Reverse Alphabetic Draft Voting Thread

[kingkallis]

Looks like trundler and hb accesses forum via mobiles and they have not voted.

 

[honestbharani]

Ataraxia - Very strong side and no real weakness as such. Just somehow does not feel exciting enough for me with the exception of Sir Viv and maybe Donald and Hadlee there with the new ball. 8/10.


Ankitj - Full of talent and a rather eclectic bunch but may be rather middle of the road for this draft. 6/10.


AndrewB - Depth and variety to die for in this side but not very sure of how Lohmann will do 2nd change etc. Barnes and Lohmann in the same side feels like much of a muchness to me. Otherwise, awesome side. 7/10.


KingKallis - Great side brought down only by Fixeruddin, Larwood and Grimmett as the only spinner with Border as backup means its not quite as strong in comparison to some of the other sides in this draft. 7/10.


Trundler - Very good bowling attack mainly because of Marshall and Warne together with Kallis as the allrounder and a host of trundlers, unsurprisingly, in Simpson, Gooch, Chappell. Would still get found out a bit in turning conditions IMO. 7.5/10.


My side - Kinda gave up after I lost O'Reilly but pretty happy with a rather eclectic bunch, spinners for all conditions, fast bowlers for all conditions, allrounders for all conditions. No specialist openers a definite downside but will be a fun line up to watch for sure. 5/10


Stephen - Not a fan of makeshift openers in such drafts, although I did pick two of them, lol. But a very good middle order and excellent depth in batting with Laker at 11. Gonna say the only weakness is having Sachin as your second spinner. 7.5/10


Pothas - Very strong side but that middle order is just shy of ATGness IMO. But no real glaring holes in the side at all. And that is a side I will pay money to watch. 7.5/10.


Teuton - Great side with a lot of ATGs in there and with Sobers and Barrington the bowlers won't rack up too many miles on their legs for sure. Gotta say another great draft by perhaps the best drafter in CW right now. 8/10


SCC - Eclectic and a side that will be fun to watch. Let's leave it there. 4/10.


Weldone - Bradman, Hobbs, Greeidge, G Pollock, Steyn, Ambrose, Wasim in the same side? Winners - but I am just gonna be petty here and blame weldone for us not getting some of our favorites, as he was anyways not gonna run in the poll.




I guess my top 3 then will be ataraxia, teuton and going with Pothas ahead of Stephen and Trunder coz I think it is a bit more rounded.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Very generous HB

 

[stephen]

I'd love to see the side that hb gives 10/10.

By the way sides don't need two spinners in the majority of conditions. One spinner is fine and if a side plays two spinners in most of the world they have to weaken their side to do so.

 

[honestbharani]

I'd love to see the side that hb gives 10/10.

By the way sides don't need two spinners in the majority of conditions. One spinner is fine and if a side plays two spinners in most of the world they have to weaken their side to do so.

5 nations in the SC and Windies where spinners have done well. Zimbabwe has been pretty hospitable for spinners too over the years. Am not sure you understand that word correctly.

 

[stephen]

So we're to give Afghanistani conditions the same weight as English conditions in a draft? Come on, that's poor by anyone's standards.

If we take the last 70 years of cricket as a guide, the nations we'd play in are England, Australia, the West Indies, India, Pakistan, South Africa and maybe New Zealand and Sri Lanka. Only one of those nations (two if we count Sri Lanka) I'd play two spinners in under normal circumstances but if we're picking an XI to play in India them Murali and Warne are terrible picks.

There might be 5 subcontinental test match nations now, but in Pakistan quicks have traditionally been dominant. That leaves 4 nations in which you would consider two spinners. One of those nations has had a competitive test side (India). Sri Lanka have won a grand total of 16 tests outside the subcontinent. Bangladesh have won 3. Afghanistan haven't won any.

So using the number of subcontinental teams as an argument for two spinners in an all time side is a load of garbage. You're assuming you'd play in countries that are at best barely above minnow status.

 

[honestbharani]

So we're to give Afghanistani conditions the same weight as English conditions in a draft? Come on, that's poor by anyone's standards.

If we take the last 70 years of cricket as a guide, the nations we'd play in are England, Australia, the West Indies, India, Pakistan, South Africa and maybe New Zealand and Sri Lanka. Only one of those nations (two if we count Sri Lanka) I'd play two spinners in under normal circumstances but if we're picking an XI to play in India them Murali and Warne are terrible picks.

There might be 5 subcontinental test match nations now, but in Pakistan quicks have traditionally been dominant. That leaves 4 nations in which you would consider two spinners. One of those nations has had a competitive test side (India). Sri Lanka have won a grand total of 16 tests outside the subcontinent. Bangladesh have won 3. Afghanistan haven't won any.

So using the number of subcontinental teams as an argument for two spinners in an all time side is a load of garbage. You're assuming you'd play in countries that are at best barely above minnow status.

However you wanna slice and dice it, it is just 4 countries where spin is not that important out of all test playing nations mate. So yes, I do want to consider how it will go, especially because there are still tracks like Sydney in Australia where spin may play a big role too.

And in a draft where you basically have just about everyone to pick from, being able to pick a side with 3 seamers and 2 spinners cannot be that hard, given all the allrounders available. And 3+2 is a lot more balanced than most 4+1 attacks I see here, and that is how I rate them. And assuming you will only play in seaming conditions in a draft is the real garbage thought process. There are two types of bowlers and when you load up on one, the attack is not as balanced as it can be when you can pick both.

I really cannot see how you can disregard simple facts. I am just assuming they will be playing in countries where people play test cricket. If you want stats on how many tests are held in which places in the last 10 years, you can do your research but the facts will remain.

 

[ankitj]

No one picks 2 spinners in their teams. Even the 5th bowler is often Kallis or Miller or Botham kinda guy.

 

[honestbharani]

And that would be a point to lose given the talent available, is my point. Shakib, Sobers, Faulkner and few others will swing my vote as those sides will be more balanced, as a rule. You really cannot win with 1 spinner in turning tracks but you can win in most conditions with 3 good seamers and a back up part time trundler, irrespective of how many spinners you have. If I had say, Stokes and Tony Greig in my side, I won't look for a 3rd seamer in my 4 bowlers, I would go with 2 spinners. That is my point.

 

[stephen]

I get your point. But using Grieg isn't the best choice since he also bowled spin. And by all reports Sobers' spin was nowhere near as good as his pace bowling.

Australia in 2004 didn't seem to have a huge problem with playing 3 quicks and a spinner in India.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, that 2004 series is a totally different discussion but my point stands even if we are to think of that as an exception, and not the rule. A better bet would be how RSA did in the SC for a lot of the 90s and noughties mostly with 1 spinner but you have to remember most sides just don't have a second spinner of the quality you can get in a draft such as this.


EDIT: And I don't think Greig bowled offspin all that much, it was a bit of an odd game where he brought it out, mostly due to conditions like in T&T once.

 

[stephen]

MacGill was a better spinner than Kasprowicz was a pace bowler.

 

[stephen]

Pretty much the only second spinner you'd pick as an all conditions player is Faulkner since he's also a 40+ averaging batsman.

Honestly, most sides shouldn't ever bother with more than 3 quicks and a spinner. How much bowling does a fifth bowler actually get anyway? In this draft I picked 4 quicks, but two of them were all rounders who averaged 30+ with the bat. Even that was probably overdoing it with the bowling a bit. Look at Australia last time India toured. Australia's batting was woeful and Australia spent a lot of time in the field but the quicks kept running in and bowling 140+ despite on occasion having been in the field for 5 days. And that was in a series that offered little rest and was played on some absolutely ridiculous highways.

If the pitch has something for the spinners then one spinner is usually enough. If it's a road you want 3 quicks. If it offers something for the quicks you'll want three quicks. Only when you have a world class batsman who can also bowl do you want a fifth bowler. The dominant Australian and West Indian sides rarely had more than 4 bowlers, and when they did it was the West Indies who used a part time spinner to complement the four quicks.

Honestly, picking two spinners is a rarity even when the second spinner is world class (again, MacGill was better than all of the third quicks during Australia's period of domination and still rarely got a game except when Warne was banned).

 

[ankitj]

5th bowler can be very very valuable. Support for frontline bowlers is underrated. Whenever Kallis couldn't turn up for SA, their attack appeared to lack penetration. Of course with someone like Kallis you lose nothing in batting. This is why I also think batting all-rounders are more valuable than bowling ones in test cricket.

 

[stephen]

5th bowler can be very very valuable. Support for frontline bowlers is underrated. Whenever Kallis couldn't turn up for SA, their attack appeared to lack penetration. Of course with someone like Kallis you lose nothing in batting. This is why I also think batting all-rounders are more valuable than bowling ones in test cricket.

A bowling all rounder may dig you out of a hole occasionally but batting all rounders are so much more valuable.

The thing is that Kallis wad often the third best South African bowler as well as being their best batsman. Losing him to injury or something was almost like what losing Ponting and Kasprowicz would have been for Australia.

Kallis mostly covered for the fact that South Africa's spinners were garbage for his entire career, so playing Kallis+three quicks also left room for a spinner. Often one who wouldn't have to do much bowling, particularly in the first innings.

 

[stephen]

I love watching gun spinners bowl, but quicks are more versatile. A quick bowler can take wickets through pace, seam or swing while a spinner relies on both flight and turn to take wickets. A quick bowler can bowl containment much better than a spinner (even a gun spinner). If there's nothing in the pitch for a pace bowler, they can at least dry up runs and help take a wicket at the other end.

Spinners are better at bowling long spells, which means they don't need to be rotated like quicks do. It also means that if there's something in it for the spinner the quick at the other end can bowl containment while the spinner goes to work. It may take a bit longer to get the wicket than with two spinners but as long as the other end isn't taking the pressure off spinners can take huge hauls alone.

Also, if there's a breeze, usually one end is way better to bowl from than the other for a spinner (even moreso than for a quick). The stronger the breeze, the more conditions favour a spinner at one end and a quick at the other.

 

[Pothas]

Yeah I usually end up with 4 bowlers in these things, if you have a good spinner then you really don't need a 5th bowler. I think growing up on the great Australia team has always made that my default and it also applies to the best England team of my time watching cricket.

Those players that can bat in the top 6 and make a genuine contribution with the ball are obviously pretty special but we are talking about very few players when it comes to the very highest level and you can have a great team without one. With bowlers it is a bit different, you might not go as far as to call them an all rounders but having someone at number 8 who can make regular contributions with the bat is an absolute minimum requirement for a modern team. In reality the standard of batting amongst bowlers means these days means that a team will usually have this anyway but you really can't just do the old 'pick the best four bowlers' and not worry at all about the batting.

 

[honestbharani]

Once again, in a reality where your second spinner is basically useless (and MacGill is useless against India as compared to Kasprowicz, by the way) it does make sense to play with 3 quicks and a spinner. But in an ATG type side which is what these drafts usually are, you don't have to restrict yourself that way. A side with Botham in it can always go for two spinners and two fast bowlers with Beefy being the 3rd seamer. Same with Miller. The variety in the attack is important. Like I said, with the exception of that RSA side in the late 90s, I don'tt think many sides have won in turning conditions with just 1 spinner. And in hot and humid conditions, the second spinner being the 5th bowler in the attack will be a lot more desirable than a 4th quick, especially when batting line ups are ATG level as it is in this draft. Like I said, with the exception of SENA nations, the other spinner is worth their weight in god, especially if either they can act as the allrounder (like Shakib or Sobers or Faulkner) or another allrounder is already there making it easier for you to include the second spinner.

 

[kingkallis]

So are we simming this or not?!

 

[stephen]

It wasn't just India who MacGill didn't play against though. He rarely played as a second spinner unless the conditions demanded it (he got trotted out for the SCG test a few times). This is despite the fact that he was a more effective bowler than Lee/Kasper/Bichel. The truth is that you rarely need more than one spinner and often a part timer will do if conditions are right (for example, Michael Clarke when India needed to lose a series).

The problem with picking two spinners is that it totally messes with the bowling rotations. A harder ball can be hit further so you rarely want to bring a spinner on before the 20-30th over, but at the same time you really can't ask your quicks to bowl a 12 over spell every time.

Yes, if you had Shoaib, Botham and Davidson, you could rotate them as a standard 3 quick attack but you are asking quite a bit of your all rounder and your second spinner is going to mostly be dead weight anyway.

You're right that if the second spinner is a batting all rounder it works out better, but that's the case with a 4th quick as well.

Murali
Warne
O'Reilly
Grimmett
Laker
Verity
Underwood
Benaud
Bedi
Tayfield

Are most of the top spinners in history. Many of them can't bat and there's a pretty substantial quality difference between the best players and worst players in this list. Once you start going into the Kumbles, Harbhajans and Qadirs the utility of the bowler drops dramatically. Most aren't effective outside home conditions, offer little with the bat and have no place getting picked ahead of the Bothams, Millers and Robertses of the world for the third quick/ second spinner spot.

Earlier there was a bit of discussion about how someone like Botham is hard to fit into a side like one of these, which is certainly true and it's because they are far worse than many of the top 6 batting options but also aren't a better bowling option than a number of other quicks. People like to see a balanced side, and for most that's 3 quicks and a spinner, plus maybe a good batting all rounder (the fact that Tony Grieg rarely gets picked for these things shows just how little all rounders are valued for their second skill).

You can hold the opinion that two spinners is better than 3 quicks but I think you're in the minority there.

Which side looks more impressive:

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Smith
G Pollock
Border
Gilchrist+
Marshall
Warne
Akram
McGrath

Or

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Smith
Shakib
Border
Gilchrist+
Marshall
Warne
Akram
McGrath

Or

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Smith
Miller
Border
Gilchrist+
Marshall
Warne
Murali
McGrath

I would personally argue for the first XI in the majority of cases. A Graeme Pollock is going to add more to a side with 4 ATG bowlers than Shakib will. Similarly, Pollock adds more than Miller and a second spinner does. I purposely left Sobers and Kallis out of these teams because their batting is worth picking them for alone.