Langer a great cricketer

[tooextracool]

Exactly, tooextracool is playing negatively. You should consider players based on the fact that they will win you a game, not draw it for you.

im afraid not, when you have a team filled with stroke makers, you definetly need a couple of players who can save a game for you too. and im pretty sure that there have been many occasions where a slow innings has proved to be instrumental in victory.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

neither are higher, they're both just as important, saving a game is just as important as winning a game, its fairly obvious..

So going 1-0 up in a series is just as important as staying 0-0?

Winning should take priority over avoiding defeat. The Australians can attribute their golden run to this.

 

[Sudeep]

im afraid not, when you have a team filled with stroke makers, you definetly need a couple of players who can save a game for you too. and im pretty sure that there have been many occasions where a slow innings has proved to be instrumental in victory.

But there have been many more occasions where a faster innings has proved instrumental in victory.

 

[Mr Casson]

im afraid not, when you have a team filled with stroke makers, you definetly need a couple of players who can save a game for you too. and im pretty sure that there have been many occasions where a slow innings has proved to be instrumental in victory.

The best players are the ones who adapt to the conditions. The Australians have strokemakers whom are also capable of attritional play (Martyn, Lehmann in Sri Lanka this year are good examples). Evidently this leads to far more wins.

Players who are only capable of one mode of play e.g. Richardson are too one-dimensional and the results show this.

 

[Pratters]

But there have been many more occasions where a faster innings has proved instrumental in victory.

Neither are great cricketers. So I dont know what the arguement is about. Langer has a strike rate of 52.35. Which is around 3 runs per over. In the last 5-7 years, many players are scoring at that rate. The game has become more fast paced. Doesnt mean slower players have a lesser role to play. They are as important like Richardson, Dravid (remember 190 vs the Kiwis?) have shown that.

Winning is most important. Holding one end up by a defensive player is not entirely worthless in a team cause. Chopra proved that in Australia too very recently.

 

[Mr Casson]

Pratyush, you can give some consideration to Langer's strike rate for being an opener. I think 53 for an opener is quite good.

 

[tooextracool]

Which shows that Langer as an opener scores 5 more runs per innings than Richardson.

actually its 3.5, and before this game it was 1.5, certainly barely much difference between the 2.
and lets not even get started on who gets the better home conditions to play on

 

[Scallywag]

Today on the radio (ABC) Chapple said that Langer was among the Australian greats, Harsha asked among what type of players and Chapple named M Waugh and D Walters as players he thought Langer could hold his own (make you points to chapple not me), Harsha replied that Langer was a player that had a higher average than he should and M Waugh had a lower average than he should. I got a good laugh out of it.

 

[tooextracool]

The best players are the ones who adapt to the conditions. The Australians have strokemakers whom are also capable of attritional play (Martyn, Lehmann in Sri Lanka this year are good examples). Evidently this leads to far more wins.

Players who are only capable of one mode of play e.g. Richardson are too one-dimensional and the results show this.

yes this is true, someone who can do both can be considered better. of course langer with an SR of 53 can barely be considered to be better in either

 

[Pratters]

Pratyush, you can give some consideration to Langer's strike rate for being an opener. I think 53 for an opener is quite good.

53 is still as close to 3 runs per over as 52.35

Also its quite good but not great. No one said Langer is not a good player.

 

[tooextracool]

So going 1-0 up in a series is just as important as staying 0-0?

you do not get the point at all, it depends on the situation. staying 0-0 is definetly a far better proposition than going down 0-1.

 

[tooextracool]

But there have been many more occasions where a faster innings has proved instrumental in victory.

and there have been many more occasions where a slower innings have prove instrumental in saving a test.....

 

[Pratters]

you do not get the point at all, it depends on the situation. staying 0-0 is definetly a far better proposition than going down 0-1.

This is very arguable. Sobers went in for a lot of criticism when he declared to give England a competitive total to chase and England won.

In cricket, draws are over rated. Football awards 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw and puts draws in the right perspective. I think the teams should go for a chance to win as much as they can if it even means to declare competitively.

This does not mean to declare stupidly and lose the advantage in a match. But it does the game great disservice when teams play it 'safe' and go for a draw when winning is still an option.

 

[Pratters]

and there have been many more occasions where a slower innings have prove instrumental in saving a test.....

Slower innings can be instrumental in a winning cause as well. Who would say Chopra was less important than Sehwag in the series vs Australia although he didnt score much. Holding an end up is as important many a times in winning a test match.

 

[tooextracool]

This is very arguable. Sobers went in for a lot of criticism when he declared to give England a competitive total to chase and England won.

In cricket, draws are over rated. Football awards 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw and puts draws in the right perspective. I think the teams should go for a chance to win as much as they can if it even means to declare competitively.

This does not mean to declare stupidly and lose the advantage in a match. But it does the game great disservice when teams play it 'safe' and go for a draw when winning is still an option.

it depends on the situation im afraid, certainly england going for a draw in SL for the first 2 tests on the last tour can be explained because in the conditions, defence was better than attacking. if the chances of winning are minimal, but the chances of saving the game is significantly larger anyone would go for a draw.

 

[Sudeep]

Slower innings can be instrumental in a winning cause as well. Who would say Chopra was less important than Sehwag in the series vs Australia although he didnt score much. Holding an end up is as important many a times in winning a test match.

Incidentally, the one Test that India won, was where Chopra occupied the least number of balls of all the four.

However, my case is I'd pick Langer any day over Richardson. I'm not arguing that Langer can be called great - there are miles to go before that.

 

[Pratters]

it depends on the situation im afraid, certainly england going for a draw in SL for the first 2 tests on the last tour can be explained because in the conditions, defence was better than attacking. if the chances of winning are minimal, but the chances of saving the game is significantly larger anyone would go for a draw.

If there is a greater chance of winning than losing, a team should back itself and go for the win. The ultimate goal is to win the series. So if a team is winning 1-0 with one test to go, it can go for a draw series.

A weaker team with very little chance of winning may go for a draw like South Africa did in the first test.

When you have a chance of winning more than losing and the series is there to be taken, a win is to be striven for at all costs. Like India should have declared in the second inning in the test vs South Africa in the last match aroun 350 even when they were behind as this would mean a possible chance of winning.

 

[tooextracool]

Slower innings can be instrumental in a winning cause as well. Who would say Chopra was less important than Sehwag in the series vs Australia although he didnt score much. Holding an end up is as important many a times in winning a test match.

err yes i know, ive said that earlier.
more examples of slow innings being instrumental in victory are hussain's 116 at headingly against SA, either of his 3 50s in the WI, strauss' 90 odd at old trafford, thorpes 114 at old trafford and thorpes 90 in trinidad.

 

[Pratters]

Incidentally, the one Test that India won, was where Chopra occupied the least number of balls of all the four.

However, my case is I'd pick Langer any day over Richardson. I'm not arguing that Langer can be called great - there are miles to go before that.

A defensive opener is no less significant that an agressive one. It all depends on the 'role' the team has figured for him. An opener may be asked to wear the new ball off so that the latter batsmen can play the old ball and win ultimately. Richardson suits well in a lesser talented kiwi team where wearing the new ball early on is very vital for the middle order batsmen.

Langer is vital in the Australian side as an agressive player. Both are openers but totally different and it will be completely simplistic to say one is better than the other. In a specific team one player will be better while in another that player may not be that useful.

 

[Sudeep]

Langer's career:

unfiltered            81  5750 250   43.89  19  22   0   -       -    0  52  0

Langer, when Australia won:

filtered              52  3761 250   47.60  12  13   -   -       -    -  39  0

Langer, when Australia drew:

filtered              14  1290 162   58.63   6   5   -   -       -    -   7  0

Richardson's career:

unfiltered            37  2751 145   45.85   4  19   1  1/16   21.00  0  25  0

Richardson, when New Zealand won:

filtered              12   763 143   44.88   2   3   0   -       -    0  10  0

Richardson, when New Zealand drew:

filtered              14  1058 145   50.38   1   9   1  1/16   16.00  0  12  0

Pretty much my point...