Final TWO bowlers for the All Time Test XI

[bagapath]

It's as if I've given my mates a list of Scarlet Johannson, Angeline Jolie, Jessica Alba, Monica Belucci and Claudia Schiffer and told them to vote for which one I get to sleep with tonight.

I choose scarlet johannson and monica bellucci to open the attack and jessica alba at first change. angelina jolie will be the fourth choice with claudia in reserve. of course, this is for myself. not for sean!

 

[adharcric]

Who ever said spinners had to take the new ball, if you have seam bowling all rounder they can take the new ball. If you had four spinners it would require one of your batsmen to be seamer i.e Hammond. Regardless there should be the option of picking 3 spinners, which there really isn't. There is only a limited option of picking two spinners. As we have to pick two seamers.

Two seamers should be required at the very least. You need to maximize the impact of the new ball and you can only do that with two specialist seamers.

 

[bagapath]

mcgrath and marshall average 4.5 wickets each per test. barnes 7. murali 6. oreilly 5. and warne 4.5. since we know the opening bowlers if we choose the next two with the wickets/ test ratio in mind then we can at least be statistically confident of our attack bowling out any opposition twice in a match. (I am re-posting this msg from the main thread since it is relevant here

 

[chaminda_00]

Two seamers should be required at the very least. You need to maximize the impact of the new ball and you can only do that with two specialist seamers.

I do agree with that, but the same applies for the old ball. You need two spinners very atleast to maximise the impact with the old ball and any turning pitches. With majority of top all rounders outside Faulkner seamers and front line seamers. There should be the option to pick a 3rd spinner over the 2nd opening bowler position, as that seamer bowling all rounder (Sobers, Khan, Miller etc) can take the new ball.

Personally i don't think you can have an all time team without atleast two front line spinners. Sobers for me playing in an all time team would play as seamer, as that what he bowled best IMO. So you need to pick two other spinners atleast in the side.

I think in an all time side you would struggle to take 20 wickets without two front line spinners, on the variety of pitches that you might bowl on. Basically you need two spinners, plus two seamers. Then you pick the 5th bowler either a spinner or fast bowler depending the the quality of bowler left or if you need extra batting pick a extra speaclist batsmen.

IMO any all time side without two front line spinners lack the variety to take 20 wickets against quality batting line ups. Then depending on the pitch you bring in a 3rd spinner or 3rd seamer. With Sobers you would have both options in one player, even if he was a better seamer then spinner.

 

[bagapath]

I do agree with that, but the same applies for the old ball. You need two spinners very atleast to maximise the impact with the old ball and any turning pitches. With majority of top all rounders outside Faulkner seamers and front line seamers. There should be the option to pick a 3rd spinner over the 2nd opening bowler position, as that seamer bowling all rounder (Sobers, Khan, Miller etc) can take the new ball.

Personally i don't think you can have an all time team without atleast two front line spinners. Sobers for me playing in an all time team would play as seamer, as that what he bowled best IMO. So you need to pick two other spinners atleast in the side.

I think in an all time side you would struggle to take 20 wickets without two front line spinners, on the variety of pitches that you might bowl on. Basically you need two spinners, plus two seamers. Then you pick the 5th bowler either a spinner or fast bowler depending the the quality of bowler left or if you need extra batting pick a extra speaclist batsmen.

IMO any all time side without two front line spinners lack the variety to take 20 wickets against quality batting line ups. Then depending on the pitch you bring in a 3rd spinner or 3rd seamer. With Sobers you would have both options in one player, even if he was a better seamer then spinner.

a fast bowler can be effective with an old ball with reverse-swing. a spinner is useless with a new ball. for first strike with the new ball you definitely need 2 seam bowlers.

 

[andyc]

I went for Murali and Warne. That way, as I see it, you get a good balance; two seamers, two spinners, and one interchangable (Sobers).

 

[chaminda_00]

a fast bowler can be effective with an old ball with reverse-swing. a spinner is useless with a new ball. for first strike with the new ball you definitely need 2 seam bowlers.

Again i never said a spinner will bowl with the new ball. But it should be noted that O'Reilly bowled a lot with the new ball bowling spin and he was far from useless.

Fast bowlers can be effective with the old ball, but no where near as effective as top line spinners with the old ball. Against a top line batting line the sameness of an attack with say 4 seamer, would be useless. You need two front line spinners atleast to add variety.

Really an all time attack that doesn't contain atleast two spinners and two seamers isn't going to take 20 wickets against quality batting line ups. Either you will lack strike power with the new ball or strike power with old ball. It won't have the variety on varying pitches. It wont have the required alternatives against quality batting line ups. I would back most all time batting lineps people come up with to combat an attack that doesn't have atleast two seamers and spinners.

 

[bagapath]

Can't leave out Warne, can't leave out Barnes.

yeap. just voted for them two.

 

[adharcric]

Again i never said a spinner will bowl with the new ball. But it should be noted that O'Reilly bowled a lot with the new ball bowling spin and he was far from useless.

Fast bowlers can be effective with the old ball, but no where near as effective as top line spinners with the old ball. Against a top line batting line the sameness of an attack with say 4 seamer, would be useless. You need two front line spinners atleast to add variety.

Really an all time attack that doesn't contain atleast two spinners and two seamers isn't going to take 20 wickets against quality batting line ups. Either you will lack strike power with the new ball or strike power with old ball. It won't have the variety on varying pitches. It wont have the required alternatives against quality batting line ups. I would back most all time batting lineps people come up with to combat an attack that doesn't have atleast two seamers and spinners.

Sobers can qualify as both a spinner and a seamer. What's wrong with Marshall-McGrath-Barnes then? That said, I may go for two specalist spinners here because Hammond and Sobers are both handy seamers.

 

[bagapath]

Again i never said a spinner will bowl with the new ball. But it should be noted that O'Reilly bowled a lot with the new ball bowling spin and he was far from useless.

Fast bowlers can be effective with the old ball, but no where near as effective as top line spinners with the old ball. Against a top line batting line the sameness of an attack with say 4 seamer, would be useless. You need two front line spinners atleast to add variety.

Really an all time attack that doesn't contain atleast two spinners and two seamers isn't going to take 20 wickets against quality batting line ups. Either you will lack strike power with the new ball or strike power with old ball. It won't have the variety on varying pitches. It wont have the required alternatives against quality batting line ups. I would back most all time batting lineps people come up with to combat an attack that doesn't have atleast two seamers and spinners.

fair enough. but i will go for barnes and warne. barnes, you may recall, was not express fast anyway. he used his fingers and wrist to produce back breaks. he is your o'reilly, chandra kind of a bowler with a slightly better pace. may be like an alec bedser, alan davidson or tony grieg with a long run up.

but your choice of murali and warne will be equally good too.

 

[Jamee999]

Shane and Muttiah.

The two greatest bowlers, ever.

 

[chaminda_00]

Sobers can qualify as both a spinner and a seamer. What's wrong with Marshall-McGrath-Barnes then? That said, I may go for two specalist spinners here because Hammond and Sobers are both handy seamers.

Sobers for me is closer to qualifier is a front line seamer then spinner. So therefore you still need two front spinner IMO. Also with Hammond in the side there plenty of seamer options. IMO it would be over kill to pick another seamer even if Barnes was close to be spinner type. Like Sobers his more of specialist seamer, so you still need two spinners with him in a side.

 

[chaminda_00]

fair enough. but i will go for barnes and warne. barnes, you may recall, was not express fast anyway. he used his fingers and wrist to produce back breaks. he is your o'reilly, chandra kind of a bowler with a slightly better pace. may be like an alec bedser, alan davidson or tony grieg with a long run up.

but your choice of murali and warne will be equally good too.

The thing with O'Reilly and Chandra is that they had the variatation of spinners at fast pace. Basically Barnes just bowled a lot of slower ball type balls. Picking instead of 2nd spin options is like picking Ian Harvey really. Like Ian Harvey a lot of his slower balls where used to gain cut off the pitch. I'm not saying Barnes is in Harvey class, just comparing the type of balls they bowled.

Damien Fleming and Lance Kluensener have also done similar things to gain cut from the ball in the sub continent when they ball wasn't moving traditional. It just a varied way to ball pace when the ball isn't moving traditional off the pitch. Vaas, Pollock and Bracken do similar as well in ODIs. Would you pick any of them to preform a spinners' role?

 

[Perm]

Shane Warne and Syd Barnes.

 

[bagapath]

The thing with O'Reilly and Chandra is that they had the variatation of spinners at fast pace. Basically Barnes just bowled a lot of slower ball type balls. Picking instead of 2nd spin options is like picking Ian Harvey really. Like Ian Harvey a lot of his slower balls where used to gain cut off the pitch. I'm not saying Barnes is in Harvey class, just comparing the type of balls they bowled.

Damien Fleming and Lance Kluensener have also done similar things to gain cut from the ball in the sub continent when they ball wasn't moving traditional. It just a varied way to ball pace when the ball isn't moving traditional off the pitch. Vaas, Pollock and Bracken do similar as well in ODIs. Would you pick any of them to preform a spinners' role?

you are right. i wont. i would use sobers to assist warne in that case.

 

[Matt79]

Warne and Murali. I wouldn't have gone for two spinners myself for this all-time team - I'd prefer to have three "great" seamers, rather than two greats and Sobers, but that's not how the format has worked out, and I can't vote for Larwood or Spoffoth over Murali, and I see Barnes as more of a slow bowler...

 

[The Sean]

Warne and Murali. I wouldn't have gone for two spinners myself for this all-time team - I'd prefer to have three "great" seamers, rather than two greats and Sobers, but that's not how the format has worked out, and I can't vote for Larwood or Spoffoth over Murali, and I see Barnes as more of a slow bowler...

Interesting that you say that, as Bradman was one who saw Barnes as a fastish "spinner" more than a paceman, and frequently compared him to O'Reilly in that respect. I've personally always thought that, while far from express, Barney at least seemed to warrant being described as a McGrath-like fast-medium.

I think Channel 9 dropped the ball by not being around to film him in action in 1910.

 

[gio]

I opted for Warne and Larwood. The only way I can justify the latter is that I wanted an English quick in the line-up, and he was the only sensible option.

 

[Days of Grace]

Maybe this all-time team would be better served with two all-rounders, sobers at 6, and maybe Botham/Imran at 8, with GIlly in between them??

Then you'd have:
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Hammond, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist/another great 'keeper, Botham/Imran, Marshall, McGrath, ____________

Thus leaving ONE place for the final bowler, or two, if you make McGrath an option rather than a certainty.

 

[Matt79]

If we were picking from scratch, that would be the way to go, but the format is that we're picking from the players selected earlier for pre-war and post-war XIs.

Much to some people's disgust, Imran failed to make the post-war XI side...