would just stop replying instead of acknowledging someone made a valid point.

I have said they are all valid options and I have my preference. I have stated why, you just disagree with and demand that I respond to you to defend my position.

Over the last two days you have torn Lara's record apart, as you always so, being objective of course. But if I make even the slightest remark about Imran's record I'm biased against him. You criticized his away record, but when someone does that to Imran you say it's just to discredit his home record and not important.

The level of hypocrisy is palpable and again I say, you're full of ****.

 

[kyear2]

Steyn ain't an ideal 3rd seamer, you know that and it wouldn't kill you to admit it and still decide to keep him. I would respect you if you did that and showed a willingness to not pretend everything is so clearly spelled out. But no, stay high and mighty.

This, this here is trying to bully a response.

Steyn for me is the ideal 3rd bowler because as I've said. He was capable of conventional and reverse swing, he's an attacking bowler with an unparalleled strike rate. He can come on and be viable without having to wait for reverse to be a factor.

Imran for me is less so, because in modern times it would be harder for him to prepare the ball for reverse as quickly as he was accustomed to. Also unless he's playing in 1980's Pakistan for all of the matches he wasn't quite in the same league as the others.

So of the options it's Steyn or Hadlee, and Steyn for me was preferred one.

And for the record, I'm not looking for your respect. And morning to do with high and mighty, I don't want to engage in the conversation that this would ignite. But you must have your response.

Again, it's not about discourse with you, it's that everyone agrees with you.

 

[kyear2]

I don't think they would add as much as that extra, at least not off their own bats. They managed 50 or so per innings against WIs. Lower against a world XI. With Steyn and Mcgrath adding close to 10, its probably a bit more than 30 extra combined. Which is still a lot. The middle order bats are only adding 40 or so RPI against an ATG attack- it's close to a free ATG bat. Plus there are partnership runs... sticking around when someone like Sobers is on a rampage is potentially worth a lot.

You are off about the reliability. Bats of all quality get out cheap before they are set. And you don't have an opportunity to score 400 from 8 or 9. They will manage 50 or so far more frequently than a single specialist bat would.

Yes, you are focusing on the runs provided, understood. As I've said repeatedly at this point, all are viable choose who you prefer.

For me the opening pair is set. Marshall and McGrath easily not only the best bowlers ever, but have the most diverse skill sets compared to each other. They compliment each other perfectly and test every part of a batsman's technique. They are also the two most winningest bowlers and took their teams to the pinnacle of success. That might mean morning to you, it does for me.

Philosophically it feels wrong to omit a bowler who is arguably the best, because of their batting, especially considering they are going to bat at no. 11.

So that leaves the 3rd.

Imran's home and away split is higher that for anyone else in his era and his away record is poor in comparison. Especially when he encountered easier conditions away from home. That raises concerns and for me, and not trying to convince you or anyone else, he isn't quite in the same league as the other two. In what was a bowling era he averaged 28 in Australia and India, 24 in England (pass for the first tour), 26 in NZ, 25 in the WI, so yes he's out. It doesn't matter how good his batting is if I don't think he's as good a bowler as the others.

Hadlee is for me no doubt the 3rd best bowler ever, but for me he's (along with Ambrose) a bit close to McGrath stylistically and would prefer Steyn's aggression and reverse swing. Steyn isn't better, but a better fit.

So yes, I may lose out on batting, but I think I make up for it in compatibility, skill set and intangibles.

You are free to disagree and as someone said, there's no wrong answers. This is just my take on the situation.

 

[ataraxia]

The thread is called "Best Attack", and there are about 6 pages - including several posts of several paragraphs each - arguing over which of the players are the best batsmen.

Read the OP.

 

[Brook's side]

Read the OP.

"
Best Attack

Select the best one

It's pretty simple, which is the best.

First, the basics, yes we are factoring in all aspects of the game.

For the sake of argument and uniformity we're using Warne, because quite frankly he's made the team every time we've done one. Plus it sets the rest of the tail for reference. Marshall is also in all because he was literally a unanimous choice last time and was just voted a clear no. 1 by the community.

Genuine and non-inflammatory arguments please, really want to know what's the best possible attack pulling from the history of this great game, from the communities perspective.

Personally don't think the last option is viable, but know at least two persons who would request him."


It's about bowling.

 

[Coronis]

First, the basics, yes we are factoring in all aspects of the game.

 

[Brook's side]

how do you think those words got into italics?

 

[Coronis]

how do you think those words got into italics?

Internet magic. But yes the thread was specifically made to discuss the best attack, with regards to both bowling and batting (and slip catching).


Personally I choose the first option. I get my top 3 bowlers, my 5th ranked bowler (who is like, the tiniest itty bittiest smidge behind my 4th ranked bowler) and I have a tail that bats decently down to #10. So I’m pretty happy with that.

 

[Brook's side]

The best attack doesn't consider the bowlers' batting skills any more than it considers ticket sales.

You can factor in all aspects of the universe, the only thing relevant to the best attack is which bowlers make the best bowling unit.

 

[Coronis]

The best attack doesn't consider the bowlers' batting skills any more than it considers ticket sales.

You can factor in all aspects of the universe, the only thing relevant to the best attack is which bowlers make the best bowling unit.

For one thats not the premise of the thread. For another, the best attack is part of the best team so you inherently need to think of the balance between them, of which batting (and other factors) are also a part.

 

[Brook's side]

For one thats not the premise of the thread. For another, the best attack is part of the best team so you inherently need to think of the balance between them, of which batting (and other factors) are also a part.

You aren't making 2 separate points, you're making the same point twice!

The best attack in my view is the best bowling unit, and nothing to do with batting.

That point's reinforced by the facts that:
-the bowlers are listed in the OPost in bowling order
-the rest of the side isn't mentioned, making it impossible to assess "the balance" of the side as a whole

I do note that the OPoster later talks about batting, but that's how I read the OPost in isolation.

 

[Brook's side]

Maybe the OP did intend to take batting into account then.
Still not worth arguing about indefinitely regardless!

 

[ataraxia]

Maybe the OP did intend to take batting into account then.
Still not worth arguing about indefinitely regardless!

OMG you might be right

 

[kyear2]

Internet magic. But yes the thread was specifically made to discuss the best attack, with regards to both bowling and batting (and slip catching).


Personally I choose the first option. I get my top 3 bowlers, my 5th ranked bowler (who is like, the tiniest itty bittiest smidge behind my 4th ranked bowler) and I have a tail that bats decently down to #10. So I’m pretty happy with that.

Which quite frankly may actually be the best option.

 

[Bolo.]

Yes, you are focusing on the runs provided, understood. As I've said repeatedly at this point, all are viable choose who you prefer.

For me the opening pair is set. Marshall and McGrath easily not only the best bowlers ever, but have the most diverse skill sets compared to each other. They compliment each other perfectly and test every part of a batsman's technique. They are also the two most winningest bowlers and took their teams to the pinnacle of success. That might mean morning to you, it does for me.

Philosophically it feels wrong to omit a bowler who is arguably the best, because of their batting, especially considering they are going to bat at no. 11.

So that leaves the 3rd.

Imran's home and away split is higher that for anyone else in his era and his away record is poor in comparison. Especially when he encountered easier conditions away from home. That raises concerns and for me, and not trying to convince you or anyone else, he isn't quite in the same league as the other two. In what was a bowling era he averaged 28 in Australia and India, 24 in England (pass for the first tour), 26 in NZ, 25 in the WI, so yes he's out. It doesn't matter how good his batting is if I don't think he's as good a bowler as the others.

Hadlee is for me no doubt the 3rd best bowler ever, but for me he's (along with Ambrose) a bit close to McGrath stylistically and would prefer Steyn's aggression and reverse swing. Steyn isn't better, but a better fit.

So yes, I may lose out on batting, but I think I make up for it in compatibility, skill set and intangibles.

You are free to disagree and as someone said, there's no wrong answers. This is just my take on the situation.

The objection is not to the quality/compatibility of the bowlers. It's the fact that you are going in short the equivalent of a bat by picking them. You don't like it when people go in short a bat by picking 5 bowlers. Why are you happy losing a comparable amount of quality in batting by picking bowlers who can't bat?

 

[subshakerz]

The objection is not to the quality/compatibility of the bowlers. It's the fact that you are going in short the equivalent of a bat by picking them. You don't like it when people go in short a bat by picking 5 bowlers. Why are you happy losing a comparable amount of quality in batting by picking bowlers who can't bat?

Because he is too wedded to his views, which is McGrath has to be there and Imran has to not be there, even when it contradicts his own logic on batting quality for ARs or keepers in the top 7.

He is fine with a tail of bunnies that will be shredded into by an opposing ATG attack, even if it likely costs him several games as long as he can claim to have the four best bowling options.

He also drops his logical hat by suggesting this has been the pattern for all real top sides (it hasn't) ignoring the fact that this hypothetical ATG side will face an opposing ATG level side.

 

[subshakerz]

Maybe the OP did intend to take batting into account then.
Still not worth arguing about indefinitely regardless!

That's kinda why he is annoyed. Even when told to ignore batting most disagree with his preferred options.

 

[peterhrt]

Lol it didn't happen that way.

The story came from an old TV debate about all-rounders. Wasim argued that the physical strain of being a regular all-rounder was not widely understood and that it was virtually impossible to bat for long periods without a detrimental effect on one's bowling.

Mike Procter offered an alternative view that when not fit to bowl his batting suffered because he felt under more pressure to score runs.

Wasim made a persuasive case that the all-rounder who always wanted to be in the game could harm his team's chances, especially if he were captain.