Mankad + Dev + Kumble + Srinath + Prasanna
Mankad + Dev + Amar Singh + Kumble + Prasanna
Mankad + Dev + Amar Singh + Srinath + Prasanna
Mankad + Dev + Amar Singh + Kumble + Srinath
Mankad + Dev + Amar Singh + Prasanna + Chandra
Mankad + Dev + Srinath + Prasanna + Chandra
Mankad + Dev + Amar Singh + Srinath + Chandra
Last edited by shankar; 12-01-2013 at 01:40 AM.
Well that's interesting. The bowling attack that was democratically elected is probably not the one that is the most popular after all.
Not only that, but I think that Mankad-Dev-Amar Singh-Prasanna-Chandra would probably be a better attack than Mankad-Dev-Kumble-Srinath-Prasanna.
I wonder whether other CW ATG teams have the same problem with their attacks?
Last edited by watson; 13-01-2013 at 12:27 AM.
1. Len Hutton - 2. Sunil Gavaskar - 3. Don Bradman - 4. Viv Richards - 5. Jacques Kallis - 6. Garry Sobers - 7. Adam Gilchrist - 8. Richard Hadlee - 9. Shane Warne - 10. Malcolm Marshall - 11. Sydney Barnes
I think the choice of a complete and balanced attack is a better option.
What I do, if I am not shooting off the cuff, for ATG sides is to first choose a short list. This would normally consist of a pool of about 20 players
- 3 openers
- 2 one-drops
- 4 middle-order bats (4-5)
- 2 batting all rounders
- 2 bowling all rounders
- 1 batsman keeper
- 1 specialist keeper (only if I think he is a better gloveman than the batsman keeper)
- 3 pacers
- 3 spinners
All the specialist batsmen, pacers and spinners are chosen purely because they are the best in my opinion for that category. The fact that I may have Sobers in the best all rounder category, does not stop me from choosing him for the middle order where I ALWAYS have him.
Then in the next step I whittle this down to a touring squad of, say 15 which would typically have
- 2 openers
- 1 one-drop
- 2 middle order bats
- 1 batting all rounder
- 1 bowling all rounder
- 1 batsman keeper
- 1 specialist keeper
- 5 specialist bowlers - the proportion of spinners and pacers in the attack depends upon what my two all rounders bowl
Then, finally, I prefer to choose a team of twelve (not eleven) in which there will be six bowlers (including the two all rounders) so that I will have a choice of five bowlers, at least to cover a wider range of under ground conditions.
What this process does is that at every stage after the first pool of 20-21 is finalised, one keeps the balance of the entire side always in mind. This is critical and always at the back of the selectors' mind in real life as well, as is apparent from what Bedser writes in choosing that post WW II side.
This is not as complicated as it sounds and can actually be fun as well. It takes a bit longer but what is time for those who have the onerous responsibility of selecting an ATG side for the planet ?
Last edited by SJS; 13-01-2013 at 01:54 AM.
There is an interesting aside and being put here as much in humour as in serious comment.
In India the zonal-representation nature of the five member selection committee has led to some very strange choices in the past - although, in recent times, this has, apparently gone down.
Selectors are keen to get players from their zones in so they tend to trade votes. If you vote for my pacer, I will voote for your spinner when that comes up for voting. Some of these wranglings have come out in the open in the past but the thick-skinned and monopolist BCCI hasn't bothered to do something about it.
I am reminded of it because this too involved selecting players in bits - openers, then middle order, then spinners and so on and not the entire attack at the same time. I think from the time of Vengsarkar (I am open to correction) this has changed and selections have become more considered and have taken the entire squads into account. What is still missing to some extent, however, is the question of grooming youngsters, not choosing players who might be better off playing elsewhere, say in an India A tour, than warming the bench on tour and so on. But things are better than before.
Of course, actually dropping a senior instead of resting him is still something we baulk at.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)