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
I'll share my adjusted averages and strike-rates for McGrath and Davidson:
McGrath: 22.40 ave, 57.7 s/r (standardised from 21.64, 51.9)
Davidson: 22.06 ave, 54.2 s/r (standardised from 20.53, 62.2)
Hopefully, this will add some perspective. Both have higher averages, but Davo has improved his strike-rate immensely due to the slow-scoring/high strike-rate era he played in.
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
However, we can conclude that both have outstanding bowling averages in their own era (or any era post 1910-20 for that matter). There is a substantial difference in their career SRs though.
It'd be interesting to compare their SRs within their own eras. I may well be proven wrong. Anyway, I'll be back in a few hours, after a scratch footy match with mates and a few beers!
Devillier has the ability to show ball the right path, there are two ways to do so, 1. form where the ball is coming, 2 where the ball is going to
Amla can just hit the ball harder with the use of timing and strock
Devilliers is younger so he will learn with the passage of time
Devilliers plays in all the situations and conditons while all amla is a powerplay player
So Devillieris can be said as better
DoG, your analysis makes it easier for me to pick Davo.....
McG lovers can suck it
Referring to Cribb's Standardised Average Process:
Code:Rank Bowler Mat Wkt Avg St. Avg Lon Value 8 GD McGrath (Aus) 123 560 21.69 23.30 10.75 3.326 15 AK Davidson (Aus) 44 186 20.53 22.36 8.31 2.818
Last edited by Dan; 24-09-2012 at 03:58 AM.
I think people are trying to reinvent the wheel, just to be different. Mcgrath makes out AT XI first team, and was a key member of one of the greatest teams in history. I do think that in a way he benefitted from the overall lack of quality bowlers in the 00's but he is an automatic choice for the 11alobg with Lillee and Miller and if he had to make way for anyone it would be for Lindwall.
As far as England then is concerened, Larwood, Snow, Bedser or Tate? Also since it was raised Pietersen or Barrington. I would go for Pietersen and Snow myself, but know how highly some rate Larrwood, so would suggest Larwood and Pietersen.
Hutton* | Hobbs | Bradman | Richards^ | Tendulkar | Sobers5^ | Gilchrist+ | Khan3 | Marshall1 | Warne4^ | McGrath2
Sutcliffe | Gavaskar* | Headley | Chappell^ | Lara^ | Kallis5^ | Knott+ | Hadlee3 | Ambrose2 | Lillee1 | Muralitharan4
Greenidge | Richards^ | Ponting^ | Pollock | Hammond^ | Worrell5* | Waite+ | Akram3 | Steyn1 | Holding2 | O'Reilly4
Morris | Simpson^ | Sangakkara | Weekes^ | Border*^ | Walcott+ | Faulkner5 | Laker4 | Trueman1 | Garner3 | Donald2
Late 50's - 60's med fast lh bolwer with a Garner like average and quite high s/r. Great bowler, not better than Lindwall or Mcgrath.
- am I right in saying everyone is picking Warne, O'Reilly and Lillee in the AT Australian side? In which case I think one of Lindwall or Davidson to bat at 8 is a pretty reasonable call, much as I admire McGrath.
- Barrington averaged 77 at number 3, and only 41 at number 5. So if you're going to pick him in an England all-time side, pick him at number 3. But then most people don't want to pick all of Hobbs, Hutton and Sutcliffe because having Hutton or Sutcliffe at number 3 will mean two very slow players in the top order. So how does Barrington fit into the mix?
- also don't understand the Larwood love. If you want to pick someone just because they're quick, pick Tyson, who averaged 10 runs per wicket less.
I think people (including myself) are picking Larwood based on his domination of English country cricket in the 1930s, rather than his test record, which he was never allowed to build on after the Bodyline series.
Slightly Out-There English ATG XI
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)