Who is better in these five batsmen?

[silentstriker]

What about winning the toss?

True that. Thats probably the best 'stat' available. The best captains are the ones who win the toss the most.


Actually, that statement may not be so far off. One of my pet peeves in cricket is that its so damn random who wins sometimes, just because the pitch plays too big a part if two teams are fairly even.

Maybe the visiting team (or perhaps the lower ranked team?) should always get to decide whether to bat or bowl first, and no tosses should be used except at neutral venues in ODIs.

 

[archie mac]

True that. Thats probably the best 'stat' available. The best captains are the ones who win the toss the most.


Actually, that statement may not be so far off. One of my pet peeves in cricket is that its so damn random who wins sometimes, just because the pitch plays too big a part if two teams are fairly even.

Maybe the visiting team (or perhaps the lower ranked team?) should always get to decide whether to bat or bowl first, and no tosses should be used except at neutral venues in ODIs.

One day we may well have artificial drop in pitches.

Day one: before lunch something in it for the pace men
Day two and Three: batting at its best
Day four: takes spin and reverse swing (unless it is Pakistan then it is ball tampering)
Day Five: Do we need 5 days anymore?

I hope we never see the day, but I think it may well happen

 

[silentstriker]

One day we may well have artificial drop in pitches.

Day one: before lunch something in it for the pace men
Day two and Three: batting at its best
Day four: takes spin and reverse swing (unless it is Pakistan then it is ball tampering)
Day Five: Do we need 5 days anymore?

I hope we never see the day, but I think it may well happen

If I ideally design a pitch - it should be exactly same in innings 1 & 2, and then change a bit and then remain the same between innings 3 & 4.

I just don't like that sometimes the toss decides the winner, if the teams are evenly matched.

Also no score of 550+ would be possible, except by a truly brilliant innings, because I hate 700 scores and draws in cricket. And I love stumps flying out the ground, and I love even more when subcontinental flat track bullies look in horror because the ball decided to move a couple inches in the air and hit their off stump because they decided to plant their front foot down the pitch and drive down the line of the ball as thats all they know how to do.

 

[Matt79]

Although the randomness is a good test of a team's adaptability. I think that if you front up and aren't capable of winning whether or not you win the toss, you're not good enough. That's true even if the pitch turns into a minefield on the fifth day. It encourages the selection of better balanced teams IMO.

 

[Pratters]

I just don't like that sometimes the toss decides the winner, if the teams are evenly matched.

There has been a theory that the away captain decides which team bats instead of having a toss. That would have some neutralsising factor in tests.

I don't mind the toss but it does have a big impact a lot of times.

 

[silentstriker]

Although the randomness is a good test of a team's adaptability. I think that if you front up and aren't capable of winning whether or not you win the toss, you're not good enough. That's true even if the pitch turns into a minefield on the fifth day. It encourages the selection of better balanced teams IMO.

Yea, well I agree that minefields aren't necessarily bad. But as long as its a minefield for both teams evenly. It should always work both ways - the toss should be something that just allows you to start the games - not decide them.

 

[archie mac]

I thought it may be more interesting my way because say the Indian team had a great spin attack but the Poms had a great pace attack, and the Indians won the toss they would have to decide whether to bat and face the pace attack and hope to last, and then get the English in on a turning wicket. Or play it safe and bowl first as not to face the quality pace attack.

Hope that makes sense

 

[silentstriker]

I thought it may be more interesting my way because say the Indian team had a great spin attack but the Poms had a great pace attack, and the Indians won the toss they would have to decide whether to bat and face the pace attack and hope to last, and then get the English in on a turning wicket. Or play it safe and bowl first as not to face the quality pace attack.

Hope that makes sense

We'd bowl first so our fraudulant pace attack can have an average thats around 33 and S/R of 70, which is propels them to the 'greatness' status, and scores you millions in endoresements, if you're an Indian bowler.

 

[Matt79]

Yea, well I agree that minefields aren't necessarily bad. But as long as its a minefield for both teams evenly. It should always work both ways - the toss should be something that just allows you to start the games - not decide them.

it normally evens out in the end - and it rarely "decides" a match, at most it stacks the odds.

 

[pietersenrocks]

OK I'll not use husseyrocks

 

[Turbinator]

OK I'll not use husseyrocks

Tough choice for you, "Which one should I choose Hussey or Pieterson?"

 

[Xuhaib]

OK I'll not use husseyrocks

So finally you have decided who is the rockier of the two.

 

[Perm]

I voted Tendulkar, just for the absolute class that he has.

 

[pietersenrocks]

If they deactivate my account I'll make it by using another name

No,I was busy,Turbinator.

 

[Neil Pickup]

What makes you think that when a new user registers called "dalrymplerocks", it won't be exceedingly obvious that it's you?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

 

[Poker Boy]

Viv Richards - by the narrowest of margins from Sachin. And his 189no at Old Trafford must be the best ODI innings ever - a big chunk of it scored with only No 11 for company.

 

[marc71178]

LOL at pietersenrocks voting Hussey and husseyrocks voting Pietersen.

 

[Matt79]

^ Classic

 

[silentstriker]

LOL at pietersenrocks voting Hussey and husseyrocks voting Pietersen.

Poor guy got confused.