ODI Cricket Draft QF 4: Harshad vs NM

[Akshay]

Welcome to the fourth and final Quarter Final match of the ODI cricket draft. Some basic rules to consider while voting:

1) Judge players only on the basis of their ODI records.
2) Base your vote on which team you think is more likely to win an ODI between the two.
3) The poll will remain open for 24 hours after creation.

Harshad has won the toss and has chosen to bowl first.

The XIs:

@harshad: 1. Guptill 2. T. Dilshan 3. Gambhir 4. ABD 5. S.Waugh 6. Duminy 7. Razzaq 8. Ashwin 9. M. Holding 10. Ambrose 11. McGrath

@NM: 1. Kirsten 2. Hayden 3. Kohli 4. Lamb 5. Chanderpaul 6. Dhoni 7. Flintoff 8. Al Hasan 9. Akram 10. Bracken 11. Roberts

Conditions: Flat tops. Batting paradise.

 

[Akshay]

Team Harshad/TMH:

Strategy:

We open with Glen McGrath and Ambrose. Both are difficult to get hit and score runs off and would not allow the opposition openers to attack much during the fielding restrictions. Regardless of the pitch conditions, both McGrath and Ambrose have the knack of taking early wickets and the same can be expected here. M. Holding will bowl first change and will bowl couple of overs with Ambrose before bowling in tandem with Abdul Razzaq. In the middle overs (i.e. overs 20 - 38 we will bowl with Ashwin, Steve Waugh, Dilshan and Abdul Razzaq. Holding, Ambrose and McGrath will bowl the final 12 overs. With over bowling line up and natural wicket takers, we expect to contain the opposition to a total between 275 - 290.

Over openers have better average while chasing and Dilshan in particular is known to play long innings (He scored 160 when Sri Lanka almost chased down the target of 415 (falling short by just 3 runs) set by India on a similar wicket). While Guptill will be tasked with providing a quick start, Dilshan will be anchor around whom the chase is build. Even if there is an early wicket, Gambhir coming in at No. 3 is more than capable of building an innings for a run chase. Our Middle Order of A B DeVilliers, Steve Waugh and J P Duminy can accelerate when required to keep the run rate in check, Abdul Razzaq and R. Ashwin can bat and can provide support to the other batsman to chase down the total.

Why we will win:

• McGrath - Ambrose and Holding are capable of making most of whatever early assistance the wicket has to offer.
• Holding in particular doesn't rely on the assistance from the pitch and is hard to score runs against.
• Our main bowling line up of McGrath - Ambrose - Holding - Razzaq and Ashwin is better than the opposition's Akram - Andy Robers - Bracken - Flintoff and Shakib al Hasan. Moreover we have support bowlers in Dilshan - Waugh and Duminy who have taken almost 350 wickets between them. Whereas the opposition's support bowler is Chanderpaul(?)
• Our Middle Order and lower middle order is more than competent at chasing games in tense situations as it most likely is going to get in this match.

 

[Akshay]

Team NM/Prath:

Tactics:
Batting:
Top Order: It's a flat pitch. Kirsten to play his natural game and be an accumulator of runs, while Hayden will try to impose his will, while also treating the great bowlers on the other side with respect. Once he gets his eye in, he will attack. A perfect opening pair with a clear aggressor and a clear solid reliable batsmen. Kirsten is often underrated and it wouldn't be wrong if said that Kirsten was one of the best openers during his tenure. Often facing most of the bowlers featured in this game with ease. Kohli will play his natural game - he is good enough, even against this opposition. He is wrongly seen as a chase specialist. That seems so only because he is superhuman in chases. First innings he is just as good.

Middle Order: Lamb will consolidate the positon before playing attacking cricket, while Chanderpaul will play the situation. His stats (I can post them) show that he can actually be an aggressive middle order bat when needed, or play the usual "cool" knock that we all know he can. MS is MS. People think he is not good in the first innings and for accelerating at the end but he was the best in that aspect. He could score for instance 68 off 34 against a SA team having good bowlers (in the game Sachin scored 200). He has many many games like this. He will come in, build the inning to a crescendo, and then add 20-30 runs at the end that will take us over the top.

Lower Order: Flintoff is responsible for coming in and smashing - he is perfectly good at it. Shakib will be responsible for the same. He also offers middle order stability IF we hit early wickets. On this type of track, I don't think that will be a problem. He probably won't be batting, or will just be smashing. Wasim can smash it as well.

Strategy:
We will look to score off everybody, but will specifically target Ashwin and Razzaq (his 4th and 5th bowlers) as well as Waugh/Dilshan if they bowl. On a flat pitch, they have massive bulls eyes on them, and I'll look to take advantage of that. I'll respect the great quicks, but on a flat pitch they will be in trouble once the initial movement is gone.

Bowling:
Wasim and Roberts open the bowling while they chase. I would definitely fancy them to pick up Dilshan (who I don't rate). I don't think Guptill has faced anything like them, but they haven't faced modern batsmen with modern rules either. Dilshan and guptill were both the aggressors in their opening combos which means they take more risks and bowlers we have can take advantage of this. I don't think Gambhir would do well if exposed to the moving ball early either. Plus he was one of the Indian batsmen who some years back couldn't deal as well as others, a well bowled short ball (not as bad as Jadeja and raina of course but him and Yuvraj were slightly uncomfortable too). We have 4 bowlers who can bowl bouncers well and well over 6 feat.
Bracken comes in at 1 down, and he has TERRIFIC stats on flattish pitches in India (average of 21) and Australia (average of 24). If you ignore the "name" value, statistically he really is up there with the other great bowlers on both sides.
Freddie is a top class ODI bowler too - and he is my 4th! bowler. He will perform brilliantly without the constant pressure of carrying the English side.
Shakib is my 5th bowler. He has a simple role - try not to conceed too many runs. He isn't a world beater. However, his stats honestly aren't much different than Ashwins. To be fair, Ashwin has a pretty poor record anywhere not named England or India (if my research is right). In addition Shakib is a left arm orthodox who is comparitively more easier for left handed batsmen to deal as the ball tends to go away from them. But Harshad has two lefties in his team. Gambhir and Duminy. Duminy is one of those South African batsmen who cannot deal with spin with great proficiency. Of course it's not a major point but even small things can make a difference in matches like this. He is also almost always the most economical of all Bangla bowlers who to be honest aren't top class like these guys here and get hit by batsmen and Shakib gets affected too with it. So he would actually be able to bowl more economically with bracken Akram Roberts Flintoff and all on the other side.

Why I'll win:
As a whole, my front line seamers (Wasim/Roberts/Bracken) equal his (Holding/Ambrose/McGrath) if you look at Bracken's stats on flat tracks. For instance in the game where SA got 434, he had figures of 5/67, the most economical bowler that game (Lee conceded at 9 an over if I remember). However, we have a slight advantage in that none of the three Front lines are similar. Whereas both Holding and Ambrose are similar bowlers, so once the batsmen initially get their eye in against holding/ambrose , they would find it easier to deal with the other bowler. Whereas Roberts is a right arm fast pace bowler Akram is a left arm fast who can easily swing both ways in the air. Bracken is a left arm medium fast bowler who can again move the ball in the air.

My 4th bowler Flintoff is well better than his 4th (Razzaq) who can also swing in the air and can bowl reverse (having learnt from none other than Akram during their Lancashire days together) and I've already given my argument on Ashwin/Shakib.

I think I win because our bowling attacks (as a whole) aren't much different, while my batting is clearly superior IMO.

Kirsten > Dilshan
Hayden > Guptil
Kohli >> Gambhir
Lamb << AB
Chanders > Waugh (It's true. Steve wasn't a great ODI player. Great captain but as a batsman, wasn't top class.)
Dhoni >> Duminy
Flintoff > Razzaq
Shakib > Ashwin

So in our opinion, the only position where he has a better bat (IMO) is number 4. Therefore, with a clearly superior batting line up, and a slightly weaker bowling one. All our batsmen can easily deal with any situation. Hit big if required and solidify if required. And a deeper batting lineup and they are all technically very good batsmen. So I believe I will win due to these reasons

Good luck Harshad and TMH

 

[Akshay]

@Rado_N could you make this poll please:

Title: Who will win the ODI?

Option 1: Harshad
Option 2: NM

Vote options: can only pick 1 choice, votes can be changed, votes are public.

Thanks.

 

[Rado_N]

Poll added.

 

[prath92]

All except McGrath has high strike rates meaning our bowlers are more of genuine wicket takers than their counterparts. Especially if you consider the time when ambrose and holding bowled, it's not really that impressive. In these type of wickets, which didn't exist a lot in those times, you need more than pace and bounce. It doesn't help that the two main bowlers rely so much on it and doesn't help that most of the batsman aren't alien to pace in anyway. As NM said, we have more variations in our bowling with 3 of our bowlers having the ability to swing the ball anywhere. They are all death bowlers too and in the circumstances of a chase, their batsmen will have to take risks against the likes of Akram and Roberts. Akram flummoxed the best of the 80s and 90s batsmen with his Yorkers and variations. It won't be easy for 2 aggressive batsmen.

People of most countries don't find it easy to play Shakib in LOI in comparison to other Bangladesh bowlers. For instance in the match where shane Watson scored 185(96) against Bangladesh, Shakib conceded 7-1-35-1 (taking the only wicket bowling in the powerplay). If you take Bangladeshi games last World Cup in the flat NZ and Aus pitches, you could see that Shakib was Bangladesh s most economical bowler in almost all games . Had he got better support from the other bowlers (he can't ask for better than the bowlers here) he could have been more successful.

 

[The Man Himself]

All except McGrath has high strike rates meaning our bowlers are more of genuine wicket takers than their counterparts. Especially if you consider the time when ambrose and holding bowled, it's not really that impressive.

No, it doesn't really mean that. in earlier era, even in ODIs, tendency was to see-off first few overs. So SR not being exact match to yours is not a negative. If you look at econ rate of our 3, it is better and so is avg (even slightly). Otherwise also, Ambrose-McGrath-Holding is definitely a better 3 compared to Akram-Roberts-Bracken. Bracken doesn't really belong anywhere near.

You guys have also quite easily said that you will 'target' Razzaq-Ashwin and our part timers. Even if we keep part timers aside, Razzaq-Ashwin is more skilled bowling combo than Flintoff-Shakib. So if you can target these two, our batsman can do better vs your 4th and 5th

 

[prath92]

No, it doesn't really mean that. in earlier era, even in ODIs, tendency was to see-off first few overs. So SR not being exact match to yours is not a negative. If you look at econ rate of our 3, it is better and so is avg (even slightly). Otherwise also, Ambrose-McGrath-Holding is definitely a better 3 compared to Akram-Roberts-Bracken. Bracken doesn't really belong anywhere near.

You guys have also quite easily said that you will 'target' Razzaq-Ashwin and our part timers. Even if we keep part timers aside, Razzaq-Ashwin is more skilled bowling combo than Flintoff-Shakib. So if you can target these two, our batsman can do better vs your 4th and 5th

That doesn't make sense.

Why not? Bracken bowled in a more batsman friendly era against top batsmen than the others and still matches the record of ambrose. My understanding is that bracken took a wicket every 33 balls and Ambrose took one in every 42 balls. At a time when outfields were slower, grounds were bigger and very few could deal with pace. In fact, bracken has more variations in his bowling style than ambrose. Ambrose in this pitch will go for more runs than bracken. The ball will come on to the bat well meaning you need more than pace variations to get the better of batsmen of this calibre. Other than not being part of a West Indies pace attack, there is no other reason why Ambrose would be more successful than bracken. Especially in this pitch.

Whatever Razzaq can do, Flintoff can too. In fact his Yorkers are way better. Both his bowling and batting averages are higher too. Ashwin and Shakib have similar stats against other big teams even though India > Bangladesh and India on an average concedes less runs than Bangladesh. To claim Razzaq Ashwin is better is just baseless.

 

[The Man Himself]

Kirsten = Dilshan
Hayden > Guptil
Kohli > Gambhir
Lamb << AB
Chanders < Waugh
Dhoni >> Duminy
Flintoff < Razzaq

Updated. Chanderpaul is NO WAY a better batsman, not even in ODIs!! Chanderpaul has batted in SR of around 70 only. S.Waugh 76+. S.Waugh is also a real clutch player and someone you can't judge based on just stats. There are numerous examples of him doing it at biggest stage. It is disrespectful to say Chanders is better.
Shakib vs Ashwin is not really that much of a factor as both are batting at no. 8. I mean on batting paradise, if you want to compare no. 8s, it means you are not confident of your top 7 to do the majority of job. No. 8 should only be required for hitting big. Shakib SR is 80, Ashwin 86. I am not saying Ashwin is better batsman, he is not, but it doesn't matter for no. 8. Had both been no. 7, then yeah.

Also I don't agree with NM when he says bowling is at par.
NM/Prath are only relying on their main 5 bowlers to bowl 50 overs. I don't know why they say they have more variation.

McGrath-Ambrose-Holding-Razzaq-Ashwin is better bowling unit compared to Akram-Roberts-Bracken-Shakib. Add to that we have S.Waugh-Dilshan-Duminy who have all bowled/still bowl regularly in ODIs, even against big players. S.Waugh has 195 ODI wickets. He used to be regular bowler in his young days. He once 'bounced' Viv Richards!

November 1988: v West Indies, Brisbane

Waugh, playing in his 22nd Test, picked up his second wicket of the match when Allan Border dived from third slip to catch Carl Hooper for one. In came Viv Richards, the West Indies captain and one of the game's greatest batsmen, chewing gum and looking as intimidating as ever.

The upstart Waugh, despite bowling only medium pace, served up three successive bouncers to Richards in an act of aggression that gladdened the heart of one of Australia's most aggressive Test bowlers, Bill "Tiger" O'Reilly. The late O'Reilly, then writing for the Sydney Morning Herald, predicted Waugh's salutation to Richards would become an event of enormous significance for Australian cricket.

"Significant, did I say? Yes, very much so. Imagine the hide of a youthful Australian of undoubted talent with both bat and ball serving up an intentional half-paced bouncer to a batsman like Richards - and doing it twice more before he started on his normal policy of moving the ball skilfully in the air.

Surely, it suggests that Waugh was delivering a message to everyone there who could recognise it.

"I took it immediately as an uncompromising message to the opposing skipper that Waugh was sick to death of the bouncer policy that the West Indies have for so long adopted as their standard method of attack.

"And I nodded my head and murmured to myself: 'Good on you, Steve, I agree with you entirely.'

"Waugh could have been delivering the message to both his captain, Allan Border, and to Australian cricket administration generally, that it might be a reasonable idea to let the visitors have a full volley of the bouncer business to bring the troublesome problem right out into the open, so that it can be resolved once and forever."

If one of the 5 of NM/Prath team is having bad day, they don't have a recognized backup to fall back on. We on the other hand have 3 who have 350 wickets between them.

 

[Mani]

"Chanders > Waugh, Steve wasn't a great ODI player"

How do you come into this conclusion?
S.Waugh is sensible batsmen, IMO

 

[The Man Himself]

That doesn't make sense.

Why not? Bracken bowled in a more batsman friendly era against top batsmen than the others and still matches the record of ambrose. My understanding is that bracken took a wicket every 33 balls and Ambrose took one in every 42 balls. At a time when outfields were slower, grounds were bigger and very few could deal with pace. In fact, bracken has more variations in his bowling style than ambrose. Ambrose in this pitch will go for more runs than bracken. The ball will come on to the bat well meaning you need more than pace variations to get the better of batsmen of this calibre. Other than not being part of a West Indies pace attack, there is no other reason why Ambrose would be more successful than bracken. Especially in this pitch.

Whatever Razzaq can do, Flintoff can too. In fact his Yorkers are way better. Both his bowling and batting averages are higher too. Ashwin and Shakib have similar stats against other big teams even though India > Bangladesh and India on an average concedes less runs than Bangladesh. To claim Razzaq Ashwin is better is just baseless.

Bracken's last ODI was in 2009. So it is not exactly from completely different era. Bracken has more variations and Ambrose will go for more runs on this pitch etc are just disingenuous comments.

Flintoff's career was shorter. Razzaq was around lot longer. If we are talking peak here, there is not much difference. Razzaq's stats get hampered by his figures later in his career.
Ashwin overall is better bowler than Shakib. Now, on batting paradise, both are not that good and I won't say there is lot to separate but as we all have seen both bowl and we know Ashwin is more skillful one.

 

[The Man Himself]

"Chanders > Waugh, Steve wasn't a great ODI player"

How do you come into this conclusion?
S.Waugh is sensible batsmen, IMO

Maybe just going by the stats and in that too only avg. I am sure they have watched both play though and know that even in ODIs, S.Waugh was a better batsman. He was capable of getting team out from toughest of situations and later on accelerate as well. Chanderpaul can stabilize innings, but against the toughest of bowlers, will he able to do it that well and speed up if needed? I don't think so.

 

[Boycott]

Flintoff never carried the England side.

His form before the 2005 Ashes was hit and miss and he never hit those heights after. For sure he was capable of devastating spells but claiming he carried the team is not true. Because of recurring ankle injuries regularly his workload had to be covered by others.

 

[Mani]

Maybe just going by the stats and in that too only avg. I am sure they have watched both play though and know that even in ODIs, S.Waugh was a better batsman. He was capable of getting team out from toughest of situations and later on accelerate as well. Chanderpaul can stabilize innings, but against the toughest of bowlers, will he able to do it that well and speed up if needed? I don't think so.

Exactly this, there no. of situation on which i had seen S.Waugh single handled stabilized the innings after the early fall of wkts.
1.1999 WC SF , AUS vs SA
2.1999 WC S9 http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65231.html

these are few that comes to my mind.
In fact most of his efforts directly resulted in win.

 

[prath92]

Flintoff never carried the England side.

His form before the 2005 Ashes was hit and miss and he never hit those heights after. For sure he was capable of devastating spells but claiming he carried the team is not true. Because of recurring ankle injuries regularly his workload had to be covered by others.

What is meant there was that he was a key player in that he was a very good batsman way before that not that he was the only player. He was one of the only players who actually performed consistently in the 2003 WC for instance Against India in the game he scored 64 of the 168 runs and took 2-15 off his 10 and taking both the openers (Sachin and Sehwag) wickets when the likes of caddick and all were poor (Iyer than the last over).

Like you said he was injured but even when he returned he was often selected because he was a key batsmen.

Kirsten = Dilshan
Hayden > Guptil
Kohli > Gambhir
Lamb << AB
Chanders < Waugh
Dhoni >> Duminy
Flintoff < Razzaq

Updated. Chanderpaul is NO WAY a better batsman, not even in ODIs!! Chanderpaul has batted in SR of around 70 only. S.Waugh 76+. S.Waugh is also a real clutch player and someone you can't judge based on just stats. There are numerous examples of him doing it at biggest stage. It is disrespectful to say Chanders is better.
Shakib vs Ashwin is not really that much of a factor as both are batting at no. 8. I mean on batting paradise, if you want to compare no. 8s, it means you are not confident of your top 7 to do the majority of job. No. 8 should only be required for hitting big. Shakib SR is 80, Ashwin 86. I am not saying Ashwin is better batsman, he is not, but it doesn't matter for no. 8. Had both been no. 7, then yeah.

Also I don't agree with NM when he says bowling is at par.
NM/Prath are only relying on their main 5 bowlers to bowl 50 overs. I don't know why they say they have more variation.

McGrath-Ambrose-Holding-Razzaq-Ashwin is better bowling unit compared to Akram-Roberts-Bracken-Shakib. Add to that we have S.Waugh-Dilshan-Duminy who have all bowled/still bowl regularly in ODIs, even against big players. S.Waugh has 195 ODI wickets. He used to be regular bowler in his young days. He once 'bounced' Viv Richards!


If one of the 5 of NM/Prath team is having bad day, they don't have a recognized backup to fall back on. We on the other hand have 3 who have 350 wickets between them.

Kirsten = Dilshan? No way. Kirsten is really underrated. He was one of the best openers of 90s. He was able to score quickly and that too against bowlers like Akram, McGrath, Lee and all and was very difficult to get wickets I like Dilshan but there's no way that he is as good as Dilshan.

This is a batsmans pitch. There's no point in having more part timers like Dilshan and Duminy if bowlers like McGrath and all have gone for runs.Are you telling me that Duminy and Dilshan will contain batsmen who have dispatched your frontline bowlers? They are part-timers who could at best be helpful on turning tracks. Against batsmen here he wouldnt fare really well. Most of my batsman are very good playing spin. They are options but on this pitch, you dont gain any advantage than to get over rate done. You have two similar bowlers whose main weapon is pace and bounce on a pitch the ball comes onto the bat well. That too, to batsman capable of playing against fast bowlers. And their strikerate is late 30s or early 40s. As against your 1 bower (Razzaq) I have 3 bowlers who can swing the ball very well in the air. I dont think it will be easy to face them especially chasing.

What is the point of Ashwin having a better SR? As you said, Shakib is a better batsman. Him and Akram have batted well in death overs before. Ashwin has 1 50 against 6 of Akram. Th whole point of having a deeper batting lineup is that if at all the situations arise (which NM clearly stated it mostly wont ) where i find myself batting with Akram or Shakib with 2 overs to go, they can still add a good 20 runs to the total. Whereas McGrath Holding and Ambrose are good at holding on a lot so thats clearly an advantage.

 

[The Man Himself]

What is meant there was that he was a key player in that he was a very good batsman way before that not that he was the only player. He was one of the only players who actually performed consistently in the 2003 WC for instance Against India in the game he scored 64 of the 168 runs and took 2-15 off his 10 and taking both the openers (Sachin and Sehwag) wickets when the likes of caddick and all were poor (Iyer than the last over).

Like you said he was injured but even when he returned he was often selected because he was a key batsmen.



Kirsten = Dilshan? No way. Kirsten is really underrated. He was one of the best openers of 90s. He was able to score quickly and that too against bowlers like Akram, McGrath, Lee and all and was very difficult to get wickets I like Dilshan but there's no way that he is as good as Dilshan.

This is a batsmans pitch. There's no point in having more part timers like Dilshan and Duminy if bowlers like McGrath and all have gone for runs.Are you telling me that Duminy and Dilshan will contain batsmen who have dispatched your frontline bowlers? They are part-timers who could at best be helpful on turning tracks. Against batsmen here he wouldnt fare really well. Most of my batsman are very good playing spin. They are options but on this pitch, you dont gain any advantage than to get over rate done. You have two similar bowlers whose main weapon is pace and bounce on a pitch the ball comes onto the bat well. That too, to batsman capable of playing against fast bowlers. And their strikerate is late 30s or early 40s. As against your 1 bower (Razzaq) I have 3 bowlers who can swing the ball very well in the air. I dont think it will be easy to face them especially chasing.

What is the point of Ashwin having a better SR? As you said, Shakib is a better batsman. Him and Akram have batted well in death overs before. Ashwin has 1 50 against 6 of Akram. Th whole point of having a deeper batting lineup is that if at all the situations arise (which NM clearly stated it mostly wont ) where i find myself batting with Akram or Shakib with 2 overs to go, they can still add a good 20 runs to the total. Whereas McGrath Holding and Ambrose are good at holding on a lot so thats clearly an advantage.

Kirsten is not underrated, as a batsman overall he is better but in ODIs specifically, Dilshan's record is very good. Dilshan can score them at faster pace as well.

You are forgetting Waugh also as our additional bowling option and yeah having part timers helps especially when those part timers have taken wickets as much as ours. It happens so often that a main bowler goes for runs on a bad day and a part timer does well. We basically can cover for 2 bowlers having bad day. Say our top 3 bowl 10 each, we can distribute remaining 20 among 5 bowlers. There is variation in there as well. Your team doesn't have anyone to cover.

SR matters because if we say it is batting paradise, your batsman at 8 or 9 won't get a lot of overs to bat. Ashwin is well capable batsman to hit few at the end but we don't see him required to do much from no. 8. We will have won the match 5 down at max

 

[NM]

Kirsten = Dilshan
Hayden > Guptil
Kohli > Gambhir
Lamb << AB
Chanders < Waugh
Dhoni >> Duminy
Flintoff < Razzaq

Only have a few minutes.

• Kirsten was MUCH better than Dilshan. You have to SEE the players to know.
• Kohli only > Gaambhir but Lamb << AB? Hypocrisy. Kohli is easily >> Gambhir
• Chanders is IMO better than Waugh. I dunno if it was because Waugh was so good in tests that I'm underrating him in ODIs, I really don't know. I am going more statistically here. He averaged under 30 in Australia in his time. I always did think the crab was underrated on this forum though.
• Flintoff < Razzaq? Lol nope.

"Chanders > Waugh, Steve wasn't a great ODI player"

How do you come into this conclusion?
S.Waugh is sensible batsmen, IMO

Agree 100%. Very sensible batsman, but honestly, he wasn't a GREAT odi player. IMO. Maybe I'm skewing because of how good he was in tests. I'm saying this is definitely a personal opinion.

Maybe just going by the stats and in that too only avg. I am sure they have watched both play though and know that even in ODIs, S.Waugh was a better batsman. He was capable of getting team out from toughest of situations and later on accelerate as well. Chanderpaul can stabilize innings, but against the toughest of bowlers, will he able to do it that well and speed up if needed? I don't think so.

Waugh did play some good innings. Only a fool will deny that. I just gave my opinion based off what I remember and a little digging on cricinfo.

Additional - TMH, if any of your bowlers have an off day, your replacements will be creamed around on a flat batting track. Part timers aren't going to be that useful here.

The key (IMO) is the batting depth and variety of frontline bowlers I have. Each of my quicks are different bowlers.

Sorry I'm at work with a deadline so my posting may be a little sporadic.

 

[The Man Himself]

Only have a few minutes.

• Kirsten was MUCH better than Dilshan. You have to SEE the players to know.
• Kohli only > Gaambhir but Lamb << AB? Hypocrisy. Kohli is easily >> Gambhir
• Chanders is IMO better than Waugh. I dunno if it was because Waugh was so good in tests that I'm underrating him in ODIs, I really don't know. I am going more statistically here. He averaged under 30 in Australia in his time. I always did think the crab was underrated on this forum though.
• Flintoff < Razzaq? Lol nope.

Agree 100%. Very sensible batsman, but honestly, he wasn't a GREAT odi player. IMO. Maybe I'm skewing because of how good he was in tests. I'm saying this is definitely a personal opinion.



Waugh did play some good innings. Only a fool will deny that. I just gave my opinion based off what I remember and a little digging on cricinfo.

Additional - TMH, if any of your bowlers have an off day, your replacements will be creamed around on a flat batting track. Part timers aren't going to be that useful here.

The key (IMO) is the batting depth and variety of frontline bowlers I have. Each of my quicks are different bowlers.

Sorry I'm at work with a deadline so my posting may be a little sporadic.

Kirsten much better batsman overall, if we consider only ODIs, then no.
Yes the difference between Gambhir-Kohli is easily lesser than that between AB-Lamb. AB himself is better than Kohli as of now (something which Kohli himself has said as well). Lamb is not better than Gambhir, so whichever way you look, our 3-4 are better.
Waugh's avg etc don't tell the story of how much of an asset he is in crunch situation. Simply put, you lose 3 quickly and Chanders walks in and we lose 3 quick and S.Waugh walks in, we will have a batsman more capable of stopping the onslaught AND then countering.

As I said to Prath, a main bowler going for runs doesn't mean a part timer will too. So often a part timer puts brakes and take key wickets when a main bowler goes for runs. If main bowlers are going to go for runs, Bracken is much more likely to than Holding. You guys say you will target Razzaq and Ashwin. We have proven part timers to make up if that happens. Waugh has 195 ODI wickets. This is not a random part timer. If Flintoff-Shakib go for runs similarly though, you don't have anyone as cover.

 

[prath92]

Maybe just going by the stats and in that too only avg. I am sure they have watched both play though and know that even in ODIs, S.Waugh was a better batsman. He was capable of getting team out from toughest of situations and later on accelerate as well. Chanderpaul can stabilize innings, but against the toughest of bowlers, will he able to do it that well and speed up if needed? I don't think so.

Ok that Waugh not a good player thing was harsh (i realy like Waugh so it wasnt my intention to sound condescending), but Chanderpaul could bat fast and slow as the team needed. People remember the stabilising Chanders more only because he and Lara had to do it very often. Other than him Lara sarwan and later samuels, no one else could even regulate an Innings. The likes of Gayle were often too unreliable (not like he is reliable now in odi and test). He could be fast when he needed and has many games where he was key with his quick batting and if he has a set batsman then he can support him well with quick rotation of the strike as well.

Kirsten is not underrated, as a batsman overall he is better but in ODIs specifically, Dilshan's record is very good. Dilshan can score them at faster pace as well.

You are forgetting Waugh also as our additional bowling option and yeah having part timers helps especially when those part timers have taken wickets as much as ours. It happens so often that a main bowler goes for runs on a bad day and a part timer does well. We basically can cover for 2 bowlers having bad day. Say our top 3 bowl 10 each, we can distribute remaining 20 among 5 bowlers. There is variation in there as well. Your team doesn't have anyone to cover.

SR matters because if we say it is batting paradise, your batsman at 8 or 9 won't get a lot of overs to bat. Ashwin is well capable batsman to hit few at the end but we don't see him required to do much from no. 8. We will have won the match 5 down at max

Nah Kirsten in his prime was very difficult for bowlers to dismiss. Plus he is a solidifier. Kirsten while scoring with singles and doubles and boundaries, will be much harder to dismiss. Once he got on a solid platform then he was quick to capitalise on it and get the team to a great position

like this game http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65518.html (where he faced mcdermott, mcgrath, warne, both the waugh bros). He has a SR of 80 even though he has just 8 boundaries. He never depended on boundaries to score. He always kept the scoreboard ticking. Kirsten had no problem scoring fast. In the initial stages, he would not need to anyways with Hayden the aggressive one in the partnership. A perfect Combo.

Whereas Dilshan was the agressive one in most of his opening combo but you are asking him to play differently to his natural game. He is a good batsman but its unlikely he will be able to contain himslf for long and will take risks, which is when the likes of Akram will target him.

 

[Boycott]

Only have a few minutes.

• Kirsten was MUCH better than Dilshan. You have to SEE the players to know.
• Kohli only > Gaambhir but Lamb << AB? Hypocrisy. Kohli is easily >> Gambhir
• Chanders is IMO better than Waugh. I dunno if it was because Waugh was so good in tests that I'm underrating him in ODIs, I really don't know. I am going more statistically here. He averaged under 30 in Australia in his time. I always did think the crab was underrated on this forum though.
• Flintoff < Razzaq? Lol nope.

Agree 100%. Very sensible batsman, but honestly, he wasn't a GREAT odi player. IMO. Maybe I'm skewing because of how good he was in tests. I'm saying this is definitely a personal opinion.



Waugh did play some good innings. Only a fool will deny that. I just gave my opinion based off what I remember and a little digging on cricinfo.

Additional - TMH, if any of your bowlers have an off day, your replacements will be creamed around on a flat batting track. Part timers aren't going to be that useful here.

The key (IMO) is the batting depth and variety of frontline bowlers I have. Each of my quicks are different bowlers.

Sorry I'm at work with a deadline so my posting may be a little sporadic.

The counter is that if any of your bowlers have an off day then there is no replacements.

Tbh I am edging towards your team. Harshad's strength is his bowling attack. It's top level but I don't think bowling is going to be significant in this match since on a batting paradise and with the quality of hitters you have, runs will flow.

I don't see that same level going through Harshad's batting which is why chasing will be hard. His batting order is very top heavy.

 

[NM]

The counter is that if any of your bowlers have an off day then there is no replacements.

Tbh I am edging towards your team. Harshad's strength is his bowling attack. It's top level but I don't think bowling is going to be significant in this match since on a batting paradise and with the quality of hitters you have, runs will flow.

I don't see that same level going through Harshad's batting which is why chasing will be hard. His batting order is very top heavy.

Agree - I think we are making the same point, but reaching a different conclusion on the part timers. I agree that if somebody has a bad day from my end, they will be creamed. The point is if one of his guys have a bad day, his replacements will be creamed too, so there is no value in his part-timers.

That's why I believe my better batting is going to carry the day.

 

[The Man Himself]

Ok that Waugh not a good player thing was harsh (i realy like Waugh so it wasnt my intention to sound condescending), but Chanderpaul could bat fast and slow as the team needed. People remember the stabilising Chanders more only because he and Lara had to do it very often. Other than him Lara sarwan and later samuels, no one else could even regulate an Innings. The likes of Gayle were often too unreliable (not like he is reliable now in odi and test). He could be fast when he needed and has many games where he was key with his quick batting and if he has a set batsman then he can support him well with quick rotation of the strike as well.



Nah Kirsten in his prime was very difficult for bowlers to dismiss. Plus he is a solidifier. Kirsten while scoring with singles and doubles and boundaries, will be much harder to dismiss. Once he got on a solid platform then he was quick to capitalise on it and get the team to a great position

like this game http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65518.html (where he faced mcdermott, mcgrath, warne, both the waugh bros). He has a SR of 80 even though he has just 8 boundaries. He never depended on boundaries to score. He always kept the scoreboard ticking. Kirsten had no problem scoring fast. In the initial stages, he would not need to anyways with Hayden the aggressive one in the partnership. A perfect Combo.

Whereas Dilshan was the agressive one in most of his opening combo but you are asking him to play differently to his natural game. He is a good batsman but its unlikely he will be able to contain himslf for long and will take risks, which is when the likes of Akram will target him.

Waugh has done the tough job against toughest of opposition's in challenging condition. Chanderpaul is simply nowhere near.

See, Dilshan can play stabilizing innings as well. In stabilizing aspect Kirsten is better but Dilshan doesn't go BMac way in ODIs.

Also AB impact is not getting discussed much. He and Waugh is as good a pair you can have at 4-5 for ANY situation.

 

[prath92]

Bracken's last ODI was in 2009. So it is not exactly from completely different era. Bracken has more variations and Ambrose will go for more runs on this pitch etc are just disingenuous comments.

Flintoff's career was shorter. Razzaq was around lot longer. If we are talking peak here, there is not much difference. Razzaq's stats get hampered by his figures later in his career.
Ashwin overall is better bowler than Shakib. Now, on batting paradise, both are not that good and I won't say there is lot to separate but as we all have seen both bowl and we know Ashwin is more skillful one.

We had 20 overs of powerplay till 2011 at the least (from 2006 or so?) and Bracken almost always bowled in the initial powerplay and batting powerplay. He was wily enough to contain his runs there. Whereas Ambrose had 15 overs and the conditions suited to the bowlers a lot more than it did to the batsman at that time (90s). Not to mention T20 meant batsmen were more agressive than ever too.

As for Shakib these are him in games where Bangladesh were conceding a lot of runs

Spoiler: Shakib bowling in some high scoring games

Razzaq wasnt the same since 2003 man. You are kidding if you think he had more peak. He had the sporadic game or 2 here and there but other than that 2000-2002 period, he didnt have a same run. Fred had a very good career overall. He was performing even towards the end. He did have a year or 2 where injuries affected him but he was good most of his career.

 

[The Man Himself]

The counter is that if any of your bowlers have an off day then there is no replacements.

Tbh I am edging towards your team. Harshad's strength is his bowling attack. It's top level but I don't think bowling is going to be significant in this match since on a batting paradise and with the quality of hitters you have, runs will flow.

I don't see that same level going through Harshad's batting which is why chasing will be hard. His batting order is very top heavy.

If we see the matches on batting paradise, the difference in bowlers matter when batting are comparable (as they are here). Refer any of India's matches in ODIs especially when India bat first. That slight difference in bowling proves crucial.

I don't see how our batting is top-heavy. AB and Waugh are at 4-5. Duminy at 6. Razzaq in his prime used to get sent at 3 as well and is a very good batsman. NM team bat slightly deeper with Akram but as I said before, no. 9 on batting paradise should not be required.

 

[The Man Himself]

We had 20 overs of powerplay till 2011 at the least (from 2006 or so?) and Bracken almost always bowled in the initial powerplay and batting powerplay. He was wily enough to contain his runs there. Whereas Ambrose had 15 overs and the conditions suited to the bowlers a lot more than it did to the batsman at that time (90s). Not to mention T20 meant batsmen were more agressive than ever too.

As for Shakib these are him in games where Bangladesh were conceding a lot of runs

Spoiler: Shakib bowling in some high scoring games

Razzaq wasnt the same since 2003 man. You are kidding if you think he had more peak. He had the sporadic game or 2 here and there but other than that 2000-2002 period, he didnt have a same run. Fred had a very good career overall. He was performing even towards the end. He did have a year or 2 where injuries affected him but he was good most of his career.

Comparing Ambrose to Bracken even in ODI is just crazy! Totally crazy. It is lot lot more likely for my batsmen to smash around Bracken than it is for any of yours to Ambrose. It shouldn't even be discussion.

I don't know what to make of that Shakib stats as I am sure similar can be given for Ashwin. Ashwin is a better bowler, Shakib better all-rounder.

Razzaq debut in '96 so even till 2003 it is 7 year period. Flintoff had a great potential and his no. are good but I won't necessarily have him as someone who impacted games more than Razzaq.

 

[prath92]

The counter is that if any of your bowlers have an off day then there is no replacements.

Tbh I am edging towards your team. Harshad's strength is his bowling attack. It's top level but I don't think bowling is going to be significant in this match since on a batting paradise and with the quality of hitters you have, runs will flow.

I don't see that same level going through Harshad's batting which is why chasing will be hard. His batting order is very top heavy.

Dilshan has 150 wickets because he has played 300 games or so. Its not as if he is some bowling wizard frankly. On spin pitches against inferior batting maybe but in these pitches, neither him nor Duminy are going to be of any use. I would argue that the bowler with the off day would probably concede less than these players. Waugh again is a good bowler of course and frankly I do think he may be needed as Ambrose and Holding would really do well to take wickets here and contain runs. Their SR show that they arent wicket takers (at least compared to ours) and they depend a lot on pace and bounce in pitches where the ball comes onto the bat well and batsmen deal with fast bowlers well.

I think Bracken here is being underrated. He may not be a big name but when it comes to being effective in the shorter format, there hasnt been a lot of Aussie bowlers who had his impact in the last 10 yearss (Starc maybe aside). He was ODI rank 1 around 2007 or 08. Wasim Akram is someone who outfoxed even the best of batsman and coud move the ball as much as a spinner without even bouncing. Andy Roberts in a pure fast bowler but he seems to be a genuine wicket taker. Flintoff again used to bowl quite a lot. As I said, he was one of the best English bowlers in his first WC. He could swing both ways and reverse swing (as we said, he learnt it from Akram during his Lancashire days) and he seems to have done it more effectively than Razzaq who had a couple of good years in his start but later fizzled out. He is like Irfan Pathan of pakistan. I am not saying they wont go for a few runs (its a batting paradise. Would be crazy to think they wont) but they can take wickets and deceive the batsmen. AB is a good batsman but the others are all completely gettable. (Even he is but I like him and think he does deserve a lot of respect). The requirement to score coupled with the wilyness of the bowlers will be key and may cause batsmen to make more mistakes and you cant ask for better bowlers to make them pay.

 

[prath92]

Comparing Ambrose to Bracken even in ODI is just crazy! Totally crazy. It is lot lot more likely for my batsmen to smash around Bracken than it is for any of yours to Ambrose. It shouldn't even be discussion.

I don't know what to make of that Shakib stats as I am sure similar can be given for Ashwin. Ashwin is a better bowler, Shakib better all-rounder.

Razzaq debut in '96 so even till 2003 it is 7 year period. Flintoff had a great potential and his no. are good but I won't necessarily have him as someone who impacted games more than Razzaq.

Yeah Ambrose is better than Bracken because he is Ambrose and he could bowl fast and rip someone's head and had a good test average. Even though they have similar stats even though ambrose bowled in a period that suited fast bowlers better. Do I think Ambrose is a top bowler, yes. Is he talented than BRacken? Yes as bracken wasnt successful in tests. But ODI is an entirely different ball game. As I told yday to MJJ, no one would select Justin Langer over David Warner, even though the former is the more talented one. Its about your effectiveness in ODIs. And its clear Bracken is as good as any in being effective.

In tests I would agree with you. Ashwin is a beast. In ODI, there is not that much difference. Shakib is often the most economical bowler even after the rest of the bowling has been an onslaught. That Watson innings for instance he was in imperious form but he had an economy of 5 after 7. He is a very good LOI bowler and can contain runs more than people give him credit for. His role is to contain the batting of the opposition and will always be bowling with some greats. Anything over that is a bonus frankly. And he is also someone who can chip in with important wickets as people would try to target him to score quicker and he could pick up a few wickets that way too.

 

[crappycraperson]

Match will be decided by the battle between Mcgrath, Holding and Ambrose and Hayden and Kohli. harshad needs his pace attack to take at least 2 early wickets early, preferably of Hayden and Kohli. If they can get early wickets, I can see Lamb and Chanderpaul either falling as well or slwoing down the innings, in both cases exerting too much pressure on Flintoff and Dhoni. On the other hand if any one of Hayden and Kohli can lay a platform in the middle, there can be real carnage at the end, despite harshad's bowling attack. In that case, only a super effort by AB can rescue things.


So it boils down to that if they are to play 10 matches in similar conditions, which side is more likely to win that battle more number of times. Very tough call that given the conditions. But the lack of extra bowling options on NM's side is a major turn off. On such a track, you need good back up options IMO.

 

[prath92]

And Razzaq played like 10 games from 1996-1998. I wouldnt really say he was in his peak. Batting was improved by 2000 or so as well.

 

[crappycraperson]

If NM is only relying on these 5 bowlers which include Shakib, then ouch... Kohli and Chanderpaul as back ups are pretty meh as well. That swings it for me.

 

[NM]

Match will be decided by the battle between Mcgrath, Holding and Ambrose and Hayden and Kohli. harshad needs his pace attack to take at least 2 early wickets early, preferably of Hayden and Kohli. If they can get early wickets, I can see Lamb and Chanderpaul either falling as well or slwoing down the innings, in both cases exerting too much pressure on Flintoff and Dhoni. On the other hand if any one of Hayden and Kohli can lay a platform in the middle, there can be real carnage at the end, despite harshad's bowling attack. In that case, only a super effort by AB can rescue things.


So it boils down to that if they are to play 10 matches in similar conditions, which side is more likely to win that battle more number of times. Very tough call that given the conditions. But the lack of extra bowling options on NM's side is a major turn off. On such a track, you need good back up options IMO.

As I've said previously, my take is the additional bowlers will get murdered here. Batting depth and ability to accelerate and batting depth. That is where I win IMO. Simply better batsmen. The bowlers are a lot more even. Bracken IMO is being underrated significantly.

 

[NM]

If NM is only relying on these 5 bowlers which include Shakib, then ouch... Kohli and Chanderpaul as back ups are pretty meh as well. That swings it for me.

And how are his backups going to help? the likes of Dilshan and Waugh aren't world beaters. I'd argue that if he has to use them, I would easily win as I've destroyed his main bowlers.

 

[The Man Himself]

Yeah Ambrose is better than Bracken because he is Ambrose and he could bowl fast and rip someone's head and had a good test average. Even though they have similar stats even though ambrose bowled in a period that suited fast bowlers better. Do I think Ambrose is a top bowler, yes. Is he talented than BRacken? Yes as bracken wasnt successful in tests. But ODI is an entirely different ball game. As I told yday to MJJ, no one would select Justin Langer over David Warner, even though the former is the more talented one. Its about your effectiveness in ODIs. And its clear Bracken is as good as any in being effective.

In tests I would agree with you. Ashwin is a beast. In ODI, there is not that much difference. Shakib is often the most economical bowler even after the rest of the bowling has been an onslaught. That Watson innings for instance he was in imperious form but he had an economy of 5 after 7. He is a very good LOI bowler and can contain runs more than people give him credit for. His role is to contain the batting of the opposition and will always be bowling with some greats. Anything over that is a bonus frankly. And he is also someone who can chip in with important wickets as people would try to target him to score quicker and he could pick up a few wickets that way too.

Ambrose career was 88-00. Not really from 70-80s where there was lot of help. More than right now sure but 90s weren't all bowling friendly. Plus the ODI WI team was in decline during Ambrose's prime. Players simply use to make sure that they didn't take risk vs him as even Walsh was not that big a force. After these 2 anyway it was all mediocrity. Hence the SR of 41. You are easily ignoring the econ though which strengthens my point. Bracken on the other hand bowled in a team which is among all time best, with some real greats along with. I mean just imagine taking out Bracken from Australia XI and propose putting Ambrose. They will bite your hand off. As I said this can't even be a comparison.

 

[Boycott]

And how are his backups going to help? the likes of Dilshan and Waugh aren't world beaters. I'd argue that if he has to use them, I would easily win as I've destroyed his main bowlers.

The momentum of ODIs swing through different phases in the innings and that's where part timers come handy to take away some workload. You make it sound a given that part timers will be smacked when often they are handy to slip some quick overs in and pick up a crucial wicket or two as a result of batsmen getting cocky. Not even the great WI just relied on their regular bowlers to fill the innings.

 

[The Man Himself]

And how are his backups going to help? the likes of Dilshan and Waugh aren't world beaters. I'd argue that if he has to use them, I would easily win as I've destroyed his main bowlers.

And Shakib and Bracken won't be destroyed at all?
It is a simple point and it happens very very often. Top bowler goes for runs and part timers bring team back. Hence teams love to have lots of options as bowlers. You can just rotate with different styles of bowlers, not let batsman settle and chip in overs. Even 7-8 overs between these 3 can be difference maker for which you have no one. And I will repeat again, our part timers have 350 wickets between them. They are not in category of cannon fodder. Waugh has 195 wickets and he didn't bowl for long period in later part of career.

 

[NM]

And Shakib and Bracken won't be destroyed at all?
It is a simple point and it happens very very often. Top bowler goes for runs and part timers bring team back. Hence teams love to have lots of options as bowlers. You can just rotate with different styles of bowlers, not let batsman settle and chip in overs. Even 7-8 overs between these 3 can be difference maker for which you have no one. And I will repeat again, our part timers have 350 wickets between them. They are not in category of cannon fodder. Waugh has 195 wickets and he didn't bowl for long period in later part of career.

Bracken won't. Look at his record in India and Australia, where has bowled on flat pitches. 21 in India! 24 in Australia! IF he was a 90s bowler everybody would be drooling over him. It's a joke how underrated he is.

The momentum of ODIs swing through different phases in the innings and that's where part timers come handy to take away some workload. You make it sound a given that part timers will be smacked when often they are handy to slip some quick overs in and pick up a crucial wicket or two as a result of batsmen getting cocky. Not even the great WI just relied on their regular bowlers to fill the innings.

Can't argue with what you have said here, but we can agree to disagree on their overall impact.

 

[prath92]

Match will be decided by the battle between Mcgrath, Holding and Ambrose and Hayden and Kohli. harshad needs his pace attack to take at least 2 early wickets early, preferably of Hayden and Kohli. If they can get early wickets, I can see Lamb and Chanderpaul either falling as well or slwoing down the innings, in both cases exerting too much pressure on Flintoff and Dhoni. On the other hand if any one of Hayden and Kohli can lay a platform in the middle, there can be real carnage at the end, despite harshad's bowling attack. In that case, only a super effort by AB can rescue things.


So it boils down to that if they are to play 10 matches in similar conditions, which side is more likely to win that battle more number of times. Very tough call that given the conditions. But the lack of extra bowling options on NM's side is a major turn off. On such a track, you need good back up options IMO.

But this is a batting wicket. I really doubt bowlers like Dilshan and Duminy are going to be of much use. If a frontline bowler goes for runs then what use is the other bowlers. If you want back up options, both Chanderpaul Kohli have bowled often and get in two decent overs each at least (Chanderpaul has actually bowled in quite a few games ). And it doesnt get better than Dhoni in getting the better done out of the part timers but frankly I dont think any of them would do what someone like McGrath or Akram if they go for runs wont do. In fact McGrath is still a better bet to take wickets than duminy or dilshan. This is a batting pitch and most of my batsmen are adept at playing spinners anyway. Waugh is better than them of course and may need to bowl as in a pitch like this Holding and Ambrose wont have the same effect as they normally do.

And at the end of the day, batting is what wins an ODI game. We definitely have the capability to score a huge score even if all those people bowl. And our bowlers are also not duds. Akram Flintoff Roberts and Bracken are top class ODI bowlers. Shakib I have already shown that he doesnt make it easy to score runs against and if people take him on, he is intelligent enough to get wickets as well beating the batsmen in flight.

 

[prath92]

It wasnt as if Bracken was chased and tried to hit all his career. He was often tried to be played out but he forced the issue and with his clever change of pace, yorkers swinging balls confused all kinds of batsmen. Frankly its laughable to think that he is not a good bowler. Aus had lots of pace merchants like Tait and all so Yet Bracken outperformed all of them and had he not had a career ending injury could have been even better than now.

 

[crappycraperson]

And how are his backups going to help? the likes of Dilshan and Waugh aren't world beaters. I'd argue that if he has to use them, I would easily win as I've destroyed his main bowlers.

That's not the case. Plenty of times part timers can bail out the team main bowlers even on flat wickets. Dilshan is a very handy bowler infact and so was Waugh for some time. You definitely need some extra bowling options in ODIs, in your case doubly so since you relying on 2 all rounders for 20 overs.

Anyway I have already voted so don't want to push one issue too much.

 

[The Man Himself]

Bracken won't. Look at his record in India and Australia, where has bowled on flat pitches. 21 in India! 24 in Australia! IF he was a 90s bowler everybody would be drooling over him. It's a joke how underrated he is.



Can't argue with what you have said here, but we can agree to disagree on their overall impact.

I really doubt anybody will drool over Bracken in any era. He was good but got helped massively by the bowlers or team he was playing in, especially for avg. When you guys are comparing him to Ambrose, it makes no sense.