-
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.
Middle Order for Pre Packer XI
- Thread starter bagapath
- Start date
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Ya I knew that before you told me...But I consider that just a coincidence of some sort (and the small enough sample size tells me that's highly possible)...Because in my mind a batsman who can play well at no. 4 can always play well at no. 5 too (unlike no. 3 and no. 4, which require somewhat different skill sets)...Taking decisions blindly on numbers without any logic behind it is something I won't support...
Thank you...
Last edited:
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
It doesn't matter actually...If Sobers liked to bat at no. 6, and still averaged over 78 at no. 3 then I shall bat him at no. 3 (Of course in the absence of the Don)Still where he liked to bat
Last edited:
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
nice sample size.
Last edited:
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sobers, Chappell, May for me.
Left out Pollock. Would be the equivalent IMO to Mike Hussey stopping after 20 odd tests then being picked as an "era" player. Not RG's fault of course, but had to leave him out.
Thought about Dexter as well (but he's a serial killer
), but in the end went for these three, more on the fact that I'd probably like watching them play more than the others, although it's close.
Cue Ikki to come in now and tell me why Sobers wasn't good to watch, was boring etc. Save yourself the trouble mate, I really don't give a ****.
Left out Pollock. Would be the equivalent IMO to Mike Hussey stopping after 20 odd tests then being picked as an "era" player. Not RG's fault of course, but had to leave him out.
Thought about Dexter as well (but he's a serial killer
), but in the end went for these three, more on the fact that I'd probably like watching them play more than the others, although it's close.Cue Ikki to come in now and tell me why Sobers wasn't good to watch, was boring etc. Save yourself the trouble mate, I really don't give a ****.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I think you're whinging for the sake of whinging now. I have absolutely no qualms about Sobers' batting.
I voted Sobers, Chappell (G) and Barrington. They're going to score runs and frustrate the bowlers into tears.
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
Greg wasn't a blocker. I went for Sobers, Greg and Walcott because they were attacking players as opposed to Weekes and especially Barrington.
archie mac
International Coach
As you please, but in my team he bats six
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I know he wasn't? Chappell and Sobers for stroke-play and Barrington for defense. Either getting hit all over the park or not getting even a look-in.
0RI0N
State 12th Man
You can support whatever,whomever you want.
I really don't give a continental croissant.
Btw you wrong.
Cant justify weekEs at 5 with 9 innings WAS my point.
weekEs aint getting in this team.we can stop this now,cos
underarm trevor's brother greg,is gonna make the team.
Thank you
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Kenny certainly worth a shout here - does add balance to an attacking middle order. Be a very good foil to the other two you've mentioned, no doubt.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Weekes was just about as attacking as any batsman in the history of the game.
