• 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.

Updated - Which Test Attack would you prefer?

Which is best?

  • Sobers / McGrath / Murali / Murali / S. Pollock / Lindwall

  • Hadlee / Miller / Steyn / O'Reilly / Kapil

  • Imran / Warne / Ambrose / Donald

  • Marshall / Kallis / Garner / Wasim / Ashwin


Results are only viewable after voting.

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
You get to carry one of these attacks for a modern(ish) ATG level Test teams which will face each other (no Bradman). Which do you think would run best? The side with 4 bowlers, is obviously carrying an extra specialist bat. You should consider both the bowling potency and the impact on batting balance that each of these bowling attacks brings.
 

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
So this time, I just used averages of past Vanilla draft orders to make the attacks more "balanced" from a CW perspective. Basically, in a 4 man draft if everyone made a gentlemen's agreement to pick all their bowlers first, before picking any specialist bats/WK bats, then you could very easily end up with these 4 attacks.

2 people once again going for the 4 man attack though... hmm.

So even eliminating option #2 in this case, as a bit "allroundery" (I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand personally, it mitigates its batting positions nicely), for option #1 I think you're not losing much if anything with a McGrath/Pollock/Murali/Lindwall attack. And you potentially gain with Sobers on batting if you see him as the BBB, and at most lose very little (plus he's one of the greatest options at number 6 out of ATG batsmen, because most simply have never batted that low, if we're being @bagapath batting order police about it).

And option #4's 4 man attack excluding Kallis, is arguably better or at very least very even with the 4 man attack of option #3. Only thing is how you rank Kallis's value, because he will be a step down from a first pick bat, but his bowling value as a 5th option is not nil.
 

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
Oh yeah, let's also switch Kapil out for Botham, if we can, lol. Didn't even remember I added in the extra true allrounder in Miller.
Would any attack #3 choosers have been swayed by the swapping of Kapil for Botham in attack #2 ?

Gonna be honest, this was a damn overwhelming result, which I wasn't expecting.
 

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
Would any attack #3 choosers have been swayed by the swapping of Kapil for Botham in attack #2 ?

Gonna be honest, this was a damn overwhelming result, which I wasn't expecting.
Only one attack has 3 of the top 10 (maybe 2 depending on where exactly people place Donald), plus the greatest/second greatest spinner of all time.. 5th bowlers are not required for a great attack/team - they wouldn’t be bowling and will mostly be viewed as superfluous in a comparison like this. Even with Miller who is probably a perfect 5th bowler and might make a difference in views here you have him as a frontline pacer anyway.
 

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
I think there is practically not much between front 4 bowling options of any of these attacks, with the exception of Miller probably.

My real takeaway from this, is that number 9 batting matters precisely nil, in the minds of CW forumers. And consequently, choose only 1 bowling all-rounder for a given team, because a second is chopped liver.
 

Top