Test Cricket Draft : Group B

[AldoRaine18]

Vote for the strongest team out of the three considering the balance and individual quality. Only the Test Career has to be considered. Two out of the three teams will go ahead. Write ups can be added by the managers if they want, and I will update it in the OP. Players who made their debut post 1970 were eligible to be picked.

VOTE FOR ONLY TWO TEAMS


Team AndyZaltzHair

1. Graham Gooch*
2. Chris Gayle
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

12. Sourav Ganguly


Team Somerset

Barry Richards
Marvin Atapattu
Sir Viv Richards
Martin Crowe
Mohammad Yousuf
Mahela Jayawardene
Mark Boucher
Kapil Dev
Makhaya Ntini
Stuart MacGill
Mohammad Asif

12th man: Herschelle Gibbs


Team Blakus

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

12. Wasim Raja

[Agent TBY]

Went with Andy and Blakus. Somerset has a really strong middle order, but his openers and bowlers let him down.

[Himannv]

Went with AZH and Blakus. I like his batting quite a bit, but Somerset misses out on my vote due to his bowling attack.

[watson]

Great batting side from 1-8 by Somerset, especially with the 2 Richards at the top of the order. But the bowling loses too much in comparison.

Andy + Blakus.

[Monk]

I really can't decide on this one.

Somerset's batting line up is insane, all the way down to Dev at 8. They would score 500 very very quickly. His bowling, while lacking the strike power I'd prefer to see, is honest and reliable. Asif (controversy aside) is an very good bowler, Ntini is a real workhorse, Kapil is a fine swing bowler, and MacGill a wicket taking leggie.

When I look at Andy's line up, I love his bowling attack (Garner, Hadlee as a graders, and Flintoff and Qadir are very good), but I can't help thinking his batting is a bit weak:
Gayle- hot and cold
Jones- decent, but not amazing, very slow scorer, only average 34 at #3
Hughes- really remembered for controversy and the era than anything I reckon. Averaged only 27 v the WIs (which is ok considering, but not really an indication he was above an average bat).

So for me, Blakus is clearly a winner with a well balanced side, but I can't decide between Andy and Somerset. Help.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Monk

I really can't decide on this one.

Somerset's batting line up is insane, all the way down to Dev at 8. They would score 500 very very quickly. His bowling, while lacking the strike power I'd prefer to see, is honest and reliable. Asif (controversy aside) is an very good bowler, Ntini is a real workhorse, Kapil is a fine swing bowler, and MacGill a wicket taking leggie.

When I look at Andy's line up, I love his bowling attack (Garner, Hadlee as a graders, and Flintoff and Qadir are very good), but I can't help thinking his batting is a bit weak:
Gayle- hot and cold
Jones- decent, but not amazing, very slow scorer, only average 34 at #3
Hughes- really remembered for controversy and the era than anything I reckon. Averaged only 27 v the WIs (which is ok considering, but not really an indication he was above an average bat).

So for me, Blakus is clearly a winner with a well balanced side, but I can't decide between Andy and Somerset. Help.

The question is:

Do you think that Kapil Dev, Makhaya Ntini, Stuart MacGill, and Mohammad Asif
could bowl out Andy's team twice in 5 days, bearing in mind that it starts with Gooch and ends with Hadlee at No.9 ?

Once you've answered that question you then ask a similar one:

Do you think that Andrew Flintoff, Richard Hadlee, Joel Garner, and Abdul Qadir could bowl out Somerset's team twice in 5 days, bearing in mind that it has the two Richards and Kapil Dev going in at No.8 ?

Which is more likely do you think?

[Monk]

Originally Posted by watson

The question is:

Do you think that Kapil Dev, Makhaya Ntini, Stuart MacGill, and Mohammad Asif
could bowl out Andy's team twice in 5 days, bearing in mind that it starts with Gooch and ends with Hadlee at No.9 ?

Once you've answered that question you then ask a similar one:

Do you think that Andrew Flintoff, Richard Hadlee, Joel Garner, and Abdul Qadir could bowl out Somerset's team twice in 5 days, bearing in mind that it has the two Richards and Kapil Dev going in at No.8 ?

Which is more likely do you think?

a draw to be honest.

Can see Somerset's team batting first and making a BIG score. In spite of the fact that Andy has Garner and Hadlee, the likelihood is that plenty of runs are going to be made by Richards (times two), Crowe, Yousuf, Mahela, Boucher and Kapil. Flintoff and Qadir are good, but can be scored from. I can see them making 400 plus no dramas.

Then, when Andy's team bats, I can see a pretty even contest between bat and ball, with Ntini, Asif, MacGill and Kapil as a bowling unit pretty evenly matched with the batting line up of Gooch, Gayle, Jones, Miandad, Gower and Hughes. Although the batting is a bit weak imo, the lower order stretches to 9 with Flintoff, Marsh and Hadlee. I could see Flintoff in particular unleashing a bit of carnage against that attack if it was tiring. Once again, I see a score of somewhere around 400 in the first innings.

Pretty tough this one! Weaker batting versus weaker bowling, and stronger batting versus stronger bowling here. Normally I'd tend towards the stronger bowling, but I don't think it's significantly stronger in this instance (considering the batsmen it has to contend with).

Can't even split the spinners here, MacGill and Qadir pretty similar in ability as the game enters day 4 and 5.

Really can't split them one way or the other.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Monk

a draw to be honest.

Can see Somerset's team batting first and making a BIG score. In spite of the fact that Andy has Garner and Hadlee, the likelihood is that plenty of runs are going to be made by Richards (times two), Crowe, Yousuf, Mahela, Boucher and Kapil. Flintoff and Qadir are good, but can be scored from. I can see them making 400 plus no dramas.

Then, when Andy's team bats, I can see a pretty even contest between bat and ball, with Ntini, Asif, MacGill and Kapil as a bowling unit pretty evenly matched with the batting line up of Gooch, Gayle, Jones, Miandad, Gower and Hughes. Although the batting is a bit weak imo, the lower order stretches to 9 with Flintoff, Marsh and Hadlee. I could see Flintoff in particular unleashing a bit of carnage against that attack if it was tiring. Once again, I see a score of somewhere around 400 in the first innings.

Pretty tough this one! Weaker batting versus weaker bowling, and stronger batting versus stronger bowling here. Normally I'd tend towards the stronger bowling, but I don't think it's significantly stronger in this instance (considering the batsmen it has to contend with).

Can't even split the spinners here, MacGill and Qadir pretty similar in ability as the game enters day 4 and 5.

Really can't split them one way or the other.

If you think that there would be an even contest and a probable draw then it boils down to your 'artistic temperment'. Do you naturally like to see a strong batting line-up, or do you naturally gravitate to a strong bowling attack?

There's no right or wrong answer here because you have assessed the Test match to be a 50/50 contest with no obvious winner.

Do you like red or blue? Batsman or bowlers?

[AndyZaltzHair]

The reasoning behind playing Kim Hughes was that he showed instances to be good against fast bowling and short pitched deliveries eg his 130 odd against fierce West Indies attack. The thing I had to consider was his inconsistency but thought the batting order doesn't solely rest on him so took a bit of risk. If he fires, a sight to watch.

The marvellous appeal of Hughes's batting lies in the repertoire of his strokes and his unashamed enthusiasm in playing them. Most are straight from the copybook and executed with the fine touch of the artist's brush; some, however, are of his own design and despatched with a grand flourish. The high backlift, the skipping footwork, the flashing blade and the full-blooded follow-through – all hallmarks of the great stroke-players – are evident at their very best when Hughes is in full flight.
—Wisden Cricketers' Almanack,

[Monk]

Originally Posted by watson

If you think that there would be an even contest and a probable draw then it boils down to your 'artistic temperment'. Do you naturally like to see a strong batting line-up, or do you naturally gravitate to a strong bowling attack?

There's no right or wrong answer here because you have assessed the Test match to be a 50/50 contest with no obvious winner.

Do you like red or blue? Batsman or bowlers?

Normally I'd gravitate naturally towards the stronger bowling unit, but I have to say that Somerset's powerful and aggressive batting line up is swaying me in his favor on this occasion. ****ing nothing in it though!

[watson]

Originally Posted by AndyZaltzHair

The reasoning behind playing Kim Hughes was that he showed instances to be good against fast bowling and short pitched deliveries eg his 130 odd against fierce West Indies attack. The thing I had to consider was his inconsistency but thought the batting order doesn't solely rest on him so took a bit of risk. If he fires, a sight to watch.

His 100no against the Windies in 1981 ranks as one of the greatest centuries of all time. Stunning innings.

1st Test: Australia v West Indies at Melbourne, Dec 26-30, 1981 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

His average is also lower than it should be because of the quality attacks he faced. Most of Hughes' innings were against strong opponents.

[AldoRaine18]

Why is Jayawardene playing at 6?

[morgieb]

Zalts and Blakus. Sommers bowling looks poor for this standard.

[watson]

Originally Posted by AldoRaine18

Why is Jayawardene playing at 6?

Because Crowe scored the bulk of his runs at No.4 and is possibly a better batsman. It also goes without saying that Richards and Mohammad Yousef are almost certainly better batsman.

[AldoRaine18]

Originally Posted by watson

Because Crowe scored the bulk of his runs at No.4 and is possibly a better batsman. It also goes without saying that Richards and Mohammad Yousef are almost certainly better batsman.

No,not that. Of course they are better and better suited up the order. But Mahela hardly ever played at 6. Cricinfo tells me he played 3 innings at that position with a top score of 66. His best position in by far number 4 and he was good at 3.

I think Somerset should have gone for a proven lower middle order batsman. I wouldn't give much credit to Mahela playing so horribly out of position.