• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Asian XI

Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
silentstriker said:
Sangakarra is not a #6 guy. He should be in up higher, or not at all IMO.

  1. Sangakarra +
  2. Atapattu
  3. Dravid (c)
  4. Ul-Haq
  5. Yousuf
  6. Jayawardene
  7. Vaas
  8. Kumble
  9. Akhtar
  10. Asif
  11. Murali

4 Pakistan, 5 SL, 2 India.

Shocked at so many from SL and only two from India....but thats the way it goes. The tail is still too long for my liking but I can't find a suitable all rounder. I don't like playing five bowlers either, but it'll have to do.
Click to expand...
I'm not sold on the whole opening/wicket-keeping thing to be honest. I actually had that order originally and then changed it. It all seems a bit much for one player - that's why I put him at #6. A more traditional wicket keeper's batting spot.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Prince EWS said:
I'm not sold on the whole opening/wicket-keeping thing to be honest. I actually had that order originally and then changed it. It all seems a bit much for one player - that's why I put him at #6. A more traditional wicket keeper's batting spot.
Click to expand...
It may be the traditional wicket keeping spot, but he isn't a traditional wicket keeper batsman. His batting style is not like Gilchrist, he would flourish higher, or not at all. If you don't want a wicketkeeper batting anywhere but six, then pick him as a specialist bat only and pick Akmal or someone like that to keep at six.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
silentstriker said:
It may be the traditional wicket keeping spot, but he isn't a traditional wicket keeper batsman. His batting style is not like Gilchrist, he would flourish higher, or not at all. If you don't want a wicketkeeper batting anywhere but six, then pick him as a specialist bat only and pick Akmal or someone like that to keep at six.
Click to expand...
I don't think either of Dhoni or Akmal are good enough to bat at 6 though. I think Sangakkara would do perfectly fine batting at 6.. I don't actually see a reason why he wouldn't as you haven't even supplied one. His technique isn't one that is limited, and he doesn't have a weakness to the spinners, so I see no reason why he would have a problem at #6.
 
Legga

Legga

Banned
All of these teams would get beaten by the present Australian team if they played in Australia.
Much like the I.C.C. teams were a few years ago.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Prince EWS said:
I don't think either of Dhoni or Akmal are good enough to bat at 6 though. I think Sangakkara would do perfectly fine batting at 6.. I don't actually see a reason why he wouldn't as you haven't even supplied one. His technique isn't one that is limited, and he doesn't have a weakness to the spinners, so I see no reason why he would have a problem at #6.
Click to expand...
He has never batted 6th, but at #5, he has played four matches @ an average of 15. The problem is that his temperament is not one that befits a #6 guy. Obviously, he'll adjust and do OK, but you're wasting his ability to build a long innings if you bat him at #6. His strike rate is 54, which is pretty low for a keeper, and though I can bat faster I'm sure, it would be going against what he does best.

And I agree about you regarding Dhoni and Akmal, thats why I don't have either in my team. I don't see why a keeper has to bat at six. The only traditional reason why a keeper bats at six is because they tend to score fast and not tend to have as much purely batting class as the top five. Sangakarra fits neither category.

You put the guy that would bat the best at #1 there and the guy who would bat the best at #6 there...its irrelevant if they are a keeper or not.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Ideally you want someone like Symonds at #6, but there is no one like that in the subcontinent.

Just kidding, I don't think Symonds is test class either. What forum was that anyway?
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
I don't see how Sanga wouldn't be able to bat 6 SS. You could make an argument for 7, but even then I wouldn't be sold, but how can he not bat 6? I think it was Howardj that said the difference between 3-6 in test matches is overrated, and I sort of agree. Clearly your 3 and 4 have specific roles (I mean look at how much Ian Chappell harped on about KP coming in at 4), but how a gun batsman like Sanga wouldn't be able to bat at 6 is beyond me. A number 6 role isn't that different to number 4, where Sanga has batted.

And since when does your number 6 need to have a high strike rate?
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
silentstriker said:
He has never batted 6th, but at #5, he has played four matches @ an average of 15. The problem is that his temperament is not one that befits a #6 guy. Obviously, he'll adjust and do OK, but you're wasting his ability to build a long innings if you bat him at #6. His strike rate is 54, which is pretty low for a keeper, and though I can bat faster I'm sure, it would be going against what he does best.

And I agree about you regarding Dhoni and Akmal, thats why I don't have either in my team. I don't see why a keeper has to bat at six. The only traditional reason why a keeper bats at six is because they tend to score fast and not tend to have as much purely batting class as the top five. Sangakarra fits neither category.

You put the guy that would bat the best at #1 there and the guy who would bat the best at #6 there...its irrelevant if they are a keeper or not.
Click to expand...
A strike rate of 54 is perfectly acceptable for #6 - especially considering he usually bats at #3 which would dictate him to naturally have a lower strike rate. You selected Mahela Jayawardene there who has a strike rate of 51.94.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Prince EWS said:
A strike rate of 54 is perfectly acceptable for #6 - especially considering he usually bats at #3 which would dictate him to naturally have a lower strike rate. You selected Mahela Jayawardene there who has a strike rate of 51.94.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I selected him because I couldn't think of anyone else. I don't think you ought to waste his talents at six. I think he can be more useful batting longer spells.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Jono said:
I don't see how Sanga wouldn't be able to bat 6 SS. You could make an argument for 7, but even then I wouldn't be sold, but how can he not bat 6? I think it was Howardj that said the difference between 3-6 in test matches is overrated, and I sort of agree. Clearly your 3 and 4 have specific roles (I mean look at how much Ian Chappell harped on about KP coming in at 4), but how a gun batsman like Sanga wouldn't be able to bat at 6 is beyond me. A number 6 role isn't that different to number 4, where Sanga has batted.

And since when does your number 6 need to have a high strike rate?
Click to expand...
Yea, I see your point. But, I think the strength of Sanga is being able to stick around a long time and build an innings..which I am not sure if he'll be able to do at #6.

Its not a huge point of contention for me, but if I'm going to pick him...I wouldn't have him at #6.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top