bagapath said:
I know you wanted this change and got it done with this solid argument. i am voting for sobers.
but after doing so much ground work why haven't you voted yet?
Yeah, I have been pushing for it!
(kudos to you and Aussie Tragic for giving me a voice here)
Unfortunately I have not been able to take part in all this as much as I would have liked, as I have had many Uni assigments in the last 3 weeks, and at the moment and preparing and sitting end of semester exams (got one in an hour! yikes!).
I was holding back my vote for a day or two to see how things would pan out - imo, I am a little surprised at seeing Miandad running so close, if there was going to be close competition for Sobers I would have thought it would come from Border. IMO, Miandad was a true great - but his record vs WI is terrible (25 avg. I think) in the period. AB I think did a little better and could bowl too, and field, and was a better captain.
Anyway, a lot has been said about Sobers at #6 - but I think it should be remembered that if his peak bowling years were 62 - 67 during which time his wkts/test ratio was just under 4 (89/23) then that really is not good enough for a specialist bowler. The peak should be, at least, above 4 and career wise, at least, above 3. IMO on both counts Sobers fails. (Besides 3 of those years fall outside the period we are looking at)
I agree that it is a trade off in terms of batting strength vs bowling strength - but I think the batting line-up is strong enough as it! I mean look at the top #5! Would having another specialist batsman really improve matters so much? If one is needed, then put him in at #12 - so you have the option of playing an extra batsman if need be. Moreover, as I said, this team would have a very short tail, if at all - so the loss of batting strength is not very much compared to the gain in bowling potency, and, IMO, bowlers
win matches. Especially important when playing against other best of XI's.
Right, I am off for my exam! Laters!