What truely separates a good team from a great one is a brilliant bowling attack. The three greatest teams did have good batting lineups anchored by ATG #3's, but what made them the best were the bowling attacks featuring Lindwall and Miller, Mcgrath and Warne and Marshall and Holding/Garner. This South African team has similar similarity and potential and they will go as far Steyn and Philander takes them. Consistency and Philander's development will be key though.
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
For me having grown up supporting a team that has the ability to win everything, but seemed to choke way to often at the last minute, I have a slightly different way of viewing match winners.
It's fairly simple, whilst these batsmen were there the game wasn't lost yet so;
and can now add Amla and AB to that.
And I know SA lost games with all 4 of them still there, it was just the feeling you had whilst watching them, with them at the crease all hope was not lost.
Inzamam 17/25 --------->68%
Ponting 30/41 ----------->73%
My point is still valid when batsmen who are considered inferior to him have contributed more in their teams victories than Tendulkar has.This is the reason I do respect his superiority as a batsman to others but for me he is not a match winning player & plays for personal milestones only hence would never make my greatest XIs.
If you were that old, and that kind, and the very last of your kind, you couldn't just stand back and watch children cry.
All this shows is that the batsman is punished for playing brilliantly when the rest of his team struggled, instead of being recognized for his fighting qualities.
"Percentage of winning hundreds" is just another silly stat which tells us virtually nothing but twists the truth and makes it out into something else entirely
To say that Tendulkar somehow puts himself above the team because he plays for records is just flat-out ridiculous. My other favorite batsman Brian Lara played for records too... which is why he was able to break so many of them. Same with Tendulkar... they set themselves personal goals, while also not forgetting they were doing it for the team's cause.
The phrase "playing for records" somehow has been equated with being selfish and not caring about the team. Everyone does play for records and strives to achieve them. Unfortunately the few who do get to the summit like Lara and Tendulkar are painted as being "selfish" because they were the only ones good enough to get there
Last edited by Satyanash89; 27-04-2013 at 03:17 PM.
So we have Ponting who played in a great side with a great bowling attack who won a high percentage of matches and Tendulkar who played in a lesser side with a less penetrative bowling attack - and Ponting has a higher percentage of wins when scoring centuries. Funny that.
I'm not sure whether you're an idiot or a troll, but you're good at one and not the other.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)