Would You Rather

[Compton]

If I get hit in the crotch will it be permanently disabled?

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Would you rather watch a valiant battler with an unorthodox technique in a backs to the wall rearguard, or a fluent stroke maker in full flight when there's no real scoreboard pressure?

 

[Adders]

If I get hit in the crotch will it be permanently disabled?

You'd be doing the world a favour if you did and it was tbf.

 

[NZTailender]

Would you rather watch a valiant battler with an unorthodox technique in a backs to the wall rearguard, or a fluent stroke maker in full flight when there's no real scoreboard pressure?

Former. Always.

 

[mr_mister]

You'd be doing the world a favour if you did and it was tbf.

phoar bit harsh

 

[DriveClub]

You'd be doing the world a favour if you did and it was tbf.

Are you stalking me?

 

[Adders]

phoar bit harsh

I think that sounded funny rather than nasty in my head when I posted.

 

[Furball]

It's only winning when combined with a varied attack. Think the point is that it's impossible to find a bowler like that in ODIs so it gives a Bradman-esque advantage. Bowler A is basically Steyn who sprays it around a bit.

By not taking wickets bowler B makes it more likely that his playing partners get smashed.

It's bowler A all day long for me. He's a matchwinner.

 

[Furball]

Would you rather watch a valiant battler with an unorthodox technique in a backs to the wall rearguard, or a fluent stroke maker in full flight when there's no real scoreboard pressure?

B. Someone like Pietersen when he's completely unleashed is an absolute joy to watch.

 

[mr_mister]

By not taking wickets bowler B makes it more likely that his playing partners get smashed.

It's bowler A all day long for me. He's a matchwinner.

Or the batsmen get frustrated and play rash shots thus getting out to the other bowlers?

 

[harsh.ag]

By not taking wickets bowler B makes it more likely that his playing partners get smashed.

By giving away runs @ 2 RPO, bowler B makes it more likely that batsmen will fall to other bowlers while taking more risks. He is the matchwinner we need, but not the one we roll out the red carpet for.

 

[andruid]

Would you rather watch a valiant battler with an unorthodox technique in a backs to the wall rearguard, or a fluent stroke maker in full flight when there's no real scoreboard pressure?

Shivnarine Chanderpaul every single time

 

[Howe_zat]

By not taking wickets bowler B makes it more likely that his playing partners get smashed.

Then where does the idea of 'holding up an end' come from?

 

[The Battlers Prince]

B. Someone like Pietersen when he's completely unleashed is an absolute joy to watch.

that's why I found this a difficult hypothetical, normally I would think the fight back is the thing I enjoy the most, but there have been some batsmen who make it look so easy and fun it's great to see them teeing off

Shivnarine Chanderpaul every single time

I was actually picturing Border Vs Pup but Chanders is great viewing pleasure at times.

 

[Daemon]

Strange from Furball. Basically saying don't bowl economically or your teammates will et hammered.

 

[mr_mister]

giving to much credit to the batsmen

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Well, that occurred to me too Mr.

Would you rather watch which type of bowler run through a side:


A A pace bowler who puts the ball in troubling areas and has swing or seam (eg McGrath, Wasim, Steyn, Marshall, Lillee or Broad to Australia lol)

B A pace bowler with pace to burn making the batsmen fear coming to the crease (eg Mitchell Johnson, Thomson, Shoaib, Morkel)

C A spinner who makes the batsmen look stupid

 

[Furball]

Strange from Furball. Basically saying don't bowl economically or your teammates will et hammered.

I'm saying that bowling economically on its own isn't necessarily enough in an ODI, you need to be taking wickets as well. Otherwise you're just letting the opposition build a platform to utter smash you in the last 10.

 

[harsh.ag]

I'm saying that bowling economically on its own isn't necessarily enough in an ODI, you need to be taking wickets as well. Otherwise you're just letting the opposition build a platform to utter smash you in the last 10.

Yeah, but he's just one bowler. Can simply build the attack around him.

 

[Daemon]

I'm saying that bowling economically on its own isn't necessarily enough in an ODI, you need to be taking wickets as well. Otherwise you're just letting the opposition build a platform to utter smash you in the last 10.

It's not enough of course, but it's still very useful and any team in the world would take a bowler like that.