***Official*** Super Series

[JASON]

With the Lame Super series so far, does anyone else agree with me - the Super Test will in fact be a mini Test (over in 2-3 days) and an even bigger flop !!

 

[tooextracool]

Well mate they have to bat somehwere don't they? You could bat Sangakkara at 5 or 6 and say that is the wrong place for him, you could chuck Kallis at 5 and say that is not the right place for him.

That's inevitable about a series like this, people will bat out of position, so I don't know what you are critising about.

why? the best selectors in the world should pick the best player by position, not the best player overall. if you have 7 higher order players all of whom average over 45 in ODI cricket, you dont pick all 7 of them simply because they average higher than everyone else. you pick the best 2 openers, then the best 3 middle order players and then the best 2 lower-middle order players. the point of picking dravid at 6, flintoff at 7 etc is beyond belief.

 

[tooextracool]

Bond and Fleming would've made a hell of a difference to this World XI - which is struggling in both batting and bowling deparments. Poor Show !!!

this is quite ludicrous. its bad enough that people are saying that bond should be in the side on hindsight, but fleming in that side is an absolute joke when he averages 32 and failed miserably against australia in the recent series'.
as far as bond is concerned picking him on the basis of really only 1 exceptional game since his return is quite ludicrous

 

[Burpey]

why? the best selectors in the world should pick the best player by position, not the best player overall. if you have 7 higher order players all of whom average over 45 in ODI cricket, you dont pick all 7 of them simply because they average higher than everyone else. you pick the best 2 openers, then the best 3 middle order players and then the best 2 lower-middle order players. the point of picking dravid at 6, flintoff at 7 etc is beyond belief.

I disagree with this. I'd pick the best batsmen and fit them in rather than picking them by batting position

 

[tooextracool]

I disagree with this. I'd pick the best batsmen and fit them in rather than picking them by batting position

so you think we're better off having dravid bat at 6 and pietersen at 8,despite the fact that both of them look half the players they can be?
a batsman is only as good as he can be at a particular position, and there are very very few players who arent significantly worse in one position compared to another.

 

[Slow Love™]

why? the best selectors in the world should pick the best player by position, not the best player overall. if you have 7 higher order players all of whom average over 45 in ODI cricket, you dont pick all 7 of them simply because they average higher than everyone else. you pick the best 2 openers, then the best 3 middle order players and then the best 2 lower-middle order players. the point of picking dravid at 6, flintoff at 7 etc is beyond belief.

You know, I actually agree with this. We know from watching national teams that screwing with a batting order can really bring undesirable results. And the World XI just gives off a messy sense of overkill and confusion as to people's roles.

The problem we have with this concept is that, on a marketing level, the powers that be wanted to have a team of star-studded, contemporary near-legends, so they stacked the team with them. It's understandable, but maybe it doesn't provide the best competition.

 

[Nate]

Who knows if it`s been talked about... but Bracken! Tee he he, good times. Sucks to be Lara.

 

[Craig]

why? the best selectors in the world should pick the best player by position, not the best player overall. if you have 7 higher order players all of whom average over 45 in ODI cricket, you dont pick all 7 of them simply because they average higher than everyone else. you pick the best 2 openers, then the best 3 middle order players and then the best 2 lower-middle order players. the point of picking dravid at 6, flintoff at 7 etc is beyond belief.

That's not what I'm saying.

What my point is that if you pick these players and they have to bat somewhere and so thus somebody will bat out of order. Also you neglect the fact that Gayle came on as a super-sub so that lengthened the batting order.

And it is hardly foregin that Dravid and Flintoff have batted so low in either form of the game.

 

[Craig]

You know, I actually agree with this. We know from watching national teams that screwing with a batting order can really bring undesirable results. And the World XI just gives off a messy sense of overkill and confusion as to people's roles.

The problem we have with this concept is that, on a marketing level, the powers that be wanted to have a team of star-studded, contemporary near-legends, so they stacked the team with them. It's understandable, but maybe it doesn't provide the best competition.

Or the best balance.

 

[SJS]

Okay then. Here is a list of 10 ODI all-rounders (in my humble opinion) and the number of overs per match each has bowled over their entire career. Mind telling me which of these are all-rounders and why the others are not? I'm aware of course that some players are all-rounders for part of their careers and not others, but this is the easiest way to do it.

Ian Harvey - 7.48
Lance Kluesener - 7.14
Carl Hooper - 7.02
Shane Watson - 6.64
Shahid Afridi - 6.46
Andrew Flintoff - 6.22
Sanath Jayasuria - 6
Jacques Kallis - 6
Andrew Symonds - 5.67
Chris Gayle 5.38

Deviating from the main argument, why isnt Pollock included in most people's list of all rounders. We seem to look at batsmen who can bowl in the limited over version. The bowling all rounders get ignored, by and large when looking at multifaceted cricketers in the side.

Everyone is aware of Pollock's bowling prowess (322 wkts @24.2 with a strike rate in the thirties and an eco rate of 3.8). He is way way above all those listed in the list above in bowling. However, his batting figures are not bad either.

Nearly 2500 runs at 24.3 which isnt that bad when you consider that he comes in so low and that Afridi 24.1, Watson 27.7, Harvey 17.9 are not much better.

His Strike Rate with the bat is an impressive 83.9. This is ranks with the best and from this list Watson (67.8), Hooper (76.6) and even Gayle (78.9) are below him.

Some how his low profile persona has made the media and the media-led-fans do less than full justice to this all rounder who, in my humble opinion, should walk into any international side of his time in both formats of the game.

Actually he was also a very fine captain and leader of men till Ms Duckworth & Lewis and their complicated way of sorting out cricketing deadlocks did him in in one maddening evening.

 

[BoyBrumby]

As by indicated with a strike rate of 70?

I don't think 70 is a fantastic strike rate at all. Over 50 overs that equates to 210 runs.

 

[GladiatrsInBlue]

That's actually a very good point. He's a big-hitter, but can also play a slow innings when he must. Can also bowl, better than Afridi who bowls more quicker-balls than leggies

Razzak is better than Afridi and is cleary underrated as some people think he's the worst OD player around.

IF Afridi is atall to be played then he should bat up the order, as at number eight slot he's practically useless.

 

[andyc]

Katich and Pietersen in doubt

Dunno if this has been brought up yet, but this is an article from cricinfo...

 

[social]

do you honestly believe that flintoff has a point to prove by scoring runs or taking wickets in this series? i doubt it, and with an important series around the corner i know i wouldnt bowl at my best and put in too much effort based on what is merely an exhibition game.

Yeah right.

He tried but got hammered. According to Katich, he's bowling as quickly as he was during the Ashes but without reverse swing and, as such, the batsmen are just smashing through the line.

Unfortunately for him, he looks tired and a shadow of the player in the Ashes but, at the end of the day, he accepted the invitation.

Just goes to show how great players such as Warne, McGrath, Murali etc are when they do far more work yet have been consistently outstanding for many years.

 

[tooextracool]

What my point is that if you pick these players and they have to bat somewhere and so thus somebody will bat out of order. Also you neglect the fact that Gayle came on as a super-sub so that lengthened the batting order.

the point is these players shouldnt have been picked ITFP if they couldnt bat in regular positions. theres no point in picking kallis for example, if you have a player liked dravid who can bat at 4 and probably do a better job, and theres no point in picking pietersen if hes going to bat at no 8.

And it is hardly foregin that Dravid and Flintoff have batted so low in either form of the game.

dravid has played 10 innings batting at 6 and flintoff has played 12 batting at 7. dravid in particularly is a significantly lesser player when he has to bat so low down the order.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah right.

He tried but got hammered. According to Katich, he's bowling as quickly as he was during the Ashes but without reverse swing and, as such, the batsmen are just smashing through the line.

Unfortunately for him, he looks tired and a shadow of the player in the Ashes but, at the end of the day, he accepted the invitation.

Just goes to show how great players such as Warne, McGrath, Murali etc are when they do far more work yet have been consistently outstanding for many years.

im not sure what the ashes series has to do with this, because its 2 completely different form of games. flintoff has bowled well in ODIs for years now without being able to reverse swing, and even did it on plenty of occasions in the Natwest series. AFAIC he didnt bowl as well as he can and didnt put in as much effort as he normally does, and i dont see any reason why he would.

 

[social]

im not sure what the ashes series has to do with this, because its 2 completely different form of games. flintoff has bowled well in ODIs for years now without being able to reverse swing, and even did it on plenty of occasions in the Natwest series. AFAIC he didnt bowl as well as he can and didnt put in as much effort as he normally does, and i dont see any reason why he would.[/QUOT


What evidence is there that he didnt put the effort in?

He bowled 90 mph and you cant do that without effort.

He got smashed - get over it.

Anyone that thinks the World X1 isnt trying to capitalise on the Aussies' supposed decline is kidding themselves.

 

[Nate]

How incredible was Akhtar`s first ball to Gilchrist! One of the best first-balls I`ve ever seen.

 

[andyc]

Did anyone else think that Gayle looked a bit unenthusiastic when he was in the field yesterday? Although I can't say I've ever seen him play, so maybe that's just what he's like...

 

[Eclipse]

im not sure what the ashes series has to do with this, because its 2 completely different form of games. flintoff has bowled well in ODIs for years now without being able to reverse swing, and even did it on plenty of occasions in the Natwest series. AFAIC he didnt bowl as well as he can and didnt put in as much effort as he normally does, and i dont see any reason why he would.

of couse he would put the effort in

he's a proud guy and I don't doubt he would like being smashed around and letting Gilly take the upper hand..

when all the players come out and say "we are taking this very seriously" doesn't that mean anything to you? these guys are pro's and they take EVERY game seriously..