Page 33 of 208 FirstFirst ... 2331323334354383133 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 495 of 3116
Like Tree141Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #481
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    17,883
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    What time in the video? I am at work and find it difficult to watch the whole video

    lol

    That is also why it was easy for McG to cash in. Reckless batting. You can't have it both ways
    You can't either mate. But seriously I'm not debating Alan Davidson's brilliance but I wouldn't be picking him over McGrath for his accuracy or better economy rate. Pick him for his superior batting skills or left handedness or something that he actually has that McGrath doesn't.

  2. #482
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,091
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    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


    This logic is so bad it doesn't dignify the length of this response.
    My sworn enemy:
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I hate s smith.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I give out points for style of which Steve(n) Smith has none.

  3. #483
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Eds View Post
    Watson.
    No I'm not. SF Barnes is a leg-spinner, albeit a quicker one. Hence my England XI is, and has been;

    01. Hobbs
    02. Hutton
    03. Hammond
    04. Compton
    05. Leyland
    06. May
    07. Knott
    08. Larwood
    09. Snow
    10. Trueman
    11. Barnes

    12th. Botham
    "I strongly feel the ICC should take action to ban the doosra since it just cannot be bowled legally. Ashley Mallett has said the 'doosra is nothing but chucking' and Australian spinners, including Shane Warne, have raised an alarm against coaching it in Australia." - BISHAN BEDI (2010)

  4. #484
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    17,883
    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 ?
    Just did a quick look, the runs per over were around 2.3 - 2.4 in the 50s and 60s while in the 90s and 00s it was 2.8 - 3.0.

    I think the Windies from the 60-61 Tied Test series started playing more attacking Cricket but before that it appears as though don't lose at all costs was the first priority (often, of course not always) and then try and win it.


  5. #485
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,091
    He wasn't saying you were. His quote of Jager's Barnes-less side was directed at you.

  6. #486
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,560
    Just as an aside to the Davidson Vs McGrath economy thing; here are the RPO across the decades;

    Pre-WWI: 2.71
    WWI - WWII: 2.70
    1940s-50s: 2.37
    1960s: 2.50
    1970s: 2.69
    1980s: 2.87
    1990s: 2.87
    2000s: 3.19
    All Tests: 2.79

    It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

    So yes, the scoring rates of the 1950s were slower relative to other decades.

  7. #487
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,560
    Quote Originally Posted by rvd619323 View Post
    He wasn't saying you were. His quote of Jager's Barnes-less side was directed at you.
    Oh OK.

  8. #488
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,394
    Quote Originally Posted by rvd619323 View Post


    This logic is so bad it doesn't dignify the length of this response.
    What's wrong with logic there?

    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    You can't either mate. But seriously I'm not debating Alan Davidson's brilliance but I wouldn't be picking him over McGrath for his accuracy or better economy rate. Pick him for his superior batting skills or left handedness or something that he actually has that McGrath doesn't.
    I did mention his batting advantage in a previous post. All I am saying is that Davidson is definitely comparable to McG and with his batting (and I reckon fielding too since McG wasn't a great fielder) he is a better option for an AT Aus XI. That's all
    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

  9. #489
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,399
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    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
    In all seriousness, I'd take McGrath every time. Kind of the point I was trying to make.

    Your batsmen need to make an extra 12 runs with McGrath. No big deal.

    But that 13 over difference is massive with Davo, especially if the test is very close.

    Look, I like Davidson, a lot. But to select him over McGrath as a bowler is wrong I think.

  10. #490
    International Vice-Captain Mike5181's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    City of Sails
    Posts
    4,066
    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.
    The substantially better batting equipment in McGrath's era alone more than compensates for the one run difference in their bowling averages.

  11. #491
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,091
    Quote Originally Posted by smalishah84 View Post
    What's wrong with logic there?
    Where do you want me to start?

    I think the biggest oversight is completely ignoring batsmen. I don't think an ATG WI team featuring Headley, Richards, Sobers et al. will succumb to either Davidson or McGrath for 210 on a regular basis.

    Not to mention the lack of era adjustment, value of wickets taken, etc. Fine, use statistics as a guide - no qualms there - but suggesting Davidson/McGrath would bowl teams out for 10*AVG is quite ludicrous.

  12. #492
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,399
    Quote Originally Posted by rvd619323 View Post
    Where do you want me to start?

    I think the biggest oversight is completely ignoring batsmen. I don't think an ATG WI team featuring Headley, Richards, Sobers et al. will succumb to either Davidson or McGrath for 210 on a regular basis.

    Not to mention the lack of era adjustment, value of wickets taken, etc. Fine, use statistics as a guide - no qualms there - but suggesting Davidson/McGrath would bowl teams out for 10*AVG is quite ludicrous.
    That's true, but as a straight comparison of two bowlers it's ok (especially as I think it proves my point well!!)

  13. #493
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    That's true, but as a straight comparison of two bowlers it's ok (especially as I think it proves my point well!!)
    Well, isn't it exactly the same as comparing their average anyway, since no additional variables have been taken into account? All you've done is multiply it by 10.

  14. #494
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,394
    Quote Originally Posted by rvd619323 View Post
    Where do you want me to start?

    I think the biggest oversight is completely ignoring batsmen. I don't think an ATG WI team featuring Headley, Richards, Sobers et al. will succumb to either Davidson or McGrath for 210 on a regular basis.

    Not to mention the lack of era adjustment, value of wickets taken, etc. Fine, use statistics as a guide - no qualms there - but suggesting Davidson/McGrath would bowl teams out for 10*AVG is quite ludicrous.
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    That's true, but as a straight comparison of two bowlers it's ok
    Exactly. The analysis makes the same assumptions for both so it doesn't favor any of them. It is just a simple analysis that's it. Nothing LOGICALLY wrong with it.

    And NO Monk, it doesn't prove your point

    btw I love Davidson and do believe with all factors considered he has a case to be considered above McG

  15. #495
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    In all seriousness, I'd take McGrath every time. Kind of the point I was trying to make.

    Your batsmen need to make an extra 12 runs with McGrath. No big deal.

    But that 13 over difference is massive with Davo, especially if the test is very close.

    Look, I like Davidson, a lot. But to select him over McGrath as a bowler is wrong I think.
    In a straight McGrath Vs Davidson contest I would agree that McGrath is the better bowler. Although by not that much.

    However, some RH batsman don't like facing left-armers who swing the ball back into the stumps. So, you might like to include Davidson for the sake of some left-arm variety if you already have Lillee and Miller in the team.

    So the question is not really McGrath Vs Davidson but rather;

    Lillee-McGrath-Miller Vs Lillee-Davidson-Miller Vs McGrath-Davidson-Miller, as your Aussie pace attack. And that's a tougher question than the original proposition!
    Last edited by watson; 24-09-2012 at 02:35 AM.



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, 04:32 PM
  2. Sri Lanka Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 05:29 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
  •