Have you seen Holding and Ambrose bowl?
Both were rapid pace. Both also had wonderful control to curtail runs.
The bolded part I agree with and why I am leaning towards your team. But I want to see what other opinions are before voting.
ODI Cricket Draft QF 4: Harshad vs NM
- Thread starter Akshay
- Start date
Have you seen Holding and Ambrose bowl?
Both were rapid pace. Both also had wonderful control to curtail runs.
The bolded part I agree with and why I am leaning towards your team. But I want to see what other opinions are before voting.
I have seen Ambrose yes and while I think he is good, he wouldn't be more effective than bracken. They could bowl rapid pace yes but nothing else. And this is a batting pitch where the ball comes onto the bat well. None of Hayden Kirsten Kohli lamb Chanderpaul and Dhoni are someone who are going to be affected by pace having faced extremely fast bowlers themselves.
In this pitch it's a question of who scores more runs. Chasing against akram Roberts and the others aren't easy either. In fact it can get trickier to bat against moving Yorkers of bracken Akram and Flintoff as well. Shakib would be targeted by them and he would chip in with a few key wickets as well. They won't make it easy to chase and in fact it's quite possible that they would make more mistakes in an attempt to score.
Sorry, but even I won't go that far. Ambrose is a better bowler. I'd not argue against that. I'm arguing that Bracken is being severely underrated and is very good too.
@Boycott
Last edited:
Can't believe I just argued against my assistant, but such is life.
. I try to be as objective as possible
. I try to be as objective as possibleLol that came out harsher than I intended to yeah. The point here was that bracken is a very good bowler and would be a very effective bowler as well.
The point here was that bracken is a very good bowler and would be a very effective bowler as well.If that costs me votes, I'm done with the drafting game!
Bracken as a part of the bowling unit is absolutely fine.
I preferred Nathan.
Nm got variety in bowling which suits the odi format compared to Harshad, for some reason I feel harshad bowling is over kill.
He could have gone with bowler and batsmen instead of two bowlers.
He could have gone with bowler and batsmen instead of two bowlers.
I am not getting into a 'my player is better than your player' debate and frankly I don't really understand what a '>>' signifies as against '>'; but you can't have it both ways look at stats for making an argument regarding who is better for one player and take a historical view of having seen a player to gauge him as better.
Stats wise Guptil and Dilshan's averages while opening the innings is better than their career average and significantly so in the case of Dilshan.
Also, you cannot reliably say that given 50 overs, without bowling my team out, you can prevent them from chasing the total by using 5 bowlers who will all be on their 'A' game for the match. While defending a total, and not getting wickets for a considerable period, particularly in the middle overs, you will have to look at other bowlers and in your team you have no such bowler.
Further, to say Steve Waugh is not a decent bowler is a patently wrong. His bowling average is 27 in India!
I have voted for them but I do believe they effed up the reinforcements. Should have kept Lee and upgraded Waugh with Pointing.
Bracken is getting extremely overrated here. Nice stats and all, but he's not in the same class as Ambrose. He's there to supplement the bowling rather than spearhead the attack.
Same goes for Dilshan and Kirsten tbf. Although the difference isn't that much.
Same goes for Dilshan and Kirsten tbf. Although the difference isn't that much.
Chill out buddy. TMH did the same thing, and most people know what they indicate. I've seen enough of Kirsten to know who is better between him and Dilshan. Similarly, Hayden is a better player IMO than Guptil.
I'll respond to the rest later. Boss noticing the frantic typing!
Just to clarify, Dilshan has played a third of his matches at no. 6 and 7 at which position, admittedly, his average his low. This then affects his overall batting average and brings it to below 40. While opening the innings his average is 46.
@prath92 we are not underrating Kirsten, it is you who is underrating Dilshan. Dilshan's record would suggest he is at least at par with Kirsten.
@prath92 we are not underrating Kirsten, it is you who is underrating Dilshan. Dilshan's record would suggest he is at least at par with Kirsten.
He was being severely underrated but even I said Ambrose was clearly superior.
I'll have to strongly disagree on the Dilshan/Kirsten opinion.
Ya we could have but we liked the look of our batting. There are players for all circumstances.
I get the point of batting wins ODIs but you just have to look at matches between two decently matched batting teams go, on a batting paradise wicket, when one team has edge in bowling. That slightly better bowling can save 15-20 runs which can change result. For batting to win it, it needs to be significantly better which I don't think NM's is here than us.
Guptill is someone who has played in NZ wickets which have small boundaries and then score 237 and 50(17). He is a good batsman but nothing special.
Again in the batting pitches, it doesn't matter much. If your bowlers are good enough, they can bowl all 50. And frankly they are wicket takers and bowlers like Akram and the others force batsmen to make mistakes more so in chases. So it's very possible to get the batsmen out. AB is difficult but the bowlers putting pressure with their Yorkers (all of them are known for their moving Yorkers) it's quite possible to get him too.
Country restriction compared to current lineup's balance prevented that. Ponting I would have had in top 3 but one of the top 3 would have had to go down or Ponting at 4. We thought on 4-5, AB-Waugh provides combo who played in those positions in their career and did well in all circumstances.
I don't think there will be such a big edge due to the bowling here. Our bowlers are equally adept in getting wickets. And none of the other bowlers will make a huge difference. Part timers against the likes of Hayden or Kohli might actually go for more runs. And batting is different. Your batting essentially ends at 7 with Ashwin able to hit a little but none of the 3 at the end will even last much. We have to essentially take 7 wickets as against 9 for you and I think our bowlers could easily manage that.
Part timers point has been repeated 100 times and the whole ODI history suggests that it doesn't work as you are saying. 5 main bowlers, especially the ones we have and then 3 bowlers who have 350 ODI wickets means your batsmen are more likely to risk it and lose wickets to part timers. Also a player with 195 wickets is not a random part timer. It is not as if he has taken wickets of tailenders. He has bowled first change 38 times and has avg of 26.6 at econ of 4.17. 48 wickets.
Part timers aren't required to take wickets. They're given the ball to squeeze the innings during the middle phase while the game slows down. Defensive field, tired bowlers. Maybe one or two bowlers get whacked and need taking out of the firing line.
Steve Waugh was hardly a lollipop bowler too. He bowled regularly as a young player while still having to establish himself.
Steve Waugh was hardly a lollipop bowler too. He bowled regularly as a young player while still having to establish himself.
Ok I'm so tired now. Had a class from 7 to 7 and have one more tomorrow too.
Guess @NM will be around a little and plus I guess tmh and Harshad will be off in some time too.
Good night and good luck.
And ya, Waugh is a good bowler but the pitch suits well for batsmen. Meaning the ball will come on well. Bowling won't make that much of a difference as you claim no. We have lots of batsmen all of whom can play well in any situations intelligently. So even if they take risks the earlier batsmen it wouldn't matter much and going by the conditions it's more likely to come off for them than the bowlers. Impact wouldn't be big at all. We have enough batsmen to comfortably get us to a very good score.
Guess @NM will be around a little and plus I guess tmh and Harshad will be off in some time too. Good night and good luck.
And ya, Waugh is a good bowler but the pitch suits well for batsmen. Meaning the ball will come on well. Bowling won't make that much of a difference as you claim no. We have lots of batsmen all of whom can play well in any situations intelligently. So even if they take risks the earlier batsmen it wouldn't matter much and going by the conditions it's more likely to come off for them than the bowlers. Impact wouldn't be big at all. We have enough batsmen to comfortably get us to a very good score.
Even if that's the case it would just nullify the whole thing as the front line bowlers would have given away too much and even if they peg down a little. And Waugh was a good bowler but in these kind of flat pitches where batting is comfortable, it won't be a game changer in anyway. Our batsmen aren't useless either and they have the ability to score at a quick rate like Dhoni or Fred.
If you lose couple of wickets early, I think the momentum can really get hit at 4-5. A problem we don't have with our 4-5. On batting paradise, we can't expect 8 and 9 to be out there batting many overs and doing good because it is batting paradise. If in first innings, if at all batting has reached till no. 9 it should be last 2-3 overs at max otherwise the total you are going to get will be significantly lesser. If Shakib and Akram are there at 40 overs and you are 7 down, they both will play out 5-6 of remaining overs to not get all out. Simply put, batting ability of no. 9 in ODI on batting paradise isn't big factor. For that matter, Holding too has 2 ODI fifties.
Our batsman especially Chanderpaul Flintoff and Dhoni are excellent at scoring according to the need. They would maybe take a couple of balls to figure out any part timer. Waugh is a good bowler but Dhoni is an incredible batsman. It wouldn't be easy like people think. Pitch being batting friendly only helps Dhoni and he is one of the cleanest hitters around.
Not really. It's the customary strategy that in the middle overs bowling sides opt to consolidate what they have. You can't have bowlers tearing in with three slips all innings.
What happens if one of your bowlers gets smacked around?
A Dilshan/Guptill/AbdV can belt someone out of the attack and there's no fall back.
To be fair, you can always ask Chanders or Kohli to roll over an arm. However, I'd prefer to fall back to another of the quicks than a part timer. All 4 of my quicks are comfortable bowling at the death.
What? If we lose a couple of quick wickets, you need consolidation, which is what our 4-5 can give us. If you lose early wickets, the likes of AbD and Waugh will have to play to the position too
. It's part of the game. Additionally, Chanders has a good strike rate at lower positions (which I posted) which shows he can accelarate when needed.if that's the case we do what every team does bring the next bowler and mix it up a bit. Dhoni is a captain who is excellent at rotating his bowlers. He has at many times finished his 50 with the 5 bowlers rotating well. I don't think frankly any of Waugh Dilshan and Duminy are going to be difficult to deal with after getting their rhythm. Waugh is a good bowler but the pitch won't help him one bit like it used to do in Australia where he played a lot in his early days.
How so? You yourself said Chanderpaul is good at solidifying innings and Lamb is an extremely good batsman who according to many was the most talented English batsman of the 80s (though I think it's gatting). Even if we lose 2 wickets, we would still have one of Kohli Hayden or Kirsten anyway and even then lamb chanders Dhoni Flintoff is still a good batting lineup.
Whereas it's more difficult chasing as you have to keep up with the rate and that forces more mistakes. So I would say that getting you down to 2 or 3 down would be more dangerous than its for us.
And no Akram has many times before gone in at a horrible moment and batted well under pressure. Like the 33(18) in WC 1992 final. Or like the 49 against Australia in 1999 or so where he hit McGrath for a couple of sixes on the way. So no, he isn't going to waste much time. Same with Shakib.
Ya and in that consolidation work AB-Waugh are miles more capable than Lamb-Chanders. Chanderpaul at 5th position has SR of 71. If you consider his career SR, it is less than 70 against Australia, NZ, SA and Pak who have had good pace bowlers. Against England too his SR is just above 70. Chanderpaul was never good in accelerating in ODIs. Anyone will have Waugh above him, a player who reserved his best for the biggest occasions. Waugh at no. 5 has avg above 37, I may as well add.What? If we lose a couple of quick wickets, you need consolidation, which is what our 4-5 can give us. If you lose early wickets, the likes of AbD and Waugh will have to play to the position too
Look the explanation above. My point is our 4-5 is better at consolidating and doing it at faster RR.
S.Waugh loves challenges and him coming in at crunch situation is best that can happen to him. AB can do anything so I won't worry about him, whenever he comes to bat. He will take team to victory
Shakib won't be able to do much against our pace trio. I gave you scenario of 7 down at 40 overs. I don't think that when last 10 overs will be bowled by Ambrose-McGrath and Holding, these two will just smash them around. At 45 overs mark, they may go for it and it will be hit or miss. My original point was, on batting paradise, your no. 9 is not going to get many balls to make a significant difference. We are anyway chasing and we don't want chase dependent on no. 9. I would rather that no. 9 help limit the score of opposition which is what we plan to do.
If you look at Chanders strike rate at 6, its 80. We can play with the numbers both ways to prove our points. At a high level, our batting is simply better. Better openers, better middle order and better finishers. There's no going around that on a flat track.
We won't be 7 down in 40 overs. We will be cruising. Dhoni and Flintoff will finish the hitting.
However, we have a panic option at the bottom, which you don't. That's all there is too it.
Ya and in that consolidation work AB-Waugh are miles more capable than Lamb-Chanders. Chanderpaul at 5th position has SR of 71. If you consider his career SR, it is less than 70 against Australia, NZ, SA and Pak who have had good pace bowlers. Against England too his SR is just above 70. Chanderpaul was never good in accelerating in ODIs. Anyone will have Waugh above him, a player who reserved his best for the biggest occasions. Waugh at no. 5 has avg above 37, I may as well add.
Look the explanation above. My point is our 4-5 is better at consolidating and doing it at faster RR.
S.Waugh loves challenges and him coming in at crunch situation is best that can happen to him. AB can do anything so I won't worry about him, whenever he comes to bat. He will take team to victory
Nah Lamb is an exceptional batsman. He has an average of 39 and a SR of 75 (in the 80s, dean Jones had 72 for instance) Your question was what happens if you lose quick wickets in which case I would hardly expect him to play at 100 SR. Chanderpaul's SR at 5 is slow only because he almost always had to come and save their batting. He can definitely go faster if he needs though. Chanderpaul and Lamb are extremely brilliant batsman and there would be no issues anyway. Lamb was integral to an England side who played in 2 WC finals. Frankly there's not much in Chanderpaul and Steve Waugh. Both are good batsman. Plus the likes of that happening are not very high. We wouldn't need a rebuild anyway as Kirsten and Kohli are very difficult to dismiss. The support we get from the top 3 will negate any possible difference. Hayden coupled with Kohli is unmatchable
Chanderpaul is not batting at 6 for you though? His overall career and batting is indicator that he is not v.good at scoring at fast pace.
We won't be 7 down in 40 overs. We will be cruising. Dhoni and Flintoff will finish the hitting.
However, we have a panic option at the bottom, which you don't. That's all there is too it.
That's what I said. Generally whether you are cruising or not, chances of 7 down on batting wicket are less and if that has happened then no. 9 against our pace attack won't change it significantly.
Our no. 4 is most exceptional of all and I don't even need to post his stats. Some of the greatest wouldn't have been able to match AB even in this era, forget Lamb. Chanderpaul in scenario we are discussing is coming in to save batting anyway. Simple point is, he is not capable of accelerating a lot. There is LOT between Waugh and Chanderpaul. Given a choice, I really doubt anybody will pick Chanderpaul in their team over S.Waugh even in ODIs.
As I said again Akram and Shakib need not score centuries. All they need to do is add 20-30 runs each at best which they are well equipped to do. If they are even batting in the 45th over like you say, they don't even need to hit a lot. Both are good runners and both are extremely good at finding the boundary here and there too. Which is a good 50 runs added to the score. You won't have that option.
Our Opening partnership (going by your definition itself) is superior. we have a considerably superior no.3 who is probably going to be GOAT. Lamb may not be good in comparison to AB but Chanderpaul is a very good batsman and is definitely comparable as a batsman to Waugh. Waugh averages 37 and Chanderpaul averages 41. He also can accelerate if required as evidenced by his SR at 6. who followed by MS Dhoni who again is considerably superior to Duminy, it's not even in the same league. Flintoff again is very very good and is better than Razzaq. Our batting is overall considerably strong in comparison. And batting first we have less pressure and we can add a good 40 runs at the least with our tailenders who are well capable of it if it comes to that. Frankly it won't cross Dhoni. That would be a huge score.
Why exactly I won't ahve that option if it is for 5 overs? Ashwin has SR of 86 and has ODI 50 and has avg of 17. Holding has 2 ODI 50s. If at all they need to accelerate, they can. As I said though, our no. 9 is there to limit the target, not hit the inning shot. He won't be required for that.
If you are going to just go by avg. then your openers are not at all better than ours. You can keep repeating Chanderpaul is in same league as Waugh, I doubt anybody who has watched both play is going to agree. Flintoff is again not better than Razzaq. Razzaq is someone who used to be trusted with playing at no. 3 in ODIs and he could both consolidate as well as score fast. He is better guy to have at no. 7 as well.
There won't be a 'huge score.' Not when 3 of the bowlers in my team has career econ less than 4 who are very tough to get away.