Last edited by watson; 04-07-2013 at 06:47 AM.
- BenaudFortunately, tonight is a reminder that older people and older players have the opportunity to applaud all the good things done by the modern-day players – their ability to play outstanding attacking cricket, their flair and inspiration and innovation; and it’s a reminder also, in a quiet way, to the modern-day players that good things have happened before, that in every era there have always been cricketers who have served the game well and have loved it, and wanted to see it flourish
But while a weaker tail can sometimes be little more cannon fodder, there is also no reason why they can't also impact a series like Lee and Warne, or Giles did in 2005. That's what I mean when I say that the batting prowess of bowling allrounders sometimes gets exaggerated relative to some of their counterparts. It's obviously very useful to have a bowling allrounder, but by the same token not completely essential provided that 8-9 know how to defend their wicket and hit some boundaries. I don't begrudge someone going out of their way to add a bowling allrounder to their team, but I do think it silly to insist that it is a cricketing principle akin to one of the 10 Commandments.
Last edited by watson; 04-07-2013 at 06:47 AM.
The system ate my post so this will be brief.
You contradict yourself in your paragraph there. A weaker tail can't impact anything because they're weak. They may do it as a one off or a few times in their career, but they don't hold a candle to the consistency of a bowling allrounder. If you want an example of the lower order coming to the rescue then look no further than Daniel Vettori. Warne and Lee impacted one or two series with the bat. A good bowling allrounder will do it throughout their entire career.
Real teams try to accommodate or find (within reason) good bowling allrounders all the time because they are a huge advantage. Lower order power contributed to England's rise to the top. A bowling allrounder both maximises the run scoring potential of all ten wickets and allows the player down the other end to play according to his own wishes rather than needing to worry about shepherding the strike or going ballistic, especially if they're not known for quick singles and big sixes.
We're not discussing the relative merits of Glenn McGrath and Bruce Taylor here, where McGrath is clearly the better bowler. You have a choice between debating for years on the best possible specialist attack, ignoring batting and fielding, and risking having 8-11 filled by players who can only bowl in return for a 0.02% advantage or you can pick a bowling attack equal on bowling to the first but with serious batting power.
In the real world Imran/Hadlee/Marshall/Warne would be the selected attack every time over something like Ambrose/Lillee/McGrath/Murali, or even Imran/Lillee/McGrath/Murali. The only place you see the dubious argument for picking the best four bowlers regardless of anything else is when picking bowlers for a weak bowling team where you need to extract everything you can from limited resources or in an ATG discussion.
Last edited by Flem274*; 04-07-2013 at 08:10 AM.
You guys know there's porn on the internet, right?
We need a ATG porn thread. Would probably get some higher quality analysis in that.
The difference with having these bowling all rounders (who are basically equal bowlers to the pure bowlers) is not that "player X will average 14 more runs than player Y". It's the fact that "player X in a partnership with player Z will be able to stick around while player Z (batsman) and him put together a p/ship of 50 or 100".
Ambrose/Lillee/McGrath/Murali = No I would not select this attack. The batting is unacceptably weak.
Imran/Lillee/McGrath/Murali = Yes I would select this attack if (hypothetically) I believed it to be the best possible. The batting is weaker, but still acceptable. That is, I'm not after batting nirvana with my bottom 4, rather I want them to take 20 wickets quicker than most other bowling combinations.
Last edited by watson; 04-07-2013 at 03:19 PM.
Everyone, well the non-NZ posters anyway, seem to be saying that Hadlee would only be included for his batting. He had a poor start to his career, hence his bowling average is 22 and not 20/21. But I would love to have seen what Lillee, Marshall, etc. would have done at age 38/39.
Hadlee averaged 19 throughout the 1980s. If his batting was like Chris Martin's, I would still seriously consider him for my all-time XI.
Greatest Ever Test XI: JB Hobbs, L Hutton, DG Bradman (c), IVA Richards, BC Lara, GS Sobers, AC Gilchrist (wk), Imran Khan, RJ Hadlee, MD Marshall, SK Warne 12th man: M Muralitharan
Favorite XI: WG Grace, VT Trumper, IVA Richards, DCS Compton, FMM Worrell (c), AC Gilchrist (wk), CL Cairns, SK Warne, FS Trueman, SE Bond, T Richardson 12th man: H Larwood
"Neither of them will have an international cricket career past 2016."
Blocky on Martin Guptill and Ish Sodhi. 20/11/2014.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)