“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'
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.
He wasn't saying you were. His quote of Jager's Barnes-less side was directed at you.
Just as an aside to the Davidson Vs McGrath economy thing; here are the RPO across the decades;
WWI - WWII: 2.70
All Tests: 2.79
It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo
So yes, the scoring rates of the 1950s were slower relative to other decades.
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
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.
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.
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
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 03:35 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)