so do people really feel 4 bowlers is enough against the quality batsmen they are facing in this draft?
Cricket Draft - Tests
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
4 quality bowlers, yes. On average, 2.5 wickets per bowler. This should be expected of high class bowlers.
Michael Holding says the same thing about real life attacks with much less quality. Fifth bowler(even as an all rounder) is redundant.
Michael Holding says the same thing about real life attacks with much less quality. Fifth bowler(even as an all rounder) is redundant.
Any comments on my team, lads? I know it's nowhere near as good as DD's so you can give some fake compliments to make me feel better on this depressing rainy morning
It's great. Unfortunately for you Gavaskar won't fetch you as many votes as he should
But would any real life attack face the quality of batsmen in this draft? There are usually 1 or 2 premier batsmen in each team. This draft has 4-5 per team.
Not true
Oz had one point had - Hayden, Langer, Pointing, Gilchirst. (Even Steve waugh was in there for some time but langer was not)
India had - Sehwag, Dravid, Sachin, Laxman
SA right now has - Smith, Amla, Kallis and AB
I don't count Langer in that top bracket, and neither is Smith. Haven't seen enough of AB to comment on him. Sehwag/Dravid/Laxman/Sachin was a one-off.
Thanks though - this is giving me more insight into what my team for the semis (if I make it) needs to be!
Greame Smith is class, better test opener than Sehwag.
Smith is absolute class, man. He's got the grit and determination to bat in the toughest of situations. His 4th innings average shows that, which is phenomenal.
I would go on and compare him to Hayden as one of the best modern openers. Tough as nails, Graeme.
Well, that could be the case. However given how much my opening pair got criticized I couldn't leave the chance of getting arguably the best opener in the draft.
With the same logic you can say the bowling attacks are also stronger than a regular test attack in last 3 decades apart from couple of exceptions.
I do sort of agree with 4 quality bowlers being enough. 5th and 6th bowlers play a role mainly either to give a rest to the frontline bowlers or provide variety and try to break a partnership. Of course having a quality all rounder is great and definitely adds a lot, but if you don't have a quality all rounder you won't be adding a 5th bowler and weakening your batting. I've always preferred 6-1-4 rather than 5-1-5.
Yea.
And I think our Indian quartet were never really at their dominant best all together at the same time.
Dravid went through a horrendous slump when Sehwag and Sachin were piling it on.
Ok guys - advise time.
Current Team:
Anwar
Stewart
Kallicharran
Chappell
Inzamam
Adams
Imran
Yardley
Srinath
Garner
MacGill
2 subs.
What I am sure of is: Srinath OUT. Holding/Ambrose In
the second one is more challenging:
It will be Adams OUT. Miandad/Flower/Gilchrist in.
I will also NOT be playing Yardley - I will play Jeremy Coney instead (averaged 37 with bat and 35 with ball in 35 test matches.
That leaves me with either:
Anwar or Anwar
Stewart Stewart
Kallicharran Kallicharran
Chappel Chappel
Miandad Inzamam
Inzamam Gilchrist/Flower
Imran Imran
Coney Coney
Holding/Ambrose Holding/Ambrose
Garner Garner
MacGill MacGill
This leaves me with 3 quicks, a spinner and a part-time, with batting all the way to 8..
Taking Gilchrist/Flower allows me to upgrade Stewart if I win the semis, while taking Miandad allows me to get two of the best batsmen from the 70s/80s.
Thoughts/advise?
Also, Ambrose or Holding? I prefer Ambrose but wanted to get thoughts here
Current Team:
Anwar
Stewart
Kallicharran
Chappell
Inzamam
Adams
Imran
Yardley
Srinath
Garner
MacGill
2 subs.
What I am sure of is: Srinath OUT. Holding/Ambrose In
the second one is more challenging:
It will be Adams OUT. Miandad/Flower/Gilchrist in.
I will also NOT be playing Yardley - I will play Jeremy Coney instead (averaged 37 with bat and 35 with ball in 35 test matches.
That leaves me with either:
Anwar or Anwar
Stewart Stewart
Kallicharran Kallicharran
Chappel Chappel
Miandad Inzamam
Inzamam Gilchrist/Flower
Imran Imran
Coney Coney
Holding/Ambrose Holding/Ambrose
Garner Garner
MacGill MacGill
This leaves me with 3 quicks, a spinner and a part-time, with batting all the way to 8..
Taking Gilchrist/Flower allows me to upgrade Stewart if I win the semis, while taking Miandad allows me to get two of the best batsmen from the 70s/80s.
Thoughts/advise?
Also, Ambrose or Holding? I prefer Ambrose but wanted to get thoughts here
come on you cnuts
Take both Holding and Ambrose
Flower at 6 is waste for me. So it has to be Gilchirst if it is below 5.
I would pick Miandad though, he will get the respect of having faced some of the best bowlers ever
I would pick Miandad though, he will get the respect of having faced some of the best bowlers ever
I gave you my thoughts last night. If it were me I'd go for Holding and Gilly.
Holding is probably the greatest fast bowler ever, besides, that elegant run up and gazelle like action should be enough. Yes I'm that cheap... But he was proper eye candy. I'm sure most Windies fans would choose him over Ambrose and possibly any other West Indian quick...though Marshall would run him close. And Miandad was clearly better than Inzamam. I'd definitely go with those two.
Er.. Pardon me, but why can't Ambrose be in place of Coney?
I guess Marshall overall would be rated the highest due to his deadly efficiency in every condition.
But yeah, Holding is up there. He was there when the carribean revival started and was one of the biggest weapons Lloyd had. In terms of importance to the growth of the team he was crucial and remained consistent for a long time. Deadly pace and skill, he had that x factor.
And of course, the coolest nickname in cricket history and a sublime accent to go with it. He's one for the romantics.
Tell you what, Big Bird was great and all, I've been reminiscing lately, thankfully youtube have loads of old clips...and yeah Garner was one hell of a bowler, as Alan Hansen would say...pace, bounce and carry. The lot. For me better than Ambrose. Seems to be a dearth of brilliant genuine quicks in the current era. Shame really, because it's what I love most about cricket.
The great thing about Marshall was that he adapted so well after losing a yard or two. He had fantastic control of swing.
Take both Holding and Ambrose
Trust me.. I want to.
Imran/Holding/Garner/Ambrose.. Would I even need MacGill????
Flower is out I think. Leaning towards Miandad
Miandad would replace Adams. Inzy would drop. The problem is that I'm stuck with Stewart as an openner then, and he isn't amazing. If I pick Gilly, I can drop Stewart later on if I win the semis.
I could, but people seem to think 5 bowlers are not needed. I can only pick 2 players. 1 has to be an upgrade on Srinath. I am droppiing Yardley (my offspinner) and playing Coney (batting all rounder) because everybody thinks 5 bowlers are not needed. I'd like to drop Adams and take Gilly/Inzamam.
Does that make sense now?
The alternate is to say feck batting, and just go with this:
Anwar
Stewart
Kallicharran
Chappell
Inazamam
Adams/Coney
Imran
Holding
Garner
Ambrose
MacGill
What does everybody think of that?
100% this. Dearth of great bowlers in general. The only "great" bowler around right now (IMO) is Steyn.
Agree as well.
Only if Aamir wasn't a match fixing cnut, we could have seen him develop into one of the best given the potential he had!
Only if Aamir wasn't a match fixing cnut, we could have seen him develop into one of the best given the potential he had!
How about promoting Gilly to opener? But yeah that bowling line up would get through most, however Miandad was the type of batsman you'd want to bat for your life. He'd add so much steel to your batting line up.
Indeed and he'd be great in any era. For me he's top tier.
I know.. That's why I'm kinda stumped. I really want to go with the bowling, but think my batting (Adams and Stewart) will stick out a bit.
Possibly, but I dunno I never saw of him to be fully convinced that he was the real deal.
Stewart and Adams were good players, to be fair.
He definitely showed great potential and if not for injuries and suspensions (which went on to be the case) I could have seen him become one of the best in the world, specially with the current level of quicks we have. He showed great talent at a very young age. One can never predict for sure but to me he looked the business.
The way he swung the ball was mind boggling!
Bond was the one who had real potential if you ask me. Pace, swing and a lovely action to go with it. Pity about his injuries
Yeah that's quality. More fool him eh. Suppose brains and talent don't always go in hand in hand.
Oh yes. Delight to watch.
Sadly some bowlers just don't have robust enough bodies to get through the daily grind.
Correct -but they need to be compared to others in the draft.. I reckon I'm going with Holding and Miandad...
Cummins, Pattinson and Finn all look quality prospects. The trouble is the first two of them are ridiculously injury prone whilst Finn is very inconsistent.
I feel like talking about Willis. Just check out his performances in the subcontinent. Brilliant bowler who sadly seems to get over looked because let's face it...a lack of charisma.
Finn has the tools, he ought to be a very very good bowler.
He should be. Bowls 150k, nice height and action. Bit confused why England dropped him for Bresnan or Tremlett.