Choose the two opening bowlers for Post Packer World XI

[Precambrian]

That's the point, through hard work he turned himself into a capable number 5 or 6 later on when for "much of his career" he wasn't good enough to bat there.

Much of his career? Mate, in his last 51 tests, he averaged close to 50

 

[Precambrian]

I said over rated, not overused, although the latter would be correect too. Amazing coincidence how his batting average takes off as his bowling workload decreases.

Isn't that good? Especially in those (overrated to you) last 10 years, when he was bettered only by Miandad as a pure batsman? I'd take such a batsman any day of the week, not to mention the bowler who comes accompanied with that package. And gosh, his leadership skills....

 

[G.I.Joe]

Hum I guess you have a point if Botham EITHER scored more quickly than Imran AND/OR they played in teams with equally strong tails.

Personally, I think Imran playing for a team that didn't need him to bowl as much towards the end made a greater difference than anything else. I wish Kapil had that opportunity.

 

[Precambrian]

Personally, I think Imran playing for a team that didn't need him to bowl as much towards the end made a greater difference than anything else. I wish Kapil had that opportunity.

When did Pakistan not want him? Only towards the very fag end (perhaps the last 5 years of his career). And anyway just as a specialised batsman alone Imran would make it to that Pakistani team. Kapil too was ****e towards the end of his career when he painfully lumbered to that 434 wicket mark. He didn't care to develop his batting and what resulted was the overall balance of the team in pits because selectors didn't have guts to drop him.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Much of his career? Mate, in his last 51 tests, he averaged close to 50

Yeah........... Mate.........and for his first 51 he averaged 31.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Isn't that good? Especially in those (overrated to you) last 10 years, when he was bettered only by Miandad as a pure batsman? I'd take such a batsman any day of the week, not to mention the bowler who comes accompanied with that package. And gosh, his leadership skills....

If I needed a true allrounder, I'd take Botham. If I needed a bowler who could bat a bit, I'd take Imran. I think it is very telling that Botham crossed 50 with the bat every 4.4 innings compared to Imran crossing 50 every 5.2 innings, despite Imran affording himself more opportunities as a batsman towards the end. A Botham with a pissed off half career still bettered Imran there.

 

[Precambrian]

Yeah........... Mate.........and for his first 51 he averaged 31.

31 is very good in those days, anyway, Fred Flintoff used to bat at No.6 with a similar average.

 

[Precambrian]

If I needed a true allrounder, I'd take Botham. If I needed a bowler who could bat a bit, I'd take Imran. I think it is very telling that Botham crossed 50 with the bat every 4.4 innings compared to Imran crossing 50 every 5.2 innings, despite Imran affording himself more opportunities as a batsman towards the end. A Botham with a pissed off half career still bettered Imran there.

Do you think 4.4 and 5.2 are worlds apart? I'd rather let their bowling records paper over it.

 

[stephen]

But that's the point, he was an extremely good all-rounder, behind only (arguably) Sobers, Imran and Kallis.

However he was not quite as good as McGrath, given how much more bowler friendly his era was. McGrath stands head and shoulders over the next best bowlers of his era. Hadlee stands tall in the middle of the best bowlers of his era. The new pill in any of my teams goes to McGrath.

You forgot Miller.

.............and Botham. It's a toss up between Imran and Botham for the Number 6 slot in this team.

Actually I didn't forget either Miller or Botham. I just tend to judge allrounders primarily on their stronger discipline and then on their lesser one, rather than rating them equally on both disciplines.

Hadlee was a better bowler than Miller, who took under 3 wpm at a higher average than Hadlee. He also wasn't the best bowler in his side. Miller was the better bat but IMO Hadlee was the better all round.

Botham I believe is one of the most overrated players of all time. He certainly was talented but I cannot seriously give credit to a talent waster as being a top player. So I would rather Hadlee in my team than Botham. Which to me makes him a better all rounder.

Still, there isn't much in it, and I'm sure I'm in the minority with my opinions.

McGrath was a better bowler than all of the above though, so if you still haven't voted, he's a great choice .

 

[Lillian Thomson]

31 is very good in those days, anyway, Fred Flintoff used to bat at No.6 with a similar average.

.........you won't find many who'd consider Flintoff to be a good number 6 either.

 

[stephen]

By the way, if we pick McGrath then we should play at Lords.

YouTube - Ashes 2005 | 1st Test (Lords) Day 1, 3rd Session Highlights

Just watched it again. What a venemous spell of bowling.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Do you think 4.4 and 5.2 are worlds apart? I'd rather let their bowling records paper over it.

Yes, I do. It is the approximately the same as the difference between Tendulkar and Ganguly, for example.

 

[G.I.Joe]

When did Pakistan not want him? Only towards the very fag end (perhaps the last 5 years of his career). And anyway just as a specialised batsman alone Imran would make it to that Pakistani team. Kapil too was ****e towards the end of his career when he painfully lumbered to that 434 wicket mark. He didn't care to develop his batting and what resulted was the overall balance of the team in pits because selectors didn't have guts to drop him.

Or maybe Kapil was forced to be the stock bowler for India, thus not developing his batting enough.

 

[The Sean]

Actually I didn't forget either Miller or Botham. I just tend to judge allrounders primarily on their stronger discipline and then on their lesser one, rather than rating them equally on both disciplines.

Where's the cut off - how much better does their stronger discipline have to be than their weaker one before they stop being an all rounder and start being a specialist? If you think Hadlee's superior bowling makes him a better and more valuable cricketer overall than either Miller or Botham then I've got no problem with that - you may well be right. But there's no way in my mind that he's a better all-rounder.

Miller, who took under 3 wpm at a higher average than Hadlee.

He actually took slightly more than 3 wpm...I'm being pedantic now, but this is Nugget we're talking about.

Still, there isn't much in it, and I'm sure I'm in the minority with my opinions.

Nothing wrong with that mate - being in the minority with your opinions is one of life's little pleasures I reckon, and differing opinions are a big part of the enjoyment of this forum.

 

[stephen]

Where's the cut off - how much better does their stronger discipline have to be than their weaker one before they stop being an all rounder and start being a specialist? If you think Hadlee's superior bowling makes him a better and more valuable cricketer overall than either Miller or Botham then I've got no problem with that - you may well be right. But there's no way in my mind that he's a better all-rounder.

Hmmm well it is all dependent isn't it? I mean if a batsman would be more valuable to the team than a bowler then obviously a Kallis or Sobers would be more useful. If a bowler would be better than a batsman then obviously Hadlee or Miller would be picked.

There is so little between Hadlee and Miller that it really is hard to judge who would win more games for their team. However, my belief is that the strongest skill of a player is their most important and the secondary skill tends to win less games. Miller was a better bat than Hadlee, but Hadlee was a better bowler and carried his team far more than Miller ever did. Which is what tips the balance for me.

He actually took slightly more than 3 wpm...I'm being pedantic now, but this is Nugget we're talking about.

My mistake

 

[bagapath]

was trying to stay off this topic becuase the all-rounders poll might inspire the same arguments. just one quick note though. miller was a much better bat than hadlee than hadlee was as bowler.

miller as batsman - hadlee as batsman >> hadlee as bowler - miller as bowler

 

[stephen]

was trying to stay off this topic becuase the all-rounders poll might inspire the same arguments. just one quick note though. miller was a much better bat than hadlee than hadlee was as bowler.

miller as batsman - hadlee as batsman >> hadlee as bowler - miller as bowler

I actually think that Miller was somewhat overrated as a bowler tbh.

As I never really saw either player too much (too young) I can only really analyse statistics, and while Millers initially appear really good, a low WPM pretty much means that either a) he was in a team full of good bowlers or b) he didn't bowl as much as he should have.

Lindwall was also in his team and was a better bowler and I'd have to say that Hadlee as a bowler was probably at least Lindwall's equivalent with the ball (probably better in fact). I'm not certain that Miller's batting difference over Hadlee makes up for the difference in bowling, though it would be close either way.

All I really know is that any captain would squeal with extasy if he had to make the difficult decision to choose which of those two he'd like in his team.

 

[subshakerz]

Should we not save this discussion of Imran and Botham for another poll?

 

[The Sean]

either a) he was in a team full of good bowlers or b) he didn't bowl as much as he should have.

These are both true. Competition for wickets was fierce particularly with Lindwall and the hugely-underrated Bill Johnston, with a supporting cast including - at various times and to varying degrees - the likes of Johnson, Toshack, McCool, Archer, Benaud and Davidson.

You're absolutely right that he didn't do as much bowling as he might have, and this was due to the back injury he suffered when he crash landed his Mosquito during WWII. While he played 55 Tests, he didn't do what most people would consider 55 Tests worth of bowling. Hence the relatively ordinary wpm ratio.

 

[subshakerz]

was trying to stay off this topic becuase the all-rounders poll might inspire the same arguments. just one quick note though. miller was a much better bat than hadlee than hadlee was as bowler.

miller as batsman - hadlee as batsman >> hadlee as bowler - miller as bowler

It's the difference of a good batsman vs. an average batsman against an all-time great bowler vs. a good bowler