Test Cricket Draft : Group B

[watson]

Basically anyone who succeeds at 3 or 4 in a batting order should be fine at 6.

The reverse is not true, not everyone can open or bat at 3.

Absolutely true.

 

[AldoRaine18]

That's true to an extent We can say that Mahela won't be a liability that down the order, but looking at his game which was all about staying on the crease for long periods of time and scoring big, would be wasted to an extent that down the order.

 

[watson]

That's true to an extent We can say that Mahela won't be a liability that down the order, but looking at his game which was all about staying on the crease for long periods of time and scoring big, would be wasted to an extent that down the order.

By the same logic Martin Crowe would not have been able to score his 188 runs against Marshall, Holding, and Garner at Barbados in 1985 if he were languishing in the No.6 position;

2nd Test: West Indies v New Zealand at Georgetown, Apr 6-11, 1985 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Neither would he have got his top score of 299 runs either unless at No.4;

1st Test: New Zealand v Sri Lanka at Wellington, Jan 31-Feb 4, 1991 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

You can't have your cake and eat it Aldo. One batsman has to give, and there is no concrete reason that it should be Martin Crowe.

I have my doubts that Mahela could have scored 150+ in the West Indies against Marshall et al. But I am happy to be wrong.

 

[AldoRaine18]

By the same logic Martin Crowe would not have been able to score his 188 runs against Marshall, Holding, and Garner at Barbados in 1985 if he were languishing in the No.6 position;

2nd Test: West Indies v New Zealand at Georgetown, Apr 6-11, 1985 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Neither would he have got his top score of 299 runs either unless at No.4;

1st Test: New Zealand v Sri Lanka at Wellington, Jan 31-Feb 4, 1991 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

You can't have your cake and eat it Aldo. One batsman has to give, and there is no concrete reason that it should be Martin Crowe.

I have my doubts that Mahela could have scored 150+ in the West Indies against Marshall et al. But I am happy to be wrong.

Don't you think having someone who has more experience of batting down the order, someone who is more used to batting with the tail would be better? Usually when Mahela walked in, the team was a couple of wickets down. It's a totally different ball game when you are in a partnership that is probably the last recognized pair in the team and your wicket means much more than it does top of the order. There is a reason we appreciate players like Steve Waugh or Lara coz they have shown they are much more than run getters. Mahela "can" do it, no doubt. But the scenario he is in, facing quality bowlers some of which are ATGs, suddenly taking him out of his comfort zone is a huge risk IMO. Again, Im just saying there could have been a better option who suited that role better. At least when I picked my players I respected their careers and not what they "can" do.

That batsmen you stated were much more versatile and complete than Mahela tbh.

 

[Red]

Don't you think having someone who has more experience of batting down the order, someone who is more used to batting with the tail would be better? Usually when Mahela walked in, the team was a couple of wickets down. It's a totally different ball game when you are in a partnership that is probably the last recognized pair in the team and your wicket means much more than it does top of the order. There is a reason we appreciate players like Steve Waugh or Lara coz they have shown they are much more than run getters. Mahela "can" do it, no doubt. But the scenario he is in, facing quality bowlers some of which are ATGs, suddenly taking him out of his comfort zone is a huge risk IMO. Again, Im just saying there could have been a better option who suited that role better. At least when I picked my players I respected their careers and not what they "can" do.

That batsmen you stated were much more versatile and complete than Mahela tbh.

You need to be reasonable in a draft like this. If it comes to the final rounds and Jayawardene is the best available middle order batsman, you take him and bat him at 6, even if he batted at 4 more often.

It'd be different if you were arguing for batting someone like Steve Waugh or Doug Walters batting at number 3, which is a specialised position. Openers and number 3s are specialists in my opinion, however, anyone who bats at 3 or 4 can very comfortably bat down the order at 5 or 6.

Also, "batting with the tail" is an overrated skill imo. Don't see how anyone could be better at it than someone else, other than being able to work singles at the end of the over and say "well played mate, stick around til I get my 100".

 

[AldoRaine18]

Batting with the tail needs the ability to keep the score ticking, not expose your partner much to the attack, continuously give him proper advice, and above all, keep your cool.

It will be highly unfair to call it overrated. Look at this innings by Lara.

Trinidad & Tobago v Jamaica at Trinidad, 21-24 Jan 1994

He made 180 and his 8 partners combined made 19.

And I am sure you are aware of his heroic knock against Australia. You cannot say that anyone can go on and pull off something like that. That too against bowlers who don't give an inch.

IMO 5 is the limit where a top order batsman can be tried, but 6 and 7 can change the game provided you have the required players. Players like Gilly proved that.

 

[watson]

Don't you think having someone who has more experience of batting down the order, someone who is more used to batting with the tail would be better? Usually when Mahela walked in, the team was a couple of wickets down. It's a totally different ball game when you are in a partnership that is probably the last recognized pair in the team and your wicket means much more than it does top of the order. There is a reason we appreciate players like Steve Waugh or Lara coz they have shown they are much more than run getters. Mahela "can" do it, no doubt. But the scenario he is in, facing quality bowlers some of which are ATGs, suddenly taking him out of his comfort zone is a huge risk IMO. Again, Im just saying there could have been a better option who suited that role better. At least when I picked my players I respected their careers and not what they "can" do.

That batsmen you stated were much more versatile and complete than Mahela tbh.

Putting Mahela at No.6 is not a 'huge risk', rather it is a justifiable small risk.

We are dealing with hypotheticals here. It is therefore illogical to assume that you could make the following statement with any real certainty: 'Mahela would consistenly fail at No.6 and be unable to bat with the tail'. The opposite is just as likely to be true over the course of a complete series. After all, you are making yet another subjective assumption: 'Mahela is not adaptable'.

 

[AldoRaine18]

I am just looking at his career and making a conclusion based on that, based on his strengths and based on the requirements needed for the position he is in.

It's not a case of 'never' or 'always'. In a real life scenario, it would hardly be a problem. But here the opposition is much stronger than most real life situations he would have been in. I disagree on the fact that all top order batsmen can easily play lower down the order and replicate the same level of performances. You are telling that Dravid or Ponting would have had the same careers had they played at number 7?

 

[watson]

You are telling that Dravid or Ponting would have had the same careers had they played at number 7?

No.

 

[AldoRaine18]

Well why not in their cases? And why is it different for Mahela? Honest question.

 

[watson]

Well why not in their cases? And why is it different for Mahela? Honest question.

'Career' is the completely wrong context.

We are asking the question: Would my batting line-up, including the No.6, succeed in a series against other ATG Teams?

 

[smash84]

Andy and Blakus it is ......Somerset's bowling is weak

 

[Somerset]

Didn't expect quite so much debate regarding my side! Have to conceed that my bowling attack is on the weaker side - perhaps selecting Jayawardene AND Yousuf midway through the draft was an error, and that I should've gone for a higher quality bowling option at that point. In saying that, I think an attack of Dev-Ntini-Asif-MacGill is more than useful and gets tainted for a few reasons - Dev/Ntini's averages higher than ATG quick bowlers, Asif being a cheat and MacGill having to contend with Warne. With the two Richards, Crowe and a host of very strong modern day batsmen, I think my batting line-up's one of the strongest in the whole competition though.

 

[AldoRaine18]

So like last group, both winning teams have to pick one players from Somerset's team. Since the votes are equal, it doesn't matter who picks first. Make your choices as soon as possible.

 

[Blakus]

So like last group, both winning teams have to pick one players from Somerset's team. Since the votes are equal, it doesn't matter who picks first. Make your choices as soon as possible.

Didn't know about this!

I'll take Viv Richards, who'll replace Rowe

1.Michael Slater
2.Marcuss Trescothick
3.Viv Richards*
4.Aravinda de Silva
5.Inzamam ul-Haq
6.Rahul Dravid
7.Adam Gilchrist+
8.Dennis Lillee
9.Ian Bishop
10.Darren Gough
11.Saeed Ajaml

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

1. Graham Gooch*
2. Barry Richards
3. Andrew Jones
4. Javed Miandad
5. David Gower
6. Kim Hughes
7. Andrew Flintoff
8. Rod Marsh+
9. Richard Hadlee
10. Joel Garner
11. Abdul Qadir

 

[Agent TBY]

Still don't agree with the idea that Barry Richards is a good pick in this draft. I was hoping you wouldn't pick him.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

The quality of Barry Richards' merciless attack on the best bowlers of his time was not strained. However, after 1970, fate decreed that his batting genius was mainly limited to belting the hell out of all comers in county cricket. Richards leapt at a chance to play Sheffield Shield cricket in 1970-71, whereupon he astonished everyone by hitting more than a thousand runs at the Bradman-like average of 109. 86.

He hit 325 in one day against a strong Western Australia attack - Graham McKenzie, Dennis Lillee, Tony Lock, Ian Brayshaw, John Inverarity and Tony Mann - with such timing and power that even the WA players stood in awe and applauded him. Lock conceded more than 100 off nine overs, unheard of in Australia, where the old England master spinner usually had the opposition batsmen in knots.

Richards was on 317 when Lillee bowled the last over of the day. The second ball was flayed over cover - one bounce to the fence. The final delivery was a short-pitched ball that rose to above chest height. Most mortals would have done well to fend it to the ground, but Richards went right back on his stumps and somehow swatted the ball over mid-on, one bounce into the crowd.
- Ashley Mallett

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/485906.html

 

[Agent TBY]

The keywords being in this draft. It clearly says on the tin that only their test careers are to be considered, and Richards' spans all of four tests. His county and shield exploits shouldn't mean a thing.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

The keywords being in this draft. It clearly says on the tin that only their test careers are to be considered, and Richards' spans all of four tests. His county and shield exploits shouldn't mean a thing.

Barry Richards played 4 Tests so he automatically falls into the category of available for selection. To consider him great or not is entirely different matter of personal opinions. The point I tried to make clear is that yes he played only four tests but the kind of attacks and circumstances he encountered in FC and scored were by no means easy roll overs