Cricket Player Manager
Page 31 of 247 FirstFirst ... 2129303132334181131 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 3693
Like Tree259Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #451
    International Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,298
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    What you sound doesn't sound as simple as what I suggested.

    Basically the main question should be picking the better bowler. The comparison you've provided sounds as if its a demon vs a quality club cricketer not two of the best English bowlers of all time. I don't mind you going for the quicker bowler, but I don't think the team needs 3 very fast bowlers.
    Probably not three, although three worked extremely well for the West Indies in the 80s because all three were damned good.

    So maybe, what we after is 2-3 English bowlers who were both fast and damned good at the same time. Or to put it another way - quick with good variety and control.

    That would be Trueman (definitely), Snow (probably), and Larwood (possibly) IMO.

    Willis?
    Len Hutton - Jack Hobbs - Ted Dexter - Peter May - Walter Hammond - Frank Woolley - Ian Botham - Alan Knott - Hedley Verity - John Snow - Fred Trueman

    Victor Trumper - Bill Lawry - Don Bradman - Greg Chappell - Allan Border - Keith Miller - Adam Gilchrist - Alan Davidson - Shane Warne - Dennis Lillee - Glenn McGrath

  2. #452
    International Vice-Captain Days of Grace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Takasaki, Japan
    Posts
    4,586
    My England XI
    Hobbs
    Hutton (c)
    Hammond
    Compton
    Pietersen
    Botham
    Knott (wk)
    Larwood
    Trueman
    Laker
    Barnes

    Left out Barrington, since we have good enough batsmen in the team to make his modus operandi, i.e. stonewalling in the event of a crisis, kinda redudant. Also, Barrington padded his stats with a lot of scores in bore draws against teams that weren't that strong. Check his stats vs. the West Indies, the best bowling attack of his day.

    Instead, I have gone for some entertainment in the middle order with Compton and Pietersen. Compton could also stonewall when the need arose. I almost selected May ahead of him, but went with the more romantic selection. Pietersen has done enough in my view to be selected, or at least be considered for an alltime XI. Wouldn't mind seeing him and Beefy together at 250/4, either.

    As for the bowling attack, you have your firepower with the new ball (Larwood and Trueman), your spinner, and your two bowlers who can back up the quicks and bowl all day (Botham and Barnes).

    If the the wind is howling from one end (overrated notion, since it hardly ever happens), then Barnes or Botham can easily bowl into it with the new ball.


    <my two cents>
    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 acareer past 2016."
    Brocky on Martin Guptill and Ish Sodhi. 20/11/2014.

  3. #453
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,390
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Probably not three, although three worked extremely well for the West Indies in the 80s because all three were damned good.

    So maybe, what we after is 2-3 English bowlers who were both fast and damned good at the same time. Or to put it another way - quick with good variety and control.

    That would be Trueman (definitely), Snow (probably), and Larwood (possibly) IMO.

    Willis?
    Yeah but were the WI quicks good because they were quick or quick because they were good? Sounds silly, but like your example of Snow earlier, being able to get that steep bounce helps make him appear quicker.

    Willis was a fine bowler, but I'm thinking Frank Tyson fits into your criteria more so.

  4. #454
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,140
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Willis?
    Worth a conversation...
    I'll never fear you, buddy.


  5. #455
    International Debutant Jager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The land of Siddle
    Posts
    2,889
    An English XI without Larwood is like an Australian XI without Lillee to me

    Aus XI bowling
    05. Miller
    08. Davidson
    09. Warne
    10. Lillee
    11. O'Reilly
    Oh for a strong arm and a walking stick

  6. #456
    International Debutant Jager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The land of Siddle
    Posts
    2,889
    Eng XI bowling
    03. Hammond
    06. Beefy
    08. Verity
    09. Larwood
    10. Laker
    11. Trueman

  7. #457
    International Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,298
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Yeah but were the WI quicks good because they were quick or quick because they were good? Sounds silly, but like your example of Snow earlier, being able to get that steep bounce helps make him appear quicker.

    Willis was a fine bowler, but I'm thinking Frank Tyson fits into your criteria more so.
    I'm fussy, I want quick AND good.

    The assumption being that (quick plus good) is consistently more lethal to a batting order than just plain (good). If that makes sense.

    Tyson was quick, but was he good? I have question marks about his endurance/tenacity as his career was quite short. Larwood's career wasn't short, and he was a tough SOB.

    Also, could Tyson cut or swing the ball as well as Trueman or Snow? I'm not so sure, although I'm not an authority on Frank Tyson.

    Lastly, steep-bounce doesn't make a bowler appear quick, it happens because the bowler IS quick. That is, the ball can only bounce high because it has hit the pitch hard, and this can only happen at good velocity. Unless the bowler is near 6 1/2 foot tall, which Snow wasn't.

  8. #458
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    An English XI without Larwood is like an Australian XI without Lillee to me

    Aus XI bowling
    05. Miller
    08. Davidson
    09. Warne
    10. Lillee
    11. O'Reilly
    Tough leaving McGrath out for Davidson. McGrath much more potent. Left arm variety is a nice thought, but most great attacks have done well without it.

    McGrath and Lindwall are ahead of Davo for me, purely on the need to take wickets in as few balls as possible.

  9. #459
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    Tough leaving McGrath out for Davidson. McGrath much more potent. Left arm variety is a nice thought, but most great attacks have done well without it.

    McGrath and Lindwall are ahead of Davo for me, purely on the need to take wickets in as few balls as possible.
    Davidson will take significantly cheaper wickets than Lindwall and McG and only lose 10 more deliveries in the process.
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  10. #460
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,390
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    I'm fussy, I want quick AND good.

    The assumption being that (quick plus good) is consistently more lethal to a batting order than just plain (good). If that makes sense.

    Tyson was quick, but was he good? I have question marks about his endurance/tenacity as his career was quite short. Larwood's career wasn't short, and he was a tough SOB.

    Also, could Tyson cut or swing the ball as well as Trueman or Snow? I'm not so sure, although I'm not an authority on Frank Tyson.

    Lastly, steep-bounce doesn't make a bowler appear quick, it happens because the bowler IS quick. That is, the ball can only bounce high because it has hit the pitch hard, and this can only happen at good velocity. Unless the bowler is near 6 1/2 foot tall, which Snow wasn't.
    Yes of course he was good. Amazed that you would consider Tyson's career short and Larwood's not short. 4 tests overall difference and like a years time span is minimal.

    No comment on the steep-bounce.

  11. #461
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,048
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    I'm fussy, I want quick AND good.

    The assumption being that (quick plus good) is consistently more lethal to a batting order than just plain (good). If that makes sense.

    .
    That's the Ian Chappell school of thought.

    "Lillee was better than McGrath because he could do everything that McGrath could and he could do it 10 miles quicker."

  12. #462
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,140
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    Davidson will take significantly cheaper wickets than Lindwall and McG and only lose 10 more deliveries in the process.
    If we reasonably expect him to take 4-6 wickets per match, that's an extra 6-10 overs he will add to the time it takes to bowl the opposition out over the test match. I think for a quick bowler, his SR is not quite good enough.

    McGrath only concedes one more run per wicket, yet takes wickets 10 balls sooner.

    Most teams would prefer to concede 4-6 runs a test and have an extra 6-10 overs to bowl the opposition out in.

  13. #463
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,390
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    Davidson will take significantly cheaper wickets than Lindwall and McG and only lose 10 more deliveries in the process.
    Significantly? Nope.

    Smali, whenever I read these threads, I always have to ask myself, what exactly did the current/recently retired player need to achieve to be ranked above the player who was in the large ranked above him.

    I think McGrath vs Lindwall or Davidson and just wonder what else could he have possibly achieved bowling wise? For mine its bugger all, so unless people aren't picking McGrath due to his poor batting, he makes my all time Aussie team because he was incredible.

  14. #464
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,048
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Significantly? Nope.

    Smali, whenever I read these threads, I always have to ask myself, what exactly did the current/recently retired player need to achieve to be ranked above the player who was in the large ranked above him.

    I think McGrath vs Lindwall or Davidson and just wonder what else could he have possibly achieved bowling wise? For mine its bugger all, so unless people aren't picking McGrath due to his poor batting, he makes my all time Aussie team because he was incredible.
    As far as I am concerned in a test match there is plenty of time so the SR of anything around 10 balls is fine by me. So opposition will take 15 more overs at the crease. At the same time they will get 10 to 15 runs less with Davidson. Simple as

    Now don't get me wrong. I rate McGrath very highly but if you are going for the best team then might as well go for the person who will get you the cheapest wickets in a reasonable time frame.

    And yes, Davidson brings a little bit of batting with him as well

  15. #465
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,390
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    As far as I am concerned in a test match there is plenty of time so the SR of anything around 10 balls is fine by me. So opposition will take 15 more overs at the crease. At the same time they will get 10 to 15 runs less with Davidson. Simple as

    Now don't get me wrong. I rate McGrath very highly but if you are going for the best team then might as well go for the person who will get you the cheapest wickets in a reasonable time frame.

    And yes, Davidson brings a little bit of batting with him as well
    10 to 15 runs less with Davidson, how'd you work that out? Far from simple as mate. I like how you went balls per wicket and then went for overall runs to help out your argument.

    I call bull**** on the less runs for Davo compared to McGrath. The bloke (Pidge) took wickets for fun or many lifeless pitches.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Thread Hijacks
    By sledger in forum Site Discussion
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 10-02-2010, 05:32 PM
  2. Sri Lanka Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 06:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •