Which, be definition, makes their achievements the most alpha.it's a choice between two offies who, as burgey is right to point out, have chosen the least impressive discipline in the game.
this post is a good example of why we need the ? react on the siteWhich, be definition, makes their achievements the most alpha.
latho had some pretty good knocks in england did he not (though that doesn't necessarily change the criticism re subplunket attacks)? or am i misremembering. also having the string to his bow of good knocks in asia is a big plus to me imho.i know you hate warner but tom latham's average is built on smashing sub-plunket shield standard sri lankans and bangers. averages 28 against the proper attacks, and most of his best knocks are in asia.
There's nothing alpha about off-spin. It's the type of bowling you decide to take up because you're not fit enough to bowl fast or brave enough to bowl leg-spin. Maybe it makes their achievements notable, but not alpha.Which, be definition, makes their achievements the most alpha.
yea he's not awful because he does a fleming against the proper sides by dealing in 50s rather than a rohit and dealing in single digits, but i think warner is the guy even if he is a home track and south african bully. tom latham needs to be a bit more switched on and ruthless against the good attacks and turn those 70s into 170s.latho had some pretty good knocks in england did he not (though that doesn't necessarily change the criticism re subplunket attacks)? or am i misremembering. also having the string to his bow of good knocks in asia is a big plus to me imho.
otherwise then it's dimuth karunaratne or like... pujara? maybe pujara, though that sort of feels like cheating a little bit
i just can't give it to warner for sucking absolute ass in both england and in india, the two most important tours for an australian batsman - i suppose you could make the same argument for latham and tests here, but that's more an "i hate you" "i don't even know who you are" rivalry, so it doesn't count against him as much. warner's problems are also endemic of the greater problems at large with the australian team over the past decade at a greater levelyea he's not awful because he does a fleming against the proper sides by dealing in 50s rather than a rohit and dealing in single digits, but i think warner is the guy even if he is a home track and south african bully. tom latham needs to be a bit more switched on and ruthless against the good attacks and turn those 70s into 170s.
i love me some karu but he also loves throwing away a start on 34* despite being a quality batsman.
nah at some level this is just idolosing some very arbitrary checklist over actual performance. the guy has been crazy good at home and, as we are now seeing, that really makes a material difference. he's had some important away performances as well, albeit not as many (nz and sa come to mind). you're picking the worse player, with worse like-for-like performances in virtually every meaningful comparison, just because their standards are lower so the lows don't stand out as much. it doesn't make sense.i just can't give it to warner for sucking absolute ass in both england and in india, the two most important tours for an australian batsman - i suppose you could make the same argument for latham and tests here, but that's more an "i hate you" "i don't even know who you are" rivalry, so it doesn't count against him as much. warner's problems are also endemic of the greater problems at large with the australian team over the past decade at a greater level
if kraigg hadn't started sucking ass in the last quarter of the decade it probably would've been him to partner cook
Glenn Maxwell who averages 211 opening the batting in T20Is at a strike-rate of 225? And strikes at 150 opening in ODIs without ever being dismissed?at least ian harvey was novel in a fun way (and let's be honest it was a tjb or gob vote). when the icc elevates glenn maxwell to open the batting in the team of the decade to have a massive go then im on board.
isn't that the point of this exercise though - that people have different graded judgements based on weighing different factors at a greater level? never once have i doubted his home abilities, heck he's the second name picked on an "in australia" world xi after bradman himself. it's just that he also makes an incredible material difference in england and the subcontinent by ensuring australia will always be at least one down for less than twenty, and for me for an aussie bat england and subcontinent performances (especially india) are a very important part of how i rate them. it's why i think wade has way more bolts in the bank than head does, for example.nah at some level this is just idolosing some very arbitrary checklist over actual performance. the guy has been crazy good at home and, as we are now seeing, that really makes a material difference. he's had some important away performances as well, albeit not as many (nz and sa come to mind). you're picking the worse player, with worse like-for-like performances in virtually every meaningful comparison, just because their standards are lower so the lows don't stand out as much. it doesn't make sense.