vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
So what you're saying is that your plan to improve the Bangladesh side is to replace it with an all stars XI?
-
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.
Who would you pick? Three players to start a team
- Thread starter silentstriker
- Start date
Actually I left a place for a Bangladeshi.So what you're saying is that your plan to improve the Bangladesh side is to replace it with an all stars XI?
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Since it is for a test side I would go for two bowlers and one batsman. If one was allowed four choices, I would have taken on the second batsman and that would have been ideal. The reasons are the following
Thus I would go with the two best bowlers in the world and they have to be selected for their wicket taking abilities for they are in the side to get the opposition out and not to contain them. The solitary batsman on the other hand, has a different role to play. Being alone he needs to play the sheet anchor around whom the rest would bat. Thus I would prefer him to be solid of technique, have an ability to play long innings (bat through the innings if possible) and not be bereft of stroke play for the score board must move along. His first job, however, is to try and make sure the team is not routed and next to see if a total can be reached that would give the bowlers a fighting chance to push for a win.
Ideally the batsman would be an opening batsman but there is no Jack Hobbs or even a Gavaskar around today so I would settle for the next best - the number three so that the fall of wickets can be stemmed as early as possible.
The selection of bowlers as far as variety is concerned would be a bit difficult. Ideally the two main bowlers should be able to bowl in tandem for maximum effect thus a pair of quicks suggests itself but then we need to try and cover all conditions. I would like to take a high strike rate quick and a spinner with the same quality, both with lot of lateral movement. For the quicker bowler, it would be great if he moved it in the air too. Unfortunately thats not a very common trait as of date.
The two bowlers would do a lot of bowling between the two of them thus consistency and ability to bowl at the highest level for prolonged periods (with both old and new ball for the quicker bowler) is a very important criteria.
If one had to pick from history, then a Barnes or a Richard Hadlee for the quicker bowlers role and for the batsman there is the obvious choice of Bradman, Hobbs if one wants an opener and Sobers for batting at number three (he could and would have batted there but for non-cricketing reasons) and provide an invaluable third bowler. For the spinner, even from history, I would pick Murali :-)
If eligible as of today (having retired from Tests), I would pick Murali as the spinner, if not I would pick Swann.
If eligible again, I would pick McGrath as the quick bowler, if not then Steyn although he may not be able to bowl the longer spells that a two horse attack may need from him.
For batsman, I would not look beyond Dravid and Ponting with Dravid getting the nod for his better technique against both spin and pace, his ability to counter the lateral movement off both types of bowlers and for his temperament. I think he scores over Ponting in this and the team with just one world class batsman needs someone with his all round batting skills which are marginally better than Ponting - (throughout the length of their careers mind you).
I am leaving out Sachin for he has shown no inclination to bat at even number three although that is where the best batsman in the side should, ideally, bat. Dravid on the other hand has opened, inspite of his mental block against it, and shown that only his preference for number three stopped him from filling this spot when India needed it so desperately.
1. All minnows are going to perform at a level lower than their opponents, thats a given considering their stage of development but those who have shown themselves to be not so terribly out of place have, mostly been those with better bowling.
2. Batting as a cricketing skill develops faster and first in underdeveloped countries because of the inherent glamour attached to the wielders of the willow and because most kids love to hit the ball with a stick than a stick with a ball. Thus the minnows will invariably come with a level of batting skills that makes them look at least moderately skillful in batting conditions. To reach the next level they need to be faced with tougher conditions and better bowlers than they are used to.
3. Following from 2 above, the better bowlers will help to upgrade tha bating skills of the side the reverse is unlikely to happen.
4. If there was one or more of them who, while fitting the batsman's or bowler's role was also an all rounder of sorts, it would make a great choice for obvious reasons
2. Batting as a cricketing skill develops faster and first in underdeveloped countries because of the inherent glamour attached to the wielders of the willow and because most kids love to hit the ball with a stick than a stick with a ball. Thus the minnows will invariably come with a level of batting skills that makes them look at least moderately skillful in batting conditions. To reach the next level they need to be faced with tougher conditions and better bowlers than they are used to.
3. Following from 2 above, the better bowlers will help to upgrade tha bating skills of the side the reverse is unlikely to happen.
4. If there was one or more of them who, while fitting the batsman's or bowler's role was also an all rounder of sorts, it would make a great choice for obvious reasons
Thus I would go with the two best bowlers in the world and they have to be selected for their wicket taking abilities for they are in the side to get the opposition out and not to contain them. The solitary batsman on the other hand, has a different role to play. Being alone he needs to play the sheet anchor around whom the rest would bat. Thus I would prefer him to be solid of technique, have an ability to play long innings (bat through the innings if possible) and not be bereft of stroke play for the score board must move along. His first job, however, is to try and make sure the team is not routed and next to see if a total can be reached that would give the bowlers a fighting chance to push for a win.
Ideally the batsman would be an opening batsman but there is no Jack Hobbs or even a Gavaskar around today so I would settle for the next best - the number three so that the fall of wickets can be stemmed as early as possible.
The selection of bowlers as far as variety is concerned would be a bit difficult. Ideally the two main bowlers should be able to bowl in tandem for maximum effect thus a pair of quicks suggests itself but then we need to try and cover all conditions. I would like to take a high strike rate quick and a spinner with the same quality, both with lot of lateral movement. For the quicker bowler, it would be great if he moved it in the air too. Unfortunately thats not a very common trait as of date.
The two bowlers would do a lot of bowling between the two of them thus consistency and ability to bowl at the highest level for prolonged periods (with both old and new ball for the quicker bowler) is a very important criteria.
If one had to pick from history, then a Barnes or a Richard Hadlee for the quicker bowlers role and for the batsman there is the obvious choice of Bradman, Hobbs if one wants an opener and Sobers for batting at number three (he could and would have batted there but for non-cricketing reasons) and provide an invaluable third bowler. For the spinner, even from history, I would pick Murali :-)
If eligible as of today (having retired from Tests), I would pick Murali as the spinner, if not I would pick Swann.
If eligible again, I would pick McGrath as the quick bowler, if not then Steyn although he may not be able to bowl the longer spells that a two horse attack may need from him.
For batsman, I would not look beyond Dravid and Ponting with Dravid getting the nod for his better technique against both spin and pace, his ability to counter the lateral movement off both types of bowlers and for his temperament. I think he scores over Ponting in this and the team with just one world class batsman needs someone with his all round batting skills which are marginally better than Ponting - (throughout the length of their careers mind you).
I am leaving out Sachin for he has shown no inclination to bat at even number three although that is where the best batsman in the side should, ideally, bat. Dravid on the other hand has opened, inspite of his mental block against it, and shown that only his preference for number three stopped him from filling this spot when India needed it so desperately.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Would you bat Dravid @ 3, or are you saying that you would open with him?
Athlai
Not Terrible
If we were choosing 3 players to improve Bangladesh you've got to look at where their biggest problems have been.
They have:
a good attacking opener Tamim, who has recently had moderate support from Kayes and Siddique
two decent spin bowling all rounders in Shakib and Mahmadullah.
decent spin bowling options beyond that.
one hit and miss seamer in Mortaza.
a handy keeper in Rahim.
They lack:
a good middle order.
any real pace attack.
a good captain.
So IMO they need a middle order player who can bat till the end and compliment the attacking nature of almost every Bangladeshi batsman and a pace attack.
Pace
The obvious Steyn.
And what may seem more controversial in Stuart Broad. Lots of years in him, batting prospects and is getting to a point where he can bowl longish spells.
Asif while being around there in my mind just isn't reliable enough off the field to get into the team and I would feel could be a destructive presence, otherwise he'd be in easy.
The batsman
I want a relatively young batsman who is absolute class with some serious experience at international cricket under his belt and who could captain, Michael Clarke.
Tamim Iqbal
Imrul Kayes
Junaid Siddique
Michael Clarke (c)
Shakib al Hasan
Mushfiqur Rahim (wk)
Mahmudullah
Stuart Broad
Mashrafe Mortaza
Dale Steyn
11th player to be Ashraful, Raqibul, Shahadat, Razzak or Haque Jnr depending on form/conditions.
They have:
a good attacking opener Tamim, who has recently had moderate support from Kayes and Siddique
two decent spin bowling all rounders in Shakib and Mahmadullah.
decent spin bowling options beyond that.
one hit and miss seamer in Mortaza.
a handy keeper in Rahim.
They lack:
a good middle order.
any real pace attack.
a good captain.
So IMO they need a middle order player who can bat till the end and compliment the attacking nature of almost every Bangladeshi batsman and a pace attack.
Pace
The obvious Steyn.
And what may seem more controversial in Stuart Broad. Lots of years in him, batting prospects and is getting to a point where he can bowl longish spells.
Asif while being around there in my mind just isn't reliable enough off the field to get into the team and I would feel could be a destructive presence, otherwise he'd be in easy.
The batsman
I want a relatively young batsman who is absolute class with some serious experience at international cricket under his belt and who could captain, Michael Clarke.
Tamim Iqbal
Imrul Kayes
Junaid Siddique
Michael Clarke (c)
Shakib al Hasan
Mushfiqur Rahim (wk)
Mahmudullah
Stuart Broad
Mashrafe Mortaza
Dale Steyn
11th player to be Ashraful, Raqibul, Shahadat, Razzak or Haque Jnr depending on form/conditions.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I am not choosing based on their age or what stage of their careers they are at present but purely on their cricketing merits taken with their careers as a whole.
I would bat Dravid at three.
I just mentioned Dravid's decent performance as an opener inspite of his reluctance to highlight his relative confidence if having to come in to bat in the first over as against Sachin's. Then again, Sachin may have his own reasons as well but I would prefer to have the batsman ideally as an opener and if not then a proven number three. Dravid fits the second choice.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
He's still batting up high, and will have time to score. In comparison to Shiv and the Windies, for example, when he was batting lower and still managed to get something done.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I would still take him rather than take a chance with someone who will get out before the middle order starts making an appearance, even if he has a fifty or more to his credit by then.
We are building a team here and the idea is to develop the other players around these three not just to get these three to score whatec=ver they can and take it for granted that the others are never going to ever start contributing.
With just one batsman, I would like him to play along with as many batsmen in the batting order as possible.
Its an opinion, of course. :-)
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Hanif for Pakistan in the 1950's is an even more apt example. Or Merchant for India. What Merchant could do for India could not be done by his swash buckling partner, Mushtaq Ali.
Gavaskar to a lesser degree (lesser only because the quality of batsmen to follow was not terrible) but still relevant as far as facing upto pace and standing up and going on much beyond personal mile stones of a fifty or a century.
A lot of the minnows suffer from not just too much stroke play in the longer version but also a sense of satisfaction after the personal performance appears gratifying enough to the player.
Moreover, initially the minnows would have to work slightly more on avoiding defeat than to start thinking of wins right away. This, in the longer format, means batsmen who stay at the wicket longer, consuming precious time are more likely to take their teams further from defeat than those who score faster. Gavaskar's runs did not win matches for India for that we depended on our spinners and then Kapil. What Gavaskar did was to try (and make the other batsmen try, to reduce the gap between India and the opponents on the batting crease. In those times, it was the need of the hour.
The same would apply to a true minnow side.
Last edited:
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Shiv wasn't ideal, to be fair.
But yeah, I think particularly in the case of sides that lack application in batting, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages here. Doesn't Dravid hold the record for being involved in the most fifty partnerships ever?
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
And I think someone like a Dravid can provide more of a learning benefit than a natural freak like a Tendulkar, Lara or even a Ponting - who I wouldn't say is/was quite on the same level in terms of talent, but also has an individual style about his batting. Someone like Dravid, who ticks every little box right to put his name up there with those in the highest echelon.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Spot on.
Arjun
Cricketer Of The Year
This would be my choice-
Hadlee- He's one bowler who can run through sides, getting wickets in bagfuls. In addition, he's also a very useful lower-order batsman, and for a team like this, a frontline batsman. Most importantly, he's a player to pick for his intelligence and knowledge, and may help the other seam and pace bowlers in this team.
Brian Charles Lara- This is one batsman who can win a match out of virtually nothing. A genuine game-changer. Definitely a must, in a batting-starved team. He has the skill, stamina and temperament to single-handedly carry a team.
Warne- One of the leading wicket-takers, he's also a very versatile player. While the wickets are talked about often, he's also useful with the bat, on the field, and also with the plans. He's one of the smarter bowlers and planners in any team, and has done well given a chance as captain, even in a much laughed-at setup.
Hadlee- He's one bowler who can run through sides, getting wickets in bagfuls. In addition, he's also a very useful lower-order batsman, and for a team like this, a frontline batsman. Most importantly, he's a player to pick for his intelligence and knowledge, and may help the other seam and pace bowlers in this team.
Brian Charles Lara- This is one batsman who can win a match out of virtually nothing. A genuine game-changer. Definitely a must, in a batting-starved team. He has the skill, stamina and temperament to single-handedly carry a team.
Warne- One of the leading wicket-takers, he's also a very versatile player. While the wickets are talked about often, he's also useful with the bat, on the field, and also with the plans. He's one of the smarter bowlers and planners in any team, and has done well given a chance as captain, even in a much laughed-at setup.