Post Packer World XI - a discussion

[Ikki]

Ambrose has a better average, strike rate, and ER than Warne. The teams against whom warne had success (England, RSA, etc.) are the same teams Ambrose succeeded against. And what clinches for me is Ambrose's outstanding record against the best team of his time (Australia) Warne didnt enjoy near that type of success against the best team (batting team) outside of his own, India.

You can't judge a pacer and a spinner in such a straight manner. Spinners come on at different times, with wickets down, and having to face set batsmen and bowl long hauls. Most places around the world are much better suited for pace also.

S.Africa were just as good as India in the batting stakes and Warne did more than fine. Funny enough they both did shockingly against India.

Anyway, I think McGrath or Ambrose should be in the squad but not at Murali's expense. I think McGrath should be in instead of Hadlee but it's not exactly a huge difference. I think Murali is too much though. One spinner is enough, 4 pacers are enough and 5 bowlers, regardless of their trade, is overkill.

Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne

is all the attack you need. There are only 20 wickets and a certain amount of balls to bowl in a day. It's the story of diminishing returns. The extra batsman would have been much more beneficial IMO. Either Kallis (if you think 4 just doesn't do it for you) or Ponting IMO should be in the squad.

 

[Fusion]

Based on what? Quite easy to say it's harsh on a Dravid, Kallis or Akram when they don't make some sort of all-time XI, but the nature of this side is such that there will be champion cricketers that will be snubbed. Unless you specifically think that Akram should make the side ahead of McGrath, Ambrose, Lillee, Kumble or Botham, I don't understand how it's "harsh" on him.

Simply stated, I believe Akram to be a good enough bowler to make at least the "second" Post Packer XI. Now, let's address who's in the team. Here's the theoratical Second XI that Pasag posted:

Greenidge
Sehwag
Ponting
Chappell
Kallis
Flower
Botham
Akram
Lillee
Ambrose
McGrath

Stephen responded he liked this side better:

Greenidge
Sehwag
Ponting
Chappell
Kallis
Sangakkara
Botham
Lillee
Ambrose
McGrath
Kumble

So Kumble in for Akram in the bowling department. I personally feel that a bowling lineup consisting of Botham, Lilee, Ambrose, McGrath, and Akram is better than one with Kumble in it (at the expense of a fast bowler). I love Kumble and he's a champion bowler. But unless I have a Murali or Warne, I'll take 4 all-time great quicks over a spinner every time. Specially Akram who can do wonders with the old ball anyway and is left-handed, which adds a nice variety to the team. If one likes to have a spinner in the team, then I can still include Akram in the team at the expense of McGrath. I know not many here may share my opinion, but I don't think there's that much between the two. I know McGrath's stats are better, but I've seen both bowl for the majority of their careers and I believe them to be equal. So if one considers them equal, then I take Akram over McGrath because he's left-handed and can produce that "unplayable" delivery more often than McGrath.

 

[Ikki]

TBF, Wasim is simply better than Kumble, no matter how you wish to bend it. Kumble is really only valuable at home and Wasim is not that far from Kumble's record in India, against them. Everywhere else he is better. And the swing and left-handedness is sufficiently different from the other bowlers, when it comes to reasons of variation. IF a spinner is simply a must, I'd rather go for Macgill or Saqlain.

 

[adharcric]

You can't judge a pacer and a spinner in such a straight manner. Spinners come on at different times, with wickets down, and having to face set batsmen and bowl long hauls.

That doesn't apply as much to Warne, not with McGrath and co. coming before him.

S.Africa were just as good as India in the batting stakes and Warne did more than fine.

India were the best players of spin and Warne failed against them. South Africa may have been a good batting side but they didn't match up to India against spin.

Anyway, I think McGrath or Ambrose should be in the squad but not at Murali's expense. I think McGrath should be in instead of Hadlee but it's not exactly a huge difference. I think Murali is too much though. One spinner is enough, 4 pacers are enough and 5 bowlers, regardless of their trade, is overkill.

Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne

is all the attack you need. There are only 20 wickets and a certain amount of balls to bowl in a day. It's the story of diminishing returns. The extra batsman would have been much more beneficial IMO. Either Kallis (if you think 4 just doesn't do it for you) or Ponting IMO should be in the squad.

Instead of that extra batsman, we chose several bowlers that can bat and that opened the door for the inclusion of a fifth strike bowler. McGrath > Hadlee as a bowler for me, given that he did all that on batting-friendly pitches, but not by much. Hadlee's batting gives him the nod. Five bowlers are not overkill against the likes of Bradman and Sobers, especially when four of them are solid lower-order batsmen.

 

[adharcric]

Simply stated, I believe Akram to be a good enough bowler to make at least the "second" Post Packer XI. Now, let's address who's in the team. Here's the theoratical Second XI that Pasag posted:

Greenidge
Sehwag
Ponting
Chappell
Kallis
Flower
Botham
Akram
Lillee
Ambrose
McGrath

Stephen responded he liked this side better:

Greenidge
Sehwag
Ponting
Chappell
Kallis
Sangakkara
Botham
Lillee
Ambrose
McGrath
Kumble

So Kumble in for Akram in the bowling department. I personally feel that a bowling lineup consisting of Botham, Lilee, Ambrose, McGrath, and Akram is better than one with Kumble in it (at the expense of a fast bowler). I love Kumble and he's a champion bowler. But unless I have a Murali or Warne, I'll take 4 all-time great quicks over a spinner every time. Specially Akram who can do wonders with the old ball anyway and is left-handed, which adds a nice variety to the team. If one likes to have a spinner in the team, then I can still include Akram in the team at the expense of McGrath. I know not many here may share my opinion, but I don't think there's that much between the two. I know McGrath's stats are better, but I've seen both bowl for the majority of their careers and I believe them to be equal. So if one considers them equal, then I take Akram over McGrath because he's left-handed and can produce that "unplayable" delivery more often than McGrath.

Fair enough and I completely agree - I've just read too many of these "harsh on so-and-so" comments without justification to let it go this time.

 

[Fusion]

Fair enough and I completely agree - I've just read too many of these "harsh on so-and-so" comments without justification to let it go this time.

Yeah cheers, should've explained myself.

 

[stephen]

Simply stated, I believe Akram to be a good enough bowler to make at least the "second" Post Packer XI. Now, let's address who's in the team. Here's the theoratical Second XI that Pasag posted:

Greenidge
Sehwag
Ponting
Chappell
Kallis
Flower
Botham
Akram
Lillee
Ambrose
McGrath

Stephen responded he liked this side better:

Greenidge
Sehwag
Ponting
Chappell
Kallis
Sangakkara
Botham
Lillee
Ambrose
McGrath
Kumble

So Kumble in for Akram in the bowling department. I personally feel that a bowling lineup consisting of Botham, Lilee, Ambrose, McGrath, and Akram is better than one with Kumble in it (at the expense of a fast bowler). I love Kumble and he's a champion bowler. But unless I have a Murali or Warne, I'll take 4 all-time great quicks over a spinner every time. Specially Akram who can do wonders with the old ball anyway and is left-handed, which adds a nice variety to the team. If one likes to have a spinner in the team, then I can still include Akram in the team at the expense of McGrath. I know not many here may share my opinion, but I don't think there's that much between the two. I know McGrath's stats are better, but I've seen both bowl for the majority of their careers and I believe them to be equal. So if one considers them equal, then I take Akram over McGrath because he's left-handed and can produce that "unplayable" delivery more often than McGrath.

Well I was more pointing to the fact that we had a side overloaded with quality quicks and not a single spinner to be seen. I rate Kumble higher than MacGill and in fact any other spinner of the modern era (excluding Warne and Murali obviously). The quicks themselves are almost interchangeable.

The real advantage to having a spinner of any variety in the team over a fourth quick is that they both add variety and give the quicks a rest, which is important if you don't want them to break down or burn out. Even with his poor record overseas Kumble has to be rated as one of the top bowlers in history. If Hooper could make a West Indies side at the time that he did then I see no real reason as to why Kumble couldn't make this side.

Drop him if you're playing on a raging seamer and pick a partner for him on a dustbowl, but a balanced team almost always contains a spinner. I mean look at Australia's current selection policies. There's no doubt that any number of quicks are better bowlers than what Hauritz or McGain are, but they are included for all of the above mentioned reasons.

Heck, before Warne Australia picked Peter Taylor. Now much as I love the guy, his bowling in tests was not good quality. But he did give his captain options. I don't buy the option that picking one of the best spinners in history ahead of one of the best quicks in history is hurting the team.

 

[Harry Harrison]

1) In 1977 he debuted playing The Ashes in England. In 2 games he took 2 five-wicket hauls, and his series bowling average was 20.20. SR was 43.8. If that is "minimal success" for you, I'd love to know your definition of "great success".

2) I compared bowling stats, as my original post says. I could compare batting stats too, in which Imran also comes out superior. I leave it to you as homework.

3) I took the best contiguous period in Botham's career to compare. If you wanna include 1982, I'll have to include the series against India (AVG 38.8, SR 84.8 {that's like Sobers's quality bowling }), return series against India (AVG 35.5, SR 62.3) and the next Ashes in which he took wickets at an abysmal average of 40.5 and struck at 71.2. Botham's peak ends up a lot worse if we include 1982.

Imran >>>>> Botham. Let's move on.

You knocked him out.

 

[Ikki]

That doesn't apply as much to Warne, not with McGrath and co. coming before him.

Er, yes it does. What, do you think McGrath picked off all the batsmen, all the time? Almost without fail Warne faced set batsmen whenever he came on. If McGrath was picking them off he'd keep bowling and there'd be no reason to change with Warne.

India were the best players of spin and Warne failed against them. South Africa may have been a good batting side but they didn't match up to India against spin.

Sri Lanka were arguably just as good, and if inferior not by much. They were handed their behinds.

Much like how India were very good, almost as good as Australia and Ambrose did poorly against them.

Instead of that extra batsman, we chose several bowlers that can bat and that opened the door for the inclusion of a fifth strike bowler. McGrath > Hadlee as a bowler for me, given that he did all that on batting-friendly pitches, but not by much. Hadlee's batting gives him the nod. Five bowlers are not overkill against the likes of Bradman and Sobers, especially when four of them are solid lower-order batsmen.

5 bowlers are overkill IMO. The fact that the other side has Bradman means we'd need more good batsmen, to account for more runs. Not another bowler. Our bowlers are not going to bowl any more than a 100 overs a day - this presuming they are bowling/fielding the whole day. Those 4 will comfortably bowl 100 overs between them.

 

[adharcric]

Er, yes it does. What, do you think McGrath picked off all the batsmen, all the time? Almost without fault Warne faced set batsmen whenever he came on. If McGrath was picking them off he'd keep bowling and there'd be no reason to change with Warne.

Did you read my post? I said it doesn't apply as much - significantly less than for many other spinners, in fact.

Sri Lanka were arguably just as good, and if inferior not by much. They were handed their behinds.

Haha, where did Sri Lanka come from? I'm not holding Warne's lack of success in India against him but merely pointing out the fallacy in your point about his success against South Africa.

5 bowlers are overkill IMO. The fact that the other side has Bradman means we'd need more good batsmen, to account for more runs. Not another bowler. Our bowlers are not going to bowl any more than a 100 overs a day - this presuming they are bowling/fielding the whole day. Those 4 will comfortably bowl 100 overs between them.

How can you be so sure? Have any of them ever faced a batting lineup of that caliber in their careers? If they don't pick up wickets that easily (quite likely), the captain may wish he had a fifth strike bowler. Anyways, we're just arguing stupid hypothetical situations here so let's agree to disagree.

 

[Uppercut]

SRT ?< Chappell?
Ambrose = Warne?

Facepalm

They're perfectly reasonable opinions. OPINIONS. Why are you being a dickhead?

 

[Ikki]

Did you read my post? I said it doesn't apply as much - significantly less than for many other spinners, in fact.

I did, it doesn't change my point IMO. There is only one other spinner comparable with Warne and if anything he was brought on earlier than Warne to face the opposition batsmen.

Haha, where did Sri Lanka come from? I'm not holding Warne's lack of success in India against him but merely pointing out the fallacy in your point about his success against South Africa.

Ok, because as players of spin, there are other teams that were good against whom he did do well. Like Sri Lanka. And to relate that to the point I was responding to, simply because Ambrose did well against Australia doesn't take away from the fact that he completely failed against India - another team that was great against pace.

I'll try to illustrate it simply:

Warne:
Best players of spin: fail
2nd best players of spin: success

Ambrose:
Best players of pace: success
2nd best players of pace: fail

It seems myopic to argue that simply because Ambrose was good against Australia (the best of his time) that it makes him better than Warne because he failed against India (also the best of his time), but disregarding Warne's success against Sri Lanka and Ambrose's against failure against India.

How can you be so sure? Have any of them ever faced a batting lineup of that caliber in their careers? If they don't pick up wickets that easily (quite likely), the captain may wish he had a fifth strike bowler. Anyways, we're just arguing stupid hypothetical situations here so let's agree to disagree.

How can you be sure even 6 bowlers will do the job? You can't, you look at probability and pros/cons of the choice.

Those 4 bowlers have only slightly less chance than the 5 bowlers to pick up the same batsmen - and this is only for reasons of variation (4 being less than 5, for arguments sake). But not because they'll have to bowl any more than they have to simply because the other team has great batsmen. The 4 can bowl 100 comfortably, the 5 probably even easier...but is it needed? No IMO. The extra specialist batsman will make 30-40 more runs than the extra specialist bowler, and the extra bowler is unlikely to provide a difference that the other 4 couldn't have done.

Essentially, it's a bit of a gamble...a "what IF" which doesn't seem like a smart bet. At least IMO.

 

[Ikki]

SRT ?< Chappell?
Ambrose = Warne?

Facepalm

What a state you must be in to think it's laughable that Chappell being better than Tendulkar is a joke. You must not know much about him or his record. He could very well be the 2nd best batsman ever, after Bradman.

 

[adharcric]

I did, it doesn't change my point IMO. There is only one other spinner comparable with Warne and if anything he was brought on earlier than Warne to face the opposition batsmen.

Except that, in the long run, that other spinner was brought on against well-set top-order batsmen whereas Warne had quality opening bowlers to set things up for him on more occasions. Otherwise, you're telling me Chaminda Vaas was as good as Glenn McGrath and that's the end of this debate.

Ok, because as players of spin, there are other teams that were good against whom he did do well. Like Sri Lanka. And to relate that to the point I was responding to, simply because Ambrose did well against Australia doesn't take away from the fact that he completely failed against India - another team that was great against pace.

I'll try to illustrate it simply:

Warne:
Best players of spin: fail
2nd best players of spin: success

Ambrose:
Best players of pace: success
2nd best players of pace: fail

It seems myopic to argue that simply because Ambrose was good against Australia (the best of his time) that it makes him better than Warne because he failed against India (also the best of his time), but disregarding Warne's success against Sri Lanka and Ambrose's against failure against India.

Sure, all that's fine. I wasn't making any point about Warne vs. Ambrose but simply refuting your argument about South Africa's batting. Relax.

 

[0RI0N]

Well I was more pointing to the fact that we had a side overloaded with quality quicks and not a single spinner to be seen. I rate Kumble higher than MacGill and in fact any other spinner of the modern era. The quicks themselves are almost interchangeable.

The real advantage to having a spinner of any variety in the team over a fourth quick is that they both add variety and give the quicks a rest, which is important if you don't want them to break down or burn out. Even with his poor record overseas Kumble has to be rated as one of the top bowlers in history. If Hooper could make a West Indies side at the time that he did then I see no real reason as to why Kumble couldn't make this side.

Drop him if you're playing on a raging seamer and pick a partner for him on a dustbowl, but a balanced team almost always contains a spinner. I mean look at Australia's current selection policies. There's no doubt that any number of quicks are better bowlers than what Hauritz or McGain are, but they are included for all of the above mentioned reasons.

Heck, before Warne Australia picked Peter Taylor. Now much as I love the guy, his bowling in tests was not good quality. But he did give his captain options. I don't buy the option that picking one of the best spinners in history ahead of one of the best quicks in history is hurting the team.

---

Did I read right? Higher than Warne AND Murali? Or are you rating him best after Warne and Murali?
"'Cause the only way you can honestly rate him higher than those 2 are if you are high...?
No flame

Else my understanding of "modern" and yours are completely different.
No flame

thanks

 

[Ikki]

Except that, in the long run, that other spinner was brought on against well-set top-order batsmen whereas Warne had quality opening bowlers to set things up for him on more occasions. Otherwise, you're telling me Chaminda Vaas was as good as Glenn McGrath and that's the end of this debate.

I am not saying Vaas is better, quite the opposite. With McGrath, if he doesn't pop off the openers quickly, he is still given time until Warne comes on. With Vaas, as soon as he looks like he's not troubling the batsmen, Murali is brought on quick.

Sure, all that's fine. I wasn't making any point about Warne vs. Ambrose but simply refuting your argument about South Africa's batting. Relax.

LOL, I am relaxed bro.

 

[adharcric]

I am not saying Vaas is better, quite the opposite. With McGrath, if he doesn't pop off the openers quickly, he is still given time until Warne comes on. With Vaas, as soon as he looks like he's not troubling the batsmen, Murali is brought on quick.

Based on that, Murali had to bowl with a relatively new ball because SL's pace bowlers couldn't get the early breakthroughs. Moreover, McGrath usually managed to pick up early wickets and his new-ball partner was always more than decent as well; more often than not, Murali came in against at least somewhat well-set top-order batsmen with a relatively new ball whereas Warne came in against batsmen without a platform to build upon thanks to McGrath and co. I realize that I may be exaggerating the effect somewhat but I'm just trying to illustrate my point.

 

[Ikki]

Based on that, Murali had to bowl with a relatively new ball because SL's pace bowlers couldn't get the early breakthroughs. Moreover, McGrath usually managed to pick up early wickets and his new-ball partner was always more than decent as well; more often than not, Murali came in against at least somewhat well-set top-order batsmen with a relatively new ball whereas Warne came in against batsmen without a platform to build upon thanks to McGrath and co. I realize that I may be exaggerating the effect somewhat but I'm just trying to illustrate my point.

I agree, both bowlers have somewhat different troubles in beginning their innings. I think the differences aren't as pronounced as we're making them. Essentially, I believe that a clear difference between these spinners and opening pacers like Ambrose and McGrath is that they have to do a bit more prying for wickets and can't just blast it through in the opening overs where a mistake is more likely than spinning it against a set batsman. This was pretty much my point in the beginning; a straight stats comparison between pacers and spinners is unfair.

And, not to denigrate Murali's efforts per your example/scenario, but bowling with a new ball is not really such a bad thing - depends how you use it. Bowlers like Murali and Warne can make it turn regardless when or where. Warne stated that he liked bowling with a newer ball as it added a new kind of variation (ball moving a bit faster through the air/having a bit more bounce) to work with. See Ashes 2005.

 

[stephen]

---

Did I read right? Higher than Warne AND Murali? Or are you rating him best after Warne and Murali?
"'Cause the only way you can honestly rate him higher than those 2 are if you are high...?
No flame

Else my understanding of "modern" and yours are completely different.
No flame

thanks

The comment was in regards to the second XI of the post Packer era. Of course Warne and Murali are a class above. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

1) In 1977 he debuted playing The Ashes in England. In 2 games he took 2 five-wicket hauls, and his series bowling average was 20.20. SR was 43.8. If that is "minimal success" for you, I'd love to know your definition of "great success".

2) I compared bowling stats, as my original post says. I could compare batting stats too, in which Imran also comes out superior. I leave it to you as homework.

3) I took the best contiguous period in Botham's career to compare. If you wanna include 1982, I'll have to include the series against India (AVG 38.8, SR 84.8 {that's like Sobers's quality bowling }), return series against India (AVG 35.5, SR 62.3) and the next Ashes in which he took wickets at an abysmal average of 40.5 and struck at 71.2. Botham's peak ends up a lot worse if we include 1982.

Imran >>>>> Botham. Let's move on.

Fair enough, I assumed you meant all around. I didn't realise that some people needed to produce stats to prove that Imran was a better bowler than Botham over a longer period.