• 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.

All-Time World XIs: Discussion Thread

Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Randomfan said:
Bowlers win tests.

Batsmen win limited overs.

A team usually has to pick 20 wickets to win tests and outbowl the opposition.
In limited overs, a team can pick zero wickets and win by outbatting the opposition.

Now some one may start lecturing that you need bowlers and batsmen both to perform to win and miss the point totally.
Click to expand...
Such an overstated point.

You're not going to be winning games if your batting doesn't put enough of a score to defend, same way you'll not be winning if your bowling doesn't take the 20 wickets, getting 20 wickets at a respectable rate and putting a good score on with your own 20 wickets are both extremely important.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
kyear2 said:
Well there I vehemently disagree.

If you disregard winning, that what the hell are we doing. Stat accumulation?

Nah.

Bowlers are the match winners and drivers of dynasties, if they accomplish it, you'll get credit for it.
Click to expand...
You didn't address my point that you basically are inherently biased against players on weaker teams. Instead you repeat the same exact silly cliche on winning.

Nobody was making this a bowler or bat comparison. And if you care about bowlers so much why do you complain about bowler ARs being overrated?

It's like pulling teeth to get a straight answer from you. You're a literal waste of time.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Randomfan said:
Bowlers win tests.

Batsmen win limited overs.

A team usually has to pick 20 wickets to win tests and outbowl the opposition.
In limited overs, a team can pick zero wickets and win by outbatting the opposition.

Now some one may start lecturing that you need bowlers and batsmen both to perform to win and miss the point totally.
Click to expand...
No wonder your stat comparisons you bring are almost always half baked.
.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz said:
You didn't address my point that you basically are inherently biased against players on weaker teams. Instead you repeat the same exact silly cliche on winning.

Nobody was making this a bowler or bat comparison. And if you care about bowlers so much why do you complain about bowler ARs being overrated?

It's like pulling teeth to get a straight answer from you. You're a literal waste of time.
Click to expand...
Someone is a waste of time because they don't answer questions the way you phrase them?

How the **** am I biased against players on weaker teams?

In no way am I saying the sole reason for any of the rankings are based on one criteria.

Where I find you full of **** is where you try to distort what I'm trying to say to fit your narrative.

Giving someone credit for something doesn't discredit players who didn't, but credit is given where it is due.

The crazy hypocrisy is that you want to give captains credit for the success of the best teams, when it's always been about the better players, and specifically the best blowing attacks.

The ridiculous part about of the AR question is that you know the answer for that, so don't know what point you're trying to prove and just grandstanding at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top