Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/6565.html
Not the best, but meets the criteria described.
-
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.
What is more valuable to a ODI side?
- Thread starter Hoppy1987
- Start date
Not the best, but meets the criteria described.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Well, he doesn't meet the criteria described actually. His economy rate is 0.37 too high, and he's taken 122 too few wickets...
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Oops, I thought that the initial post said 1-2 wickets a game. Now that I look a bit closer, nobody that has an ER under 3.5 has taken his wickets at 2 or more per match. There has only been 7 bowlers with an ER of under 3.5 that have bowled 2000 balls in ODI's.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Exactly. The bowler described would quite easily be the best of all time, where as the batsman described makes me think of Michael Clarke. Pretty much a give who I'd take..
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Or someone like Virender Sehwag for that matter.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah, depends what you think he meant by "decent" really.
Hoppy1987
U19 Debutant
this is ****ing brilliant!!
lmao!!
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I'd personally have a Joel garner than Viv Richards, which I assume is the gist of the question.
shortpitched713
International Captain
I don't know about what would be more valuable to a particular team, but I have to say that a consistently match turning bowler is a lot more rare in ODIs than a match turning batsman. The only bowlers I can think of who I'd count on to win me a ODI match are Murali, Bond, maybe Bracken. On the other hand there are more batsmen than I can name who could be classified as matchwinners on their day.
cpr
International Coach
Are we talking a bowler who averages 3.5 economy, or hits 3.5 EVERY game?
Likewise with the batsman?
Because say you've got a great bowler, good econ, decent strike rate, then yes he is going to be a great asset to the team. However even when he's on form he's only going to bowl 20% of the overs, so if even 2 of the other 4 are having a mare then you can wave bye bye to the game. Likewise, if he's having a shocker, then you could be looking at 60-70 runs given away, unless you take off your prime bowler and use a part timer (which in honesty, most captains will take 59 bad balls from the prime bowler in the hope of that one peach)
As for the batsman, well, if he's a top order batsman, then he could well win the game single handidly if he racks up at fast paced ton, even if the rest of the team is stuttering (unless there batting like England!). If he's not firing, and gets out cheap, hopefully one of the other top 7 will get a decent knock to keep the game alive.
Personally whilst i believe both would be great to have in the team (hmm, taking two class players over one, thats a novel idea), i feel a star batsman can influence the game more than a star bowler can. Admittedly the bowler could do a Vaas and take 8 wickets, but the chances are remote in comparison to the big hitter running up 130+. Also a batsman can dominate an entire innings if he's REALLY on form, a bowler cant hit that sort of dominance unless he's paired with someone else who's nearly as capable, otherwise his hard work would be in vain
Likewise with the batsman?
Because say you've got a great bowler, good econ, decent strike rate, then yes he is going to be a great asset to the team. However even when he's on form he's only going to bowl 20% of the overs, so if even 2 of the other 4 are having a mare then you can wave bye bye to the game. Likewise, if he's having a shocker, then you could be looking at 60-70 runs given away, unless you take off your prime bowler and use a part timer (which in honesty, most captains will take 59 bad balls from the prime bowler in the hope of that one peach)
As for the batsman, well, if he's a top order batsman, then he could well win the game single handidly if he racks up at fast paced ton, even if the rest of the team is stuttering (unless there batting like England!). If he's not firing, and gets out cheap, hopefully one of the other top 7 will get a decent knock to keep the game alive.
Personally whilst i believe both would be great to have in the team (hmm, taking two class players over one, thats a novel idea), i feel a star batsman can influence the game more than a star bowler can. Admittedly the bowler could do a Vaas and take 8 wickets, but the chances are remote in comparison to the big hitter running up 130+. Also a batsman can dominate an entire innings if he's REALLY on form, a bowler cant hit that sort of dominance unless he's paired with someone else who's nearly as capable, otherwise his hard work would be in vain
Josh
International Regular
Hmmm... nope I really did deserve that lol