Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 284

Thread: West Indies ATG Team- Open Voting

  1. #46
    International Vice-Captain kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    4,213
    Not sure whom to choose, in modern cricket not sure if it is possible to play four fast bolwers with some flat pitches and over rates to contend with. That being said Garner at times played the role of a spinner keeping it tight with his yorkers and rib ticklers. All of the bowlers contended will with flat wickets and turning tracks especially Marshall, Holding and the aforementioned Garner. The effect of Sobers though is greater felt as a seamer than a spinner, especially as an attacking option, but could have kept it tight as a spinner as well and rip it with his wrist spin option.
    Gibbs is also under rated and a notorious spinner of the ball, if he had the conditions of Laker and some of the other early finger spinners no doubt would have had similar results, but as it is he was just or more succesful as the Indian spinners and to boot the first spinner to 300 test wickets is no mean feat.
    Will think about it a bit more before I vote, Garner's average and s/r vs Gibbs variety. Both were, to boot excellent fielders aswell. Tough decision.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3

  2. #47
    International Captain kingkallis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    6,055
    Marshall
    Ambrose
    Holding
    Gibbs
    CricZo XI - Draft League

    Season 1 M Hayden, G Gooch, R Dravid, W Hammond, K Pietersen, G Sobers, R Marsh (wk), R Benaud (c), D Steyn, W Hall, N Adcock

    Season 2 J Hobbs, B Richards, D Boon, H Taylor, C Lloyd (c), A Stewart (wk), T Goddard, A Davidson, H Tayfield, C Ambrose, H Griffith

    Season 3 H Sutcliffe, M Hayden, I Chappell (c), G Pollock, A Faulkner, M Hussey, D Lindsay (wk), I Botham, A Kumble, M Marshall, D Lillee

  3. #48
    International Captain kingkallis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    6,055
    If Marshall, Ambrose and Holding with the help of Gibbs cant take 20 wickets then I seriously doubt that Marshall, Ambrose, Holding & Hall / Roberts / Garner / Clarke / Walsh would do it...

  4. #49
    School Boy/Girl Captain Justo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    QLD, Australia
    Posts
    175
    08. Marshall
    09. Holding
    10. Ambrose
    11. Gibbs

    Nothing like a bit of variety with a full time spinner.


  5. #50
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Wellington, NZ
    Posts
    1,633
    Malcolm Marshall, Curtley Ambrose, Joel Garner and Michael Holding will be my selections

  6. #51
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    389
    Marshall
    Holding
    Ambrose
    Garner .. Went with the 4 pace attack as Sobers, Richards can be the spin option..almost went for Ramadhin for Garner as he had this ability to spin both ways (cricinfo says) which would have been an asset

  7. #52
    International Captain bagapath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    5,101
    Marshall
    Holding
    Ambrose
    Gibbs

  8. #53
    Eds
    Eds is offline
    International Debutant Eds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,163
    Malcolm Marshall
    Curtly Ambrose
    Michael Holding
    Joel Garner

    I'd vote this, but I'd only do it on the condition Worrell were opening. That's the difficulty with this format.
    "If that Swann lad is the future of spin bowling in this country, then we're ****ed." - Nasser Hussain, 1997.

  9. #54
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,718
    (For the purposes of this post I'm basically going to assume that the pecking order for West Indian quicks is Marshall-Ambrose-Holding-Garner, even though I actually disagree).

    The way I look at the fourth quick v Gibbs argument is this: if a batsman, or perhaps more importantly a partnership, had managed to see off Marshall, Ambrose and Holding, who'd be more likely to get the breakthrough? GIbbs or Garner?

    Personally I feel that if a batsman really could withstand that first trio, it's likely he's either a superb player or pace bowling or the pitch is offering nothing to the quicks (or quite likely both). In either situation I definitely think having Gibbs, who would challenge different parts of the technique of the batsmen in and get assistance from different tracks, would be the better call. Sometimes the fourth quick is just better than the spinner by enough to make him the more likely of the two in that situation anyway, especially if the first three quicks aren't as good as they are here, but Gibbs was a great spinner so I think he should get the nod really.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 14-11-2012 at 11:37 AM.
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  10. #55
    International Vice-Captain Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    (For the purposes of this post I'm basically going to assume that the pecking order for West Indian quicks is Marshall-Ambrose-Holding-Garner, even though I actually disagree).

    The way I look at the fourth quick v Gibbs argument is this: if a batsman, or perhaps more importantly a partnership, had managed to see off Marshall, Ambrose and Holding, who'd be more likely to get the breakthrough? GIbbs or Garner?

    Personally I feel that if a batsman really could withstand that first trio, it's likely he's either a superb player or pace bowling or the pitch is offering nothing to the quicks (or quite likely both). In either situation I definitely think having Gibbs, who would challenge different parts of the technique of the batsmen in and get assistance from different tracks, would be the better call. Sometimes the fourth quick is just better than the spinner by enough to make him the more likely of the two in that situation anyway, especially if the first three quicks aren't as good as they are here, but Gibbs was a great spinner so I think he should get the nod really.

    Marshall
    Ambrose
    Holding
    Gibbs
    Good point. I agree. But why not pick the quicks from your own pecking order?

  11. #56
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,254
    TBH with Sobers in the team spin's taken care of, IMHO. IVAR could also send down a few if needs be.

    Marshall
    Ambrose
    Garner
    Holding
    Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "I don't believe a word of Pietersen's book, but then I don't believe a word anyone else has said either."
    - Simon Barnes renders further comment on KP's autobiography superfluous in a sentence

  12. #57
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    Good point. I agree. But why not pick the quicks from your own pecking order?
    I just think Walsh was better than Garner, which in the end was irrelevant to my vote because I voted for Gibbs. If I used Walsh in the example, no doubt someone would've quoted it saying I was intellectually dishonest by not using the right bowler etc. It seems Garner is favoured here by those who want four quicks so it was better to use him for the argument.

  13. #58
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    6,363
    Marshall
    Garner
    Ambrose
    Holding


    Rob, I understand you think Walsh had a more complete career and was hence 'greater' but for the purposes of a Dream XI would you rather have Walsh or Garner against the Mars XI?
    Isnít it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? Ė Douglas Adams



    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    The reason people don't cheer for India is nothing to do with them being number one

    It's because Teja is a ****, FTR

  14. #59
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    Marshall
    Garner
    Ambrose
    Holding


    Rob, I understand you think Walsh had a more complete career and was hence 'greater' but for the purposes of a Dream XI would you rather have Walsh or Garner against the Mars XI?
    I've actually managed to confuse myself; it's Holding I rate Walsh ahead of, not Garner, So I'll change my vote to:

    Marshall
    Ambrose
    Garner
    Gibbs


    I'll edit my vote out of the other post so it doesn't look contradictory.

  15. #60
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    6,363
    Conveniently after I voted for Garner at #2.

Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Ganguly's achievements
    By ReallyCrazy in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 24-08-2004, 01:40 PM

Posting Permissions

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