Shane Warne vs Dale Steyn

[Sliferxxxx]

Even Kyear agrees with me on that. Best to mix eras to be somewhat representative.

I still disagree.

 

[subshakerz]

I still disagree.

The only real debate is Hadlee vs McGrath for me but I don't think the returns of Hadlee at no.9 are that much to overtake a slightly better bowler.

However if we think about it, the normal middle order of Bradman, Viv, Sachin, Sobers are all from different eras. Openers are likely to be different eras too.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

The only real debate is Hadlee vs McGrath for me but I don't think the returns of Hadlee at no.9 are that much to overtake a slightly better bowler.

However if we think about it, the normal middle order of Bradman, Viv, Sachin, Sobers are all from different eras. Openers are likely to be different eras too.

Yes but one could realistically replace Hutton with Gavaskar and him and Viv are from the same era. No?

 

[subshakerz]

Yes but one could realistically replace Hutton with Gavaskar and him and Viv are from the same era. No?

Sure. But generally they are fairly spread out.

 

[Migara]

46% of Warne's wickets are 7-11 and 45.1% of Murali's wickets are 7-11, not a relevant gap.

That is not the relevant statistic. What is relevent is how many 1st innings and second innings wickets wickets that the bowling attack took as a unit. When others takes wickets, they don't score off you as well.

I am not sure why 7 - 11 was selected.

Tail starts from 8.

Warne 37.1%
Murali 32.5%

Definite difference there.

 

[Johan]

That is not the relevant statistic. What is relevent is how many 1st innings and second innings wickets wickets that the bowling attack took as a unit. When others takes wickets, they don't score off you as well.

I am not sure why 7 - 11 was selected.

Tail starts from 8.

Warne 37.1%
Murali 32.5%

Definite difference there.

Let's can it on the Warne vs Murali chat. We have a dedicated thread with a disclaimer for a reason.

 

[kyear2]

Bat deep, no major losses in bowling variety or ability.

The entire premise of choosing a bowling attack based on its batting is the one thing on CW that I can't get on board with.

It's something that's not duplicated anywhere else and historically never been how teams are selected, either actual nor honorary.

You simply pick the best attack.


Anyways, if recent trends are anything to go by, that seems to be dying away. And not soon enough.

 

[kyear2]

Yup I brought that up in the Marshall vs Bumrah thread why I think Marshall will always be ahead Bumrah has a cap and can't do a 5 test series. I would still likely go with Marshall even if Bumrah ends his career on 19.

Or just choose both.

Hadlee can be there for control and can provide all the batting you need and actually not represent any drop off In quality.

Bumrah provide the reverse swing and threat with the old ball, and Marshall the pace, aggression and swing.

Hadlee, Warne and Marshall all good with the bat.

But sure you'll find a reason as to why that's not good enough.

 

[kyear2]

I go with 5 gun strike bowlers: Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Warne and one of Steyn and McGrath.

I don't see Bumrah replacing anyone here if I'm very honest.

Was just a hypothetical.

But what if he ends up with 300 wickets at 21?

I have a clear top tier of bowlers.

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee

If Bumrah can possibly join that list, he provides the reverse I need, so he easily replaces Wasim for me.

I will again say, in a team that includes Bradman, Sachin, Richards and Sobers, and most likely a keeper batsman the calibre of Gilchrist, why am I choosing my bowlers based on batting.

E.W. Swanton choose an AT team in '91, his criteria for said team was attacking potential with the bat, bowling variety and fielding prowess.

Wisden choose an AT XI not having any bowling all rounders, choosing who they deemed to be the best bowlers.

Cricinfo restricted their all rounders to one, choosing their bowlers based purely on said primary skill.

Someone posted a team by Boycott the other day, he too specified that his focus was on solid openers, impetus from the middle order, a mixed attack and great slip catching to accept the wickets.

Gower released a team via Cricinfo, again no mention or reference to #batdeep.

I've never seen a team outside of CW comprising of Hadlee, Marshall, Imran and Warne. Hadlee hardly garners a mention and Imran not faring significantly better. Instead there's far more references to Barnes, McGrath, Wasim and Lillee, partnering Marshall and Warne.

I sincerely don't believe that any former team in the history of the game, sat down the select their bowlers, the ones who decides the game with the ball in their hands, the match winners even, and decided they'll go with the ones who bat a little better.

Legitimately crazy to me, especially for a team that literally would have the best batsmen ever.

The goal is to take 20 wickets, and as quickly and cheaply as possible.

 

[kyear2]

McGrath may be better than Paddles and that's a big may be but there's not a big enough gulf there to make up for the difference in batting. The era thing i don't really agree with but hey, it's your reasoning.

The only scenario that applies to is Hadlee and McGrath though.

And most of late just seem to choose both.

And they're, all two both, in the recognized top tier.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

The only scenario that applies to is Hadlee and McGrath though.

And most of late just seem to choose both.

And they're, all two both, in the recognized top tier.

My XI of absolute bests irrespective of 2nd skills:

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman*
Sachin
Viv
Sobers
Gilchrist +
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Mcgrath

 

[smash84]

My XI of absolute bests irrespective of 2nd skills:

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman*
Sachin
Viv
Sobers
Gilchrist +
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Mcgrath

You rate Warne ahead of Murali on primary skill?

 

[kyear2]

Nah.. I would give Marshall and Wasim the new ball so they can hoop it around and I would want the tall hit the deck bowler to be my 3rd seamer and I just feel Ambrose, with his skillsets, will be better than McGrath. But its really just cherry picking at that point. IMO, Ambrose is probably likelier to be that slight bit more useful to the team than McGrath in that 3rd seamer role, so I pick Ambrose.

But Ambrose was better with the new ball, Wasim better with the old.

Very arguably the very best ever with the older ball.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

My XI of absolute bests irrespective of 2nd skills:

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman*
Sachin
Viv
Sobers
Gilchrist +
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Mcgrath

Thoughts??

 

[Sliferxxxx]

You rate Warne ahead of Murali on primary skill?

Brother I honestly go back and forth. It's too close to call.

 

[smash84]

Brother I honestly go back and forth. It's too close to call.

If I take only bowling, I think Murali has a marginal but clear edge

I usually pick Warne because of batting

 

[subshakerz]

Or just choose both.

Hadlee can be there for control and can provide all the batting you need and actually not represent any drop off In quality.

Bumrah provide the reverse swing and threat with the old ball, and Marshall the pace, aggression and swing.

Hadlee, Warne and Marshall all good with the bat.

But sure you'll find a reason as to why that's not good enough.

No that also works. But again I prefer the best seamer, best all round swinger and best reverser.

 

[subshakerz]

Thoughts??

Needs reverse

 

[sayon basak]

My XI of absolute bests irrespective of 2nd skills:

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman*
Sachin
Viv
Sobers
Gilchrist +
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Mcgrath

Good team. I'd take only one from Hadlee/McGrath and replace one of them with Imran. But if you're not including secondary skill, then understandable.

 

[Johan]

**** reverse