Best bowling attack you can think of

[Matt79]

Richards vs. Sobers is irrelevant in selecting an all-time team as Sobers will get the allrounders slot anyway, so he's out of the equation.

And also, in the context of selecting an alltime team, assuming your top order is extremely sound, and that your team bats down quite a way into its tail, what's the use of having an 'anchor' type player who you can rely on to hold up an innings and bravely resist, when you can have a player who'll score quickly and take the initiative away from your opponents. Attack, if you can execute it properly, is ALWAYS the best defence.

For example I have: Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran. Do I need Barrington in the middle to ensure things don't go to custard? Not likely.

 

[Athlai]

I know, and at the end of the day I don't place too much stall by dominance of attacks, because it's perfectly possible to win cricket matches without it. In any case, Lara was hardly completely sans-dominance.

Either way, it's output that matters infinitely more, and Sobers and Lara were better and equal respectively in this respect.

I've barely heard anyone claim Richards > Sobers anyway, and I've heard plenty claim Lara was the better, and not just those of my own generation.

I find it greatly annoying, in fact, when people put dominance of an attack as more important than output, and this is the only reason one can rank Richards so absurdly (IMO) highly as 2nd-best batsman in history. Because there were many greater run-scorers than he.

For a guy who criticises Hayden so much, your emphasis on output seems a little peculiar for me.

 

[Richard]

Richards vs. Sobers is irrelevant in selecting an all-time team as Sobers will get the allrounders slot anyway, so he's out of the equation.

And also, in the context of selecting an alltime team, assuming your top order is extremely sound, and that your team bats down quite a way into its tail, what's the use of having an 'anchor' type player who you can rely on to hold up an innings and bravely resist, when you can have a player who'll score quickly and take the initiative away from your opponents. Attack, if you can execute it properly, is ALWAYS the best defence.

For example I have: Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran. Do I need Barrington in the middle to ensure things don't go to custard? Not likely.

Highly productive defence > fairly productive attack. A "defensive" player who can average 60 > an "attacking" one who can average 53. Not that Sobers was a total slouch, obviously.

If it's two players whose output is near enough exactly equal you could put the fact that one was attacking ahead of the other. Me, though, I feel Sobers was simply better at scoring runs than Richards. In any case, if Sobers had never bowled a ball he'd be an almost certain in an all-time World XI and an absolute one in a West Indies one as a pure batsman, you know it.

I'd always go for simply who can score the most runs, I don't set any great stall by this balance\variation nonsense, you know me. As long as I don't have 6 batsmen who'll take 200 overs to score 400, I'm happy enough. I've never really thought about the Barrington vs Richards question but I know many would very possibly dismiss out-of-hand the notion that the former was a patch on the latter, which would be very, very wrong IMO.

 

[Richard]

For a guy who criticises Hayden so much, your emphasis on output seems a little peculiar for me.

My criticism of him has always been geared around the fact I believe his output would have been vastly reduced at almost any time other than 2001\02-2006\07.

 

[Matt79]

Well I said "if you can execute if properly" so "fairly productive attack" might be twisting things a bit. Its always a matter of degrees - Barrington wasn't the lifeless corpse in pads he was sometimes made out to be, but I'd always take the guy who can put your team into a winning position rather than the guy who'll stop you losing. It makes the rest of your batsmen do better as well, as the bowlers are under pressure and they don't have to worry about keeping the runs coming. I know you don't believe in this stuff, but I can't do much more than think in not doing so, you're just flat out wrong. :shrug:

Play to win, not to avoid losing IMO. Otherwise, don't bother.

 

[Richard]

Thing is, if you win, you can't lose.

Too many people place it at those ends: "slow batsmen stop you losing, quick-scoring ones win games for you". It's simplistic and patronising. Scoring runs, unless done obscenely slowly, wins you games - well, if your bowlers are good enough, and at the end of the day a batsman can score 200 off 150 balls every single game and his team still won't win if the bowlers aren't good enough. Simple as. You have 5 days to play a Test, unless you're scoring 50 off 250 balls you're going to be contributing to getting your team into winning positions.

I'm quite happy to take someone averaging 55 with a SR of 40 over someone averaging 45 with a SR of 65. I'm certain, given a decent bowling attack, the former will help me win far, far more games than the latter.

 

[Matt79]

But the more time you give your bowlers, the more likely it is they can get their 20 wickets. Its about giving your bowlers every opportunity. If that means they wrap up a test in 3 days, great. If a team does manage to hold out til the 5th day, then you've given yourself time to get them. And you have the capacity to knock off any extra runs you need.

 

[Matt79]

I'm quite happy to take someone averaging 55 with a SR of 40 over someone averaging 45 with a SR of 65. I'm certain, given a decent bowling attack, the former will help me win far, far more games than the latter.

That's a pretty extreme example. I'd probably take the 55/40 guy as well. If its 55/40 and 50/65, I'd take the faster guy.

 

[Matt79]

BTW, have you ever posted your alltime team Rich? I've missed it if so - would you mind repeating it? I'd be very interested to see it.

 

[The Sean]

I've always had the impression that Rich isn't a fan of comparing players across eras too far apart...so I daresay he's never posted one?

Is that fair Rich - if you do have an all time XI, I'd also be fascinated to see it.

 

[Balram]

I'd pick mine a bit differently and it might seem strange but hear me out. I think on all but the slowest pitches a consistant barrage of vicious raw pace would overcome most batsman who normally need only deal with occasionall bursts, if you had four or five really quick bowlers who could also put it in the right place and were able to keep changing them up so nobody had to bowl ong spells and therefore nobody really began to loose it, it would be near impossible to deal with.
Alan Donald
Frank Tyson
Harold Larwood
Michael Holding
Imran Khan as an allrounder
That barrage of pace would make any side crumble.

 

[Matt79]

Thompson for Donald if that's your cunning plan.

 

[Balram]

Tommo had the pace but not the reliability, Donald could place it on the right spot at high speed every time, so could all those guys really which is why I chose those four.

 

[Ikki]

You'd have Viv Richards an an all-time World XI?

I mean, he'd be an automatic pick in a West Indies one, but I'd still have him behind Headley, Weekes, Sobers and Lara of his countrymen.

Excuse me but WTF? I'd ONLY consider Sobers his equal. And I've heard PLENTY of people consider Richards as the best WI batsmen.

 

[Ikki]

Highly productive defence > fairly productive attack. A "defensive" player who can average 60 > an "attacking" one who can average 53. Not that Sobers was a total slouch, obviously.

No way. The amount of balls a Richards would save you, plus the fact that he'd have deflated the opposition's bowlers would more than make up 7 measly runs.

If it's two players whose output is near enough exactly equal you could put the fact that one was attacking ahead of the other. Me, though, I feel Sobers was simply better at scoring runs than Richards. In any case, if Sobers had never bowled a ball he'd be an almost certain in an all-time World XI and an absolute one in a West Indies one as a pure batsman, you know it.

But it doesn't mean Sobers was better than Richards, although he could have been.

I'd always go for simply who can score the most runs, I don't set any great stall by this balance\variation nonsense, you know me. As long as I don't have 6 batsmen who'll take 200 overs to score 400, I'm happy enough. I've never really thought about the Barrington vs Richards question but I know many would very possibly dismiss out-of-hand the notion that the former was a patch on the latter, which would be very, very wrong IMO.

That's because you're purely a stats-man. But what is worse, you love your own selection of stats. A batsman that strikes 10 balls quicker and scores 5 runs less is more than fine by me.

 

[Ikki]

Thing is, if you win, you can't lose.

Too many people place it at those ends: "slow batsmen stop you losing, quick-scoring ones win games for you". It's simplistic and patronising. Scoring runs, unless done obscenely slowly, wins you games - well, if your bowlers are good enough, and at the end of the day a batsman can score 200 off 150 balls every single game and his team still won't win if the bowlers aren't good enough. Simple as. You have 5 days to play a Test, unless you're scoring 50 off 250 balls you're going to be contributing to getting your team into winning positions.

I'm quite happy to take someone averaging 55 with a SR of 40 over someone averaging 45 with a SR of 65. I'm certain, given a decent bowling attack, the former will help me win far, far more games than the latter.

Scoring high amounts and doing it faster is harder than scoring high amounts and doing it slower. It basically means you have to have more skill in dealing with balls that probably should not be hit. So as far as comparisons go, if they're in the same range of runs on average, scoring faster is key. In terms of the team, scoring quicker, but within the same amount of runs, is much better.

 

[Beleg]

Inzy
LARA
tEnduLkar
steve waugh
mark waugh
RanAtunga

 

[Swervy]

Excuse me but WTF? I'd ONLY consider Sobers his equal. And I've heard PLENTY of people consider Richards as the best WI batsmen.

mate...don't bite. He knows that many people would easily pick Viv Richards in an all time XI.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Excuse me but WTF? I'd ONLY consider Sobers his equal. And I've heard PLENTY of people consider Richards as the best WI batsmen.

I've seen loads of people but him in an all time XI, seems odd tstl from Richard.

 

[Matt79]

BTW, have you ever posted your alltime team Rich? I've missed it if so - would you mind repeating it? I'd be very interested to see it.

I've always had the impression that Rich isn't a fan of comparing players across eras too far apart...so I daresay he's never posted one?

Is that fair Rich - if you do have an all time XI, I'd also be fascinated to see it.

You didn't respond to this - do you have one your willing to share Richard?