Latest PWC Ratings.

[Eclipse]

Originally posted by Gotchya

Originally posted by Eclipse
I am not missing anyones point I started the descussion so instead of asking if I see your point maybe you should look at mine.

Just on a 1 off basis you have 2 players side by side both very good one who is deffensive and one who is agressive.

If you were to chose one player to put in your team you would always choose the stroke maker.

Basicly everything you have said I agree with but its clear that a positive batsman is more valuble to a team than a negitive one given they are both of equal talent. (Even the don said so what more can I say)

Alright, let me illustrate what I am saying :

1 stroke maker
2 stroke maker
3 stroke maker
4 stroke maker
5
6 ---------------
7 ---------------
8 ---------------
9 ---------------
10 --------------
11 --------------


Now if I gave you a choice between a stroke make and a defensive player, who would you choose ?

If you choose stroke maker again, I can see your side 100-all out (Like Pakistan most of the time), if you choose a defensive player maybe u'll get a little more consistency in the batting.

Well of couse I would then Choose a deffensive player for balance.
But then again if you just have to players to choose from 1 aggresive and one deffensive in a team that has no batsman yet I think you would be better of starting with the agressive one.

I say we end this argument.

 

[Bazza]

Why, I'm just starting to enjoy it!

Atherton 37.69
Stewart 48.60
Thorpe 46.57
Hussain 40.26
Crawley 39.86
Hick 48.88
Ramprakash 36.18
Smith 45.65
Trescothick 51.15
Kirsten 42.39
Cullinan 48.93
Rhodes 45.73

Bevan 39.80

Hooper 50.27
Campbell 40.25

Anwar 55.77
Y Khan 50.49

Ganguly 48.14
Laxman 49.64

Just thought I'd find some more prominent players from recent years...I couldn't get SRs for Boycott, Border, Ijaz Ahmed, Aravinda De Silva, Arjuna Ranatunga, Sanath Jayasuriya

Bevan stands out as being a slow scorer in tests, considering he's an ODI specialist. I wonder if what looks like the cae with Ramps, he gets bogged down and plays a reckless shot trying to release some pressure? Haven't seen enough of him to know, but someone must? Meanwhile the likes of Saeed Anwar stand out as positive players. Maybe England's problem is scoring slowly? And maybe this is starting to turn around now with Vaughan and Trescothick leading by example at the top of the order, in the way the Aussies do...?

 

[anzac]

Anil - to ignore the Aussie example is to do so at our own peril. If we do not embrace the changes to infrastructure & cricketing philosophy as they have shown we will still be having the same conversations in another decade!!! The gap will become wider and fewer people will watch Test matches which can only be bad for the game!!!!

The anchor role is still maintained in the Aussie team but by 'moderate' players such as Tugger's innings in the WI, or even Martyn - but they have the ability to accelerate their scoring. As far as the Indian series defeat is concerned IMO the Aussies were suffering from 'victory disease' and lost their way after the 1st loss, and I do not think they would be quite as succeptable to this now.

The major difference IMO between the WI dominance & the Aussies, is that the WI was based upon talent & timing & the game plan was put together to suit the situation - great while it lasted but 'thin ice'. The Aussies are a product of their 'system' and has been getting fine tuned re players etc over the past decade. It is still not infallable, and they still do not have all the pieces in place, regardless of this they are in a position to go into any match home or away and they plan / expect to win - not only on team talent but their attacking strategies are designed to give their talent the best opportunities in order to do so.

Teams are starting to show a shift towards a more attacking style of player & this needs to be persisted with to allow for the transition to take place. But it also needs the infrastructure to allow the continuation of the style & strategy. To embrace the Aussie selection & match game plan without having the infrastructures in place is to invite disaster. E.g. NZ broke up their most successful opening partnership with Wright & Edgar, because Edgar supposedly did not score runs quickly enough in ODI - yet there was no strategies in place to ensure a continuation of players to fit the requirement once the recalled Turner retired from ODI, and they have never had a settled / successful Test opening partnership since!!!

'Defensive' players may be a current neccessity for the rest but should not become a permanant fixture or long term philosophy, except where the genuine 'tail' is concerned!!! Against this Aussie attack strategy 'Defensive' batsmen are going to run out of partners long b4 they can make their big scores!!! Either that or they will be forced to play outside their comfort zone by either being strangled for runs, or having to play more shots - either way same results!!! As more teams adopt these strategies the more often 'Defensive' players will fail as the opposition execution improves.

Let's not wait another 10 years b4 we put together a 'philosophy' and time frame to implement it!!!!


8D