ESPNcricinfo World XI

[akilana]

I would like to read opinions on who was the better batsman between viv richards and sobers?

 

[sifter132]

Sobers better batsman than Viv for me.

 

[honestbharani]

No. If he does i will finally rate him. Although i highly doubt that will occur, especially if SA have a fully fit pace attack of Steyn/Morkel/De Wet/McLaren/Parnell/Kallis/Alexander available.

See.. it is already happening.. Whatever Sehwag scores in SA won't count..

 

[smash84]

Also those ratings I pointed to are of course not everything. Ntini with an overall much lower bowling average cannot be placed above Akram. But a 70-90 point difference in peaks of Akram and other all time great fast bowlers does tell you something. That difference is quite statistically significant.

And I am half way through with the comprehensive "value of wicket" analysis. It will be good to see how bowlers stack up once I publish them. As of now Wasim has not done spectacularly in that analysis. Marshall, Ambrose and McGrath have emerged as the best 3.

And I totally agree with you that as a test match bowler Wasim just doesn't stand shoulder to shoulder with most of the other giants. Imran does.

What is this "value of wicket" analysis???? If this is about the quality of batsmen dismissed you will find Imran Khan as the best amongst Pakistani bowlers. And Dennis Lillee should also come in reasonably high on the list I think.

 

[M0rphin3]

Wasim also took a bagful of tail enders. So that average of 23.6 odd ends up looking a lot more ordinary after you take that into account.

And Wasim's average in subcontinent is better than that outside, so the dead pitch argument doesn't hold.

Dead pitch argument is a load of BS actually. Subcontinent are the ideal for reverse swing bowling which Wasim (or Pak bowlers) is best known for.

And you can't generalize all the subcontinent pitches like that either.

 

[smash84]

Dead pitch argument is a load of BS actually. Subcontinent are the ideal for reverse swing bowling which Wasim (or Pak bowlers) is best known for.

And you can't generalize all the subcontinent pitches like that either.

Well......you can somewhat.........for some reason most of them offer pretty much the same conditions.

 

[TumTum]

Well......you can somewhat.........for some reason most of them offer pretty much the same conditions.

There are small variations, like in SL the pitch is the flattest in the world on days 1-3 but then really starts turning on days 4 & 5. But compared to pitches outside SC where the differences are quite huge these variations are negligible.

 

[smash84]

Dead pitch argument is a load of BS actually. Subcontinent are the ideal for reverse swing bowling which Wasim (or Pak bowlers) is best known for.

And you can't generalize all the subcontinent pitches like that either.

I think the pitches are quite dead in Pakistan, SL, and India. Reverse swing has nothing to do with the pitch (except to roughen up the ball). If a bowler can reverse swing the ball doesn't mean that the pitches are not dead.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Ok,let's forget dead pitches and all that.From a stats POV-414 wickets@23.The tail ender argument doesn't cut it for me-for one,he consistently troubled top order batsmen-indeed,he built up enough pressure from one end for the other to take a wicket.For another,tail enders are also part of the 20 wickets that a bowling side must take.Surely all 414 wickets were not tail enders?!!!

He was even a purist's delight-No fast bowler could do what he could with the ball.It was almost magical.Greatness transcends stats they say,and it is so true in Wasim's case(even though his stats are brilliant)

I would agree the Imran was the greater player and would def. have him in my AT side.I would have him over Lillee-as good a bowler and a much better batsman.I'd also go for Hadlee over MM for the same reason.

I can certainly see why some would rate McGrath or Amby higher than Wasim as a test bowler.But the thing is he brings much more to the table with his variety and batting.His bowling is negligibly inferior,if that.

 

[smash84]

Ok,let's forget dead pitches and all that.From a stats POV-414 wickets@23.The tail ender argument doesn't cut it for me-for one,he consistently troubled top order batsmen-indeed,he built up enough pressure from one end for the other to take a wicket.For another,tail enders are also part of the 20 wickets that a bowling side must take.Surely all 414 wickets were not tail enders?!!!

He was even a purist's delight-No fast bowler could do what he could with the ball.It was almost magical.Greatness transcends stats they say,and it is so true in Wasim's case(even though his stats are brilliant)

I would agree the Imran was the greater player and would def. have him in my AT side.I would have him over Lillee-as good a bowler and a much better batsman.I'd also go for Hadlee over MM for the same reason.

I can certainly see why some would rate McGrath or Amby higher than Wasim as a test bowler.But the thing is he brings much more to the table with his variety and batting.His bowling is negligibly inferior,if that.

You see the variety doesn't really help unless he is taking wickets with it. I'd rather go with a McGrath with no variety who gets the batsman to tickle the ball to the keeper rather than a Wasim full of his bag of tricks who can swing the ball from down the leg side wide to the off side wide and doesn't take as many wickets.

Of course I will take Wasim anyday if I want some exciting bowling to watch.

 

[Ikki]

I think the pitches are quite dead in Pakistan, SL, and India. Reverse swing has nothing to do with the pitch (except to roughen up the ball). If a bowler can reverse swing the ball doesn't mean that the pitches are not dead.

But if you're regularly swinging the ball the pitch argument is pretty much shot down. Especially when guys like Waqar, Wasim and Imran did better at home than they did away.

 

[Ikki]

You see the variety doesn't really help unless he is taking wickets with it. I'd rather go with a McGrath with no variety who gets the batsman to tickle the ball to the keeper rather than a Wasim full of his bag of tricks who can swing the ball from down the leg side wide to the off side wide and doesn't take as many wickets.

Of course I will take Wasim anyday if I want some exciting bowling to watch.

I think the variety argument still helps. He may be more expensive taking certain wickets but when the variety breaks through and gets a wicket - when others like McGrath, Marshall or Lillee don't - it is clearly worth being a little more expensive.

I'm not really sure he should have been in the team. But the variety argument does make sense to me.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

You see the variety doesn't really help unless he is taking wickets with it. I'd rather go with a McGrath with no variety who gets the batsman to tickle the ball to the keeper rather than a Wasim full of his bag of tricks who can swing the ball from down the leg side wide to the off side wide and doesn't take as many wickets.

Of course I will take Wasim anyday if I want some exciting bowling to watch.

I was talking more in terms of bringing variety to the attack.

 

[smash84]

But if you're regularly swinging the ball the pitch argument is pretty much shot down. Especially when guys like Waqar, Wasim and Imran did better at home than they did away.

Exactly. If you are swinging the ball then the pitch argument is shot down. But if you are not able to reverse swing then you might be in for a nightmare.

I didn't say that I agreed with the pitch arguments. I only said that reverse swing and sporting pitches don't have anything in common (except for roughing up the ball). You can have sporting pitches and still be able to reverse swing the ball (like in England). The fact that the Pakistani bowlers were swinging the ball does NOT change the fact that the pitches were not dead. That is all that I am saying.

 

[smash84]

I think the variety argument still helps. He may be more expensive taking certain wickets but when the variety breaks through and gets a wicket - when others like McGrath, Marshall or Lillee don't - it is clearly worth being a little more expensive.

I'm not really sure he should have been in the team. But the variety argument does make sense to me.

Not really. With a higher strike and a higher average Wasim would take longer to break through and concede more runs as well. So I don't see how the variety would help over all.

It might help in some conditions but over the length of the career he just wouldn't cut it as a great bowler comparable to the others.

 

[M0rphin3]

I think the pitches are quite dead in Pakistan, SL, and India. Reverse swing has nothing to do with the pitch (except to roughen up the ball). If a bowler can reverse swing the ball doesn't mean that the pitches are not dead.

Rough sub continent pitches helps in deteriorating the bal much quicklyl. Unless they tamper the ball, subcontinent is the heaven for reverse swing bowlers.

 

[Ikki]

Not really. With a higher strike and a higher average Wasim would take longer to break through and concede more runs as well. So I don't see how the variety would help over all.

It might help in some conditions but over the length of the career he just wouldn't cut it as a great bowler comparable to the others.

If he is taking a wicket due to reasons of his variation (being a left armer, etc) then he IS taking that wicket cheaper than a McGrath, Marshall or a Lillee that may be in the team.

Imagine if a batsman opposing these bowlers is set; the aforementioned 3 are just bowling more of the same and the batsman keeps scoring. Then you put Wasim in and he brings a new trajectory and approach and takes that wicket. He may take every other wicket slower or costlier, but the fact that he may trouble a certain batsman in that kind of way, that is troubling the rest of the attack, makes that trade-off worth paying IMO.

The above example is somewhat simplistic and the aforementioned 3 will rarely be that predictable; but it does explain why a batsman all of a sudden gets out to a parttimer when he is clearly comfortable against the leading bowlers of the team. It's a similar dynamic.

 

[ankitj]

I was listening to this discussion on the selected XI:

'The ultimate classroom project' | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio at Cricinfo.com

The host asks "Marshall is a bit of a question mark?" WTH?

 

[smash84]

If he is taking a wicket due to reasons of his variation (being a left armer, etc) then he IS taking that wicket cheaper than a McGrath, Marshall or a Lillee that may be in the team.

Imagine if a batsman opposing these bowlers is set; the aforementioned 3 are just bowling more of the same and the batsman keeps scoring. Then you put Wasim in and he brings a new trajectory and approach and takes that wicket. He may take every other wicket slower or costlier, but the fact that he may trouble a certain batsman in that kind of way, that is troubling the rest of the attack, makes that trade-off worth paying IMO.

The above example is somewhat simplistic and the aforementioned 3 will rarely be that predictable; but it does explain why a batsman all of a sudden gets out to a parttimer when he is clearly comfortable against the leading bowlers of the team. It's a similar dynamic.

You can use this argument for just about any other bowler. Not only Wasim. Considering that Waqar's in-swinging yorkers were more effective than Wasim's why not include him???

 

[smash84]

I was listening to this discussion on the selected XI:

'The ultimate classroom project' | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio at Cricinfo.com

The host asks "Marshall is a bit of a question mark?" WTH?

yeah.....even I just listened to this audio and was quite surprised with some of the comments.....Sahil Dutta came up with a team that was probably more balanced....although I found his line quite funny...."I have included Imran in place of Sobers, which is quite sacreligious, but I have him in bowling with Wasim, Marshall, Warne, and Muralitharan"

I still feel quite strongly that Imran got done by that stupid one all rounder rule for ESPN. With 2 all rounders you could have had such a good balance.