Last edited by watson; 07-04-2014 at 01:22 AM.
“I'm writing a book on magic”, I explain, and I'm asked, “Real magic?” By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. “No”, I answer: “Conjuring tricks, not real magic”. Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic.”
― Lee Siegel, 'Net of Magic: Wonders and Deceptions in India'
The folly of this statement is something that is lost on you. I will try with an analogy: You are the guy, who shows up to the gun-fight with a plastic knife ( as is the status of your extremely limited data-set), then yells and screams at the guy who doesnt have a gun either, when he points out that you are stuffed.Its a bit rich of you to criticise too mightily about data sets when you have NONE to back your opinion of Amre.
Do you get it yet ? I don't need a data set. My comments are not dependent on a data-set. Your data-set is flawed because it has no sample space merit whatsoever. Is it clear yet ?
There is no logical absurdity in comparing Amre and kallis to parameters that are identical to the data-set you are using for Amre.I'm not limiting the discussion to any form of cricket. You did that by inviting us to consider Nadkarni's ER at test and FC level. So your second para isn't in response to any point I made. Its just another red herring. To humour you lets look at his overall record anyway. Amre's ODI SR is mediocre as is his ListA record. FC record nothing out of the ordinary for Indian conditions. He didn't play t20. His test record shows he couldn't compete at higher standards. You got anything else? How good was he at French cricket? Entertain us with an anecdote about that...
Loved /your para 3. Yeah he could've failed for any reason. Might have been a bed wetter: Who knows. BUT - you said it was down to the fact he couldn't play pace bowling: Remember? So I've just held you accountable to that assessment.
The logical absurdity was comparing Amre to Kallis in the first place and I note it was you who made the comparison.
Kallis after similar experience had under 30 average. So its a demonstration that your data-set, as I've been saying form the get-go, is trash. it is so because you simply do not understand the mathematical and logical absurdities of reading too much into a limited sample space.
We get it, you disagree. Enough is enough.
8 points for the next one to make a post on Amre's stats or how they're unimportant, how they relate to a young Jacques Kallis, or how they relate to something Len Hutton said a ****ton of years ago. This entire debate is completely absurd.
Oh, and if you find something else to argue about in such a personal manner, you'll be getting 5 points at the least.
If my intention still isn't clear, end it.
A little all rounders XI. Would not be able to take my eyes off the batting from Miller-Procter. Doubt there'd ever be a dull moment with the bowling either.
Last edited by Coronis; 08-04-2014 at 05:58 AM.
ATG World XI
1. J.B Hobbs 2. H. Sutcliffe 3. D.G Bradman 4. S.R Tendulkar 5. W.R Hammond 6. G.S Sobers 7. A.C Gilchrist 8. M.D Marshall 9. S.K Warne 10. D.W Steyn 11. G.D McGrath
Feel awful at leaving out Botham, Procter, and Kapil. But I think Davidson was a better pace bowler than the three of them, plus there seemed to be a need for a quality spin bowler. So....
Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2
Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4
Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
Looking at the all rounder and single skills XI's, it made me wonder about what goes into most persons criteria for an ATG XI.
Personally I go for a dominant No. 3, the rest of the middle order generally also attacking with one batsman who can anchor if required. A wicket keeper who can handle a bat and a batting and bowling all rounder and preferably three but at least two great (with one top tier) slip fielders. For the bowling attack, at least one of the bowlers must be genuine express, while a swing bowler and a metronome are the ideal compliments, though not always possible. The tail should also be handy while (serviceable) batting down to No. 10.
That combination should result in a pretty well balanced (and over thought) team.
Last edited by kyear2; 08-04-2014 at 09:20 PM.
My current sig is one I really like though. I am of the firm belief that Hutton is the greatest opener ever, he faced great attacks and thrived, and I'm a big fan of Gavaskar, in spite of the fact you can pull apart his record a bit. To average 50+ as an opener in the 70s is unreal, and he was such a beautifully poised and balanced player. I think Gavaskar was doing what Tendulkar did so well in an era of great fast bowlers 20 years before Tendulkar.
Bradman is Bradman, obviously. Then I love Pollock at #4, Viv at #5 and Sobers at #6. Completely capable of taking the game away in a session or two. Pragmatically, I'd have Sachin in place of Pollock, simply because he is such a well rounded player, and perfect for #4, but Pollock is a fave at the moment. I won't be swayed from Viv at #5, because of his aggression and ability to intimidate bowlers (that famous Imran quote). Sobers is Sobers, second batsman selected and a great option with the ball.
I'm happy with either Gilly or Knott as keeper and #7, but tbh recently I read Gilly's autobio and I was a little underwhelmed by it. And I love Knott's quirkiness, dogged batting and elite keeping. So it's Knott for now.
Marshall, Lillee and Ambrose give me everything I want in an pace attack (apart from a left armer). They are diverse (skiddy, classical, tall) and aggressive and relentless. All have good bouncers, all sustain pace over a long day, and all are intimidating predators. I've oft said I'm happy with any of the top 15 quicks of all time, but I like this trio particularly. I hate leaving out Hadlee and McGrath particularly, and I am a big fan of Lindwall, but the three I've chosen do it for me.
I gravitate between Warne and O'Reilly. I dislike Warne the man, but to me he mastered the hardest skill in cricket and sustained that for well over a decade. He also has that will to win, and that never say die thing. He is also a massive show pony and tin arse who seems to have things fall his way. But really, I think you make your own luck, with skill. So Warne it is (he can also bat and field better than O'Reilly). I do love Murali the man, and love his ability, but I will forever struggle with the chucking thing, which is a shame, but it is what it is.
This team also has a plethora of good slippers- Warne, Pollock and Sunny, as well as Viv and Sobers who were great in the slips, or in the covers/midwicket area.
Last edited by Red Hill; 09-04-2014 at 04:51 AM.
Yeah, I like the team too.
Knott through to Ambrose gives a tail that is probably weaker than most peoples selections as it misses out on Gilchrist, then Imran or Hadlee at No.8. However, there is something inherently appealing about Marshall, Lillee, and Ambrose bowling together, especially with Knott behind the stumps.
I now hold the view after a fair amount of reading and gathering of opinions that SF Barnes typical speed when he had the new ball was around the 120kph mark. I would hesitate in picking a first change bowler any slower than that, but at around the 120 kph mark the combination of the 'magnus effect' and his finger-spun leg-breaks would prove to be extremely difficult to any batsman from any period that you care to mention.
I'm therefore gravitating toward Knott-Marshall-Warne-Lillee- Barnes as my combo.
Last edited by watson; 09-04-2014 at 02:51 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)