Cricket Player Manager
Page 32 of 261 FirstFirst ... 2230313233344282132 ... LastLast
Results 466 to 480 of 3902
Like Tree304Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #466
    International Vice-Captain Mike5181's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    City of Sails
    Posts
    4,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Flametree View Post
    I grew up in NZ in the 70's/80's, and I'd take Smith as my keeper every time. It may be some of the earlier keepers like Wadsworth or Mooney were better keepers, but having never seen them play I can't really choose them. Smith hardly missed a chance and he scored some pretty handy runs. I agree he's not as good a batsman as McCullum but in a lower order with some or all of Reid/Cairns/Hadlee/Vettori likely to be selected, I'd happily give up 10 runs per innings to have him behind the sticks.

    My NZ team :

    Dempster
    Turner
    Sutcliffe
    Crowe
    Donnelly
    Reid
    Hadlee
    Vettori
    Smith (wk)
    Bond
    Cowie

    Second xi :

    Richardson
    Wright
    Jones
    Fleming
    Taylor R
    McCullum (wk)
    Cairns
    Taylor B
    Nash
    Collinge
    Boock

    Fair to say the spin stocks aren't too impressive....
    Vettori would be useless in an all-time eleven. His bowling hardly troubles regular test match quality batsmen, let alone all-time greats. Cairns, despite the fact he's another seamer, would be a much more useful player and for the last 6-7 years of his test career was world class. He's a legit match winner.

  2. #467
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,323
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    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.


    Whatever you have called out in favor of McG can be said in favor of Davidson. And you know what, Davidson could do everything that McG could and do 10 deliveries slower (and conceding less runs too )
    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

  3. #468
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,325
    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
    A SR difference of 10 balls per wicket is massive if we expect McGrath or Davo to take 5 wickets for the game. That's an extra 50 balls (8 overs) Davo has to bowl to take the same amount of wickets. And in that same time (the time it takes to take 5 wickets) McGrath will only concede 5 more runs than Davidson.

    In an all time great team selection, if you have the choice between two bowlers with virtually identical averages, the one with the far better SR surely has to be chosen. Bowlers taking wickets quicker wins matches.

  4. #469
    International Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,440
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    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.
    Obviously over-estimated Larwood's Test career. It just felt as though he should have played more than 21 tests over 7 years (1926-33). On the other hand his FC career was lengthy - 14 years from 1924 to 1938 and 361 matches.

    I can understand why Larwood played only 21 Tests because he was banned after the Bodyline series. But why did Tyson play so few Tests when he obviously had the talent to last more than 5 years. Was it injury or did he just give up?
    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


  5. #470
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    In an all time great team selection, if you have the choice between two bowlers with virtually identical averages, the one with the far better SR surely has to be chosen. Bowlers taking wickets quicker wins matches.
    But a difference of 1 run in average at that level can be a lot and not IDENTICAL. This is where we disagree. There are 90 overs to be bowled in a day. 10 extra deliveries won't make that much of a difference. The added benefit of Davidson is that he will keep things tighter from one end allowing Warne and Lillee (or even McG) to attack better.

  6. #471
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,516
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post


    Whatever you have called out in favor of McG can be said in favor of Davidson. And you know what, Davidson could do everything that McG could and do 10 deliveries slower (and conceding less runs too )
    Nice to see you alive and blinking. Surely you have heard a thing or two about batsman cashing in during favourable batting conditions during the McGrath era.

    BTW, your post reminded me of this.. Davo is in red

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Obviously over-estimated Larwood's Test career. It just felt as though he should have played more than 21 tests over 7 years (1926-33). On the other hand his FC career was lengthy - 14 years from 1924 to 1938 and 361 matches.

    I can understand why Larwood played only 21 Tests because he was banned after the Bodyline series. But why did Tyson play so few Tests when he obviously had the talent to last more than 5 years. Was it injury or did he just give up?
    Yeah injuries mate.

  7. #472
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,516
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    But a difference of 1 run in average at that level can be a lot and not IDENTICAL. This is where we disagree. There are 90 overs to be bowled in a day. 10 extra deliveries won't make that much of a difference. The added benefit of Davidson is that he will keep things tighter from one end allowing Warne and Lillee (or even McG) to attack better.
    FFS. Batsman in McGrath's era batted fasted compared to when Davidson played!

  8. #473
    Eds
    Eds is offline
    International Debutant Eds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,178
    Don't see how you can leave Sydney Barnes out of an England XI tbh.
    "If that Swann lad is the future of spin bowling in this country, then we're ****ed." - Nasser Hussain, 1997.

  9. #474
    International Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Eds View Post
    Don't see how you can leave Sydney Barnes out of an England XI tbh.
    Who's advocating leaving out SF Barnes?

  10. #475
    International Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,440
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    FFS. Batsman in McGrath's era batted fasted compared to when Davidson played!
    How do you know that?

    What's the runs-per-over scored in the 1950s-60s compared to the 1990s-00s ?

  11. #476
    Eds
    Eds is offline
    International Debutant Eds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Eng XI bowling
    03. Hammond
    06. Beefy
    08. Verity
    09. Larwood
    10. Laker
    11. Trueman
    Watson.

  12. #477
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,323
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Nice to see you alive and blinking. Surely you have heard a thing or two about batsman cashing in during favourable batting conditions during the McGrath era.

    BTW, your post reminded me of this.. Davo is in red



    Yeah injuries mate.
    What time in the video? I am at work and find it difficult to watch the whole video

    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    FFS. Batsman in McGrath's era batted fasted compared to when Davidson played!
    That is also why it was easy for McG to cash in. Reckless batting. You can't have it both ways

  13. #478
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,516
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    How do you know that?

    What's the runs-per-over scored in the 1950s-60s compared to the 1990s-00s ?
    By following Cricket.

    Look at some scorecards. Not sure on the exact runs per over figures.

  14. #479
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,325
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    But a difference of 1 run in average at that level can be a lot and not IDENTICAL. This is where we disagree. There are 90 overs to be bowled in a day. 10 extra deliveries won't make that much of a difference. The added benefit of Davidson is that he will keep things tighter from one end allowing Warne and Lillee (or even McG) to attack better.
    Average is runs per wicket.

    Strike rate is balls per wicket.

    McGrath only concedes one run more per wicket than Davidson.

    Davidson takes ten more balls to take a wicket than McGrath.

    Multiply these by 5 wickets per test and you can see how you'd always take McGrath over Davidson (based on stats). Surely...

  15. #480
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    Average is runs per wicket.

    Strike rate is balls per wicket.

    McGrath only concedes one run more per wicket than Davidson.

    Davidson takes ten more balls to take a wicket than McGrath.

    Multiply these by 5 wickets per test and you can see how you'd always take McGrath over Davidson (based on stats). Surely...
    No **** Sherlock

    btw if Davidson was to bowl out a team he would bowl them out for 204 in 100 overs.

    McG would bowl a team out for 216 runs in 87 overs.

    Now choose



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 23 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 23 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
  •