Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Ponting is the best batsmen in the world, comfortably. Based on form, it wouldn't matter if Warne was there, Ponting is the deserved pick. Who I would rather have in general? Easy, Warne.
-
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.
Who would you rather have?
- Thread starter silentstriker
- Start date
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Murali
Simply because I may get another batsman who is also very good even if not exactly another Ponting but no one would come within miles of replacing Murali.
Again if I had a world XI, I would probably have six very good batsmen and they would do a pretty good job of reassuring me as to what they could do. But four very good bowlers couldnt give me that special edge that Murali provides.
Simply because I may get another batsman who is also very good even if not exactly another Ponting but no one would come within miles of replacing Murali.
Again if I had a world XI, I would probably have six very good batsmen and they would do a pretty good job of reassuring me as to what they could do. But four very good bowlers couldnt give me that special edge that Murali provides.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Toughie, and I'm looking at this from the point of view of a Bangladesh, who don't really have anyone approaching any of these sort of players. But I'd probably say the world's best batsman, because he gives our side a chance of winning and also the confidence for our bowlers of having more to bowl at more often.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Sure.
It really depends upon what the context is. If you are asked add one player out of these to your existing team then its a different matter and depends upon the strengths of your other ten.
If you are asked choose a world XI but you can take only one out of Murali or Ponting then its different.
If you are asked whose departure makes the sides weaker Poting from Australia or Murali from Sri Lanka and its different. Without a clear context the already subjectictive hypothesis becomes impossible to debate.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Depends which way you look at it. When I think of a question "who would you rather have, this person or that person" I look at who is comparable.
For example, Murali is by far the best bowler in the world, and whilst Ponting is easily the best batsman in the world, I think there are relatively comparable players who can substitute for him to a certain degree. I don't think any bowler, let alone spinner in the world can do what Murali can do.
So I guess I'd say Murali.
For example, Murali is by far the best bowler in the world, and whilst Ponting is easily the best batsman in the world, I think there are relatively comparable players who can substitute for him to a certain degree. I don't think any bowler, let alone spinner in the world can do what Murali can do.
So I guess I'd say Murali.
LastLaughInc
Cricket Spectator
I'd say the fast bowler (McGrath really).
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Have to give much more importance to bowlers for tests and batsmen for one dayers [provided talent differentials aren't too vast]. That's the way it is.
Tests aspect explained.
Looking at a Bangladesh, as Jack pointed out, or a fictitious side which has every one dire. Suppose the mean average batting stat of the team is 10 while mean average bowling stat is 75. Having a Batsman of the calibre of Ponting will do nothing for the team as the team cannot win till they take 20 wickets. Having a bowler of the calibre of Murali can lead to 20 wickets with a support bowler havng a good day. Maybe Murali and others will skittle the opposition for a low score and the batsmen, with an inspired knock, will win the game. Having a batsman gives no hope of winning. So I would always select a bowler ahead.
There is another, more simpler way of looking at it. There are six-seven batsmen who have to make most of the runs while there are 4-5 bowlers who have to take all the wickets. So if a bowler of more potential comes in, it adds a lot more potency to the side as the ratio of bowlers, and hence their responsibilities, is much larger.
There are exceptions to the preference of selecting a bowler though obviously - if the team has many more quality bowlers and many poor bowlers. That is not keeping every thing else even though and so should not decide who to select in a poll in a neutral scenario.
One day cricket.
The batsman has a much larger role to play in this format and the bowler's roles are very much blunted. As batsmen impact games much more (just look at the man of the matches of one day matches and how many are batsmen and how many are bowlers), a batsman has to be selected more often than not.
Tests aspect explained.
Looking at a Bangladesh, as Jack pointed out, or a fictitious side which has every one dire. Suppose the mean average batting stat of the team is 10 while mean average bowling stat is 75. Having a Batsman of the calibre of Ponting will do nothing for the team as the team cannot win till they take 20 wickets. Having a bowler of the calibre of Murali can lead to 20 wickets with a support bowler havng a good day. Maybe Murali and others will skittle the opposition for a low score and the batsmen, with an inspired knock, will win the game. Having a batsman gives no hope of winning. So I would always select a bowler ahead.
There is another, more simpler way of looking at it. There are six-seven batsmen who have to make most of the runs while there are 4-5 bowlers who have to take all the wickets. So if a bowler of more potential comes in, it adds a lot more potency to the side as the ratio of bowlers, and hence their responsibilities, is much larger.
There are exceptions to the preference of selecting a bowler though obviously - if the team has many more quality bowlers and many poor bowlers. That is not keeping every thing else even though and so should not decide who to select in a poll in a neutral scenario.
One day cricket.
The batsman has a much larger role to play in this format and the bowler's roles are very much blunted. As batsmen impact games much more (just look at the man of the matches of one day matches and how many are batsmen and how many are bowlers), a batsman has to be selected more often than not.
pasag
RTDAS
Yeah spot on, the bowler can only bowl ten overs anyways, so you'd rather an amazing batsman over an amazing bowler everytime in ODIs (assuming the rest of the side is rubbish).
shortpitched713
International Captain
That was one day cricket mate. SS could give a flying **** about his performacne in that form.
oz_fan
International Regular
That was my reasoning behind choosing Murali as well but I would have Ponting ahead of him in ODI's.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
I look at it from a "who'd make the biggest difference to England" point of view. It's Murali by streets. We have decent batsmen (no-one in Ponting's league, but decent enough) & decent quicks but haven't produced a consistently match-winning spinner since Deadly.
As a more general point I'd usually take a bowler ahead of a batsman (assuming they're of comparable ability) as the odds are that he'll have the greater say in the outcome of a game. Batsmen are only ever one ball from having their contribution to an innings ended.
As a more general point I'd usually take a bowler ahead of a batsman (assuming they're of comparable ability) as the odds are that he'll have the greater say in the outcome of a game. Batsmen are only ever one ball from having their contribution to an innings ended.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I posted this cause of a conversation on MSN. To me, a bowler beats out a batsman any day of the week in Tests. I'd rather have Ntini or Murali over Ponting (or any batsman, unless they are named Bradman).
Bowlers win matches, and IMO the contest should be between the three very good bowlers on that list.
Bowlers win matches, and IMO the contest should be between the three very good bowlers on that list.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
How do you figure that?Aren't you a bowler yourself SS?
