RedCafe Cricket Draft QF- Interval Level vs Donadol

Who will win based on players in their prime, team tactics and balance?

  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .

KM

I’m afraid I just blue myself
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
49,910
IL's write up

IL XI
Gautam Gambhir:
3712 runs at 45.26. 9 hundreds, 19 fifties. Test player of the year 2008.
Gambhir.png

Shane Watson:
2328 runs at 37. 2 hundreds, 18 fifties. 59 wickets at 29. Supremely talented.
Watson.png

Ricky Ponting ©
13346 runs at 53. 41 hundreds and 62 fifties. One of the great batsmen of this era. Through 2000-09 he was scoring well over 60 average.
Jimmy Adams
3012 runs at 41 with 6 hundreds and 14 fifties. Average misleading; much better for the first part of his career of 30 matches or so. Grafter
Adams.png

Shiv Chanderpaul
10342 runs at 50. 25 hundreds and 61 fifties. Grafter. Try and get him out please.
Chanderpaul.png

Darren Lehmann
1800 runs at 45. 5 hundreds and 10 fifties in a short career of 27 matches. Flamboyant.
Lehmann.png

Brendon McCullum (WK)
3900 runs at 36. Average as a no 7 is 40. 6 hundreds and 23 fifties. Can play with tail enders.
McCullum.png

Wasim Akram
414 wickets at 24. 2900 runs at 23. Top score of 257. Can swing the ball either way. Control. Partnership breaker. Thinking bowler.
Akram.png

Dominic Cork
131 wickets at 29. Out and out swing bowler. Difficult to handle. Batting average of 18 with 3 fifties. Tail wagger
Cork.png

Saqlain Mushtaq
208 wickets at 29. Never did his talent enough justice. On his day, unreadable and unplayable in all conditions. Batting of 15 with 1 hundred and 2 fifties. Tail Wagger
Mushtaq.png

Umar Gul
158 wickets at 33. Another who doesn’t do his talent enough justice. But is a deadly bowler with the ability to reverse. Rubbish batsman with 1 fifty to his name.

Team Explanation:
Diffrenciating Factor: Balance. I’ve maintained this through, contrary to what people are using to judge, a test match is almost always won by a team which is better balanced. Have number of bowling options in case 1 or 2 frontliners fail. Have batting that can scrap in case 2 early wickets go down. Have people who can score big along with those who can consistently chip in with 30-40s. It’s the basis of my team selection.


Batting:

My opening is a solid combo. While people might not rate Gambhir that high, keep in mind that I’m not calling him Gavaskar or Tendulkar. I’m saying that he is a steady opener who is certainly capable of playing great test innings. Him along with Watson, I expect atleast 50-60 to be added for the opening.

After that, due to some inspired picks :P and some luck, that middle order has turned into a strength of mine. Ponting, Adams and Chanderpaul all averaged above 60 at their peaks (peaks as long as 30+ matches). Chanderpaul and Adams are horrendously difficult to get out.

The lower order is also very difficult to handle. McCullum, Lehmann are established batsmen at test levels with high credentials and ability to hold their own. Akram is also adecent batsman who can help hold fort with the help of the other 2.

Tail Enders are gritty, slow and annoying. Mushtaq and Cork were both like that. Gul is strictly meh!

Depth: My batting has established batsmen till 7 with Akram at 8. It probably bats the deepest in this draft. And when I say established, I don’t say semi-all rounder Irfan Pathan type established. Proper batsmen


Bowling:
Left Hand fast swing: Akram.
Right hand fast: Gul
Right hand swing: Cork
Right hand medium fast, accurate types: Watson
Right hand, offspinner with doosra and the leg spin ball: Saqlain.
Part timers: Lehmann, Adams.
You have your partnership breakers in the form of Akram, Mushtaq and Watson.
You have your “On my day I will run through your entire top order” in Gul, Akram
You have your tail finishers in Saqlain.
Steady bowlers with wicket taking skills: Watson and Cork.

I have depth in bowling, skill in bowling and, I feel, the ability to run through an entire team.

Comparison against Donadol’s team. I feel I should win this. Barely, but should.

This is what I think he will go for: Anwar, Atherton, Sangakarra, Mark Waugh, Pietersen, Hooper, Cronje, Klusener, Vettori, McDermott and Donald.

I think his openers marginally shade mine due to Anwar. However, my middle order is stronger. Our lower order is similar though he does bat 1 place lower than mine with Vettori coming in but losing out that 1 position since neither McDermott nor Donald could wield anything with the bat. Overall, I’d say both our batting is similar.

Bowling: I feel this is where I knick it. His bowling has only 2 established quickies in McDermott and Donald. Klusener is a disappointing 80 wickets in 50 matches. His spinner is a good international, but nowhere near the talent of Saqlain. I have a lot of time for Vettori but it is possible to keep him out when batting sensibly. So once my batting plays out an opening spell of Donald, I’ll get to his core immediately with Klusener, Hooper, Waugh and Cronje having to bowl with Vettori. Whereas, in my team, after the opening of Cork and Akram, you have Gul and Watson with Mushtaq and Adams, Lehmann to back them up.
 
Donadol's write up

Donadol said:
I decided to pick players who make my squad a balanced, fighting unit, because I believe a great Test team requires that balance, and compromising on a spot like opening or the middle order or the strike bowling option in lieu of the other can be quite detrimental.

The addition of Vettori in the last round has given Hansie a top quality spinner to add to his already talented pace attack. My team will be attacking from the word go, in all departments. I bat till 8 with a variety of players in my team, the attacking sort, the staid, partnership builders, the flamboyant, the ruthless, the gritty. Personally, I would've loved to see this team bat.

The bowling is very balanced with Amir included...Donald and McDermott complement each other brilliantly, and Amir provides raw talent with good pace and a bag of tricks in his armoury. Vettori's can provide a masterclass of left handed spin bowling at his peak, and can chug along without getting too tired over sessions. Hansie provides invaluable support, as do Waugh and Hooper.

I'd rather not get into a slating match, so I will reserve my comments on IL's team as responses.

My team,

Saeed Anwar - One of the most elegant strokeplayers of the 90s along with Lara and Waugh. Anwar was capable of single-handedly changing the nature of a game. With no evident weaknesses against the pacers or the spinners and with his wide range of shots, Anwar was, for a time regarded as one of the best in the business along with Sachin. An average of 50 while opening in Tests (it's 45 overall after his failed experiments in the middle order) make him one of the best openers for Pakistan in the last 20 odd years.

Michael Atherton - To complement Anwar's free stroke-playing abaility, I have the dour, dogged Atherton, England's captain at 25, scorer of 16 centuries. His average of 41 batting at number 2 doesn't do him complete justice, but he made his name as the best batsman of the 90s for England. A determined 98 against a fuming Donald and co remains one of the most memorable innings of late. Excellent slip fielder.

Kumar Sangakkara (WK) - Possibly among the greatest number 3's of all time, with 30 centuries (8 double centuries), an average of 56 overall (almost 70 at number 3), centuries against every test playing nation, and to top that, each of his highest scores against those nations is 150+. When he gets past that piddly 100 mark, Sangakkara makes it count. And all this at a relatively pacy average SR of 54. An excellent captain and strategist to boot. 168 catches, 20 stumpings.

Mark Waugh - I love my team, and I love it purely because the sight of Mark Waugh walking nonchalantly out to bat, collars up and fluttering was possibly one of the greatest sights while growing up watching cricket. A peerless stroke player, he could make batting looking absolutely effortless. With no apparent weaknesses against spin or pace, he was one of the triumvirate which battled it out for the 'Best Current Batsman' title (largely in my head) along with Anwar and Sachin.

A vital part of the great Aussie teams under Taylor and Waugh, Mark enjoyed a healthy average of 50 (career average of 42), with 6 centuries, against an England team almost always comprising of Fraser and Gough. Waugh was also a handy offspinner(59 wickets, best bowling of 5/40), and amongst the best slip fielders ever, with 181 catches.

Kevin Pietersen - One of the most dangerous batsmen in the modern game, Pietersen is yet another player in my team capable of turning a game on its head. With 21 centuries in 89 matches, and a strike rate of 63, Pietersen can give middle order that impetus when he walks in at 300 or 400-3. A safe fielder, and less than decent bowler. His Test average in nearly 50 and looks set to improve as he finally looks to be coming into his own as a premier batsman of our time. 3 Saffers and only one Englishman will make him feel right at home in my team.

Carl Hooper - Coming in at number 6, Hooper is another of my favourites from the 90s and a splendid option to have in the middle order. A calm, level headed player capable of ripping the best spinners apart when in the mood, Hooper has a highest score of 233 and 13 centuries in Test cricket, but probably did not do full justice to his batting as his career average of 36 odd suggests. Towards to latter stages of his career, however, his average takes a massive jump to 50.

In 102 matches, Hooper, with his languid, measured action, took 114 wickets, with 4 five-fors. He, along with Waugh would provide my spinning options. Another excellent slipper with 115 catches.

Hansie Cronje (C) - At 7, he is a position below where he or I would like him to be, but Hansie, as a captain and cricketer showed more than enough drive and ruthlessness to care more about the good of the team, until that fateful day in 1999-00. A number 7 with an average of 36, 6 centuries, and a bowling average of 29. Captain at 24, Hansie led SA to 27 victories and 11 losses in 53 tests, an outstanding record. Fantastic player of spin and pace and excellent fielder.

Daniel Vettori - Vettori's boyish innocence can mask the wily and crafty customer that he usually is with the ball. I think he's class, and has had to take a large burden of responsibility in a usually toothless NZ bowling attack. 360 wickets, with 20 five fors and 3 ten fors. Has a batting average of nearly 40 at number 8, with 6 centuries in Test cricket.

Mohammed Amir - I won't even pretend this is anything other than a punt, and a consequence of the fact that this left handed pacer got me genuinely excited about cricket after a long period of dissonance. You get a gut feel about some players when you first see them. Notwithstanding the media attention on them, there are some who are genuinely worth that scrutiny. I fully believed this kid was one of them. Fantastic control on swing and pace, and that innate ability only the great bowlers have of making the ball follow their will. 3 five fors and 2 four wicket hauls in an innings in an admittedly short 14 Test Career.

Craig McDermott - He virtually carried the Aussie bowling for a time in the late 80s and early 90s. For a bowler plagued with injuries, it could be expected that he would have a loss in form or a drop in statistics, as it were. However, McDermott boasts quite outstanding figures for his time, 30 wickets in his first 6 Tests, 291 overall in 71 tests, with 14 five fors and 2 ten wicket hauls. Classic outswing bowler with immense experience, he's capable of taking on a larger burden of the bowling to complement Donald's attacking bursts.

Allan Donald - Few sights were as exciting in the 90s than of Allan Donald steaming in, sunscreen smeared like warpaint, cheeks puffed out, stretching every muscle in his body to hurl it with hostile, fearsome pace at a quaking batsman.With 330 wickets in 72 matches, he boasts the 5th best strike rate, 47.0, in the modern era (minimum 20 Tests), has a stupendous average of 22, and was regularly out-thinking the great batsmen of his time.



12th Man

Lance Klusener - I remember watching that match in Kolkata (?) when he took an 8 for on debut with his direct, attacking, two-length bowling. Injuries in later years meant that he added subtle variations and guile, which got him 80 wickets in 49 matches. A gutsy, committed cricketer, he was one of the most feared hitters in international cricket for a time. A batting average of 32, with 4 centuries for my number 9. To be honest, I hadn't even factored in Lance's outstanding 174 (after coming in at 153/5) against England when I picked him.

13th Man

Yuvraj Singh - Will field well and run quickly onto the field with the water bottle.
Click to expand...
 
All the best IL. Out now for some pre-Independence day debauchery so will try and respond when I can.
 
Oh yeah you cnuts have a holiday (and a dry day) tomorrow. Get drunk while you can.

This is awfully close. I'll give my thoughts in a while soon as I have a spare 5 minutes or so.
 
I'll post it again in case people skip over the OP.

This is my fair assessment of the game
Team Explanation:
Diffrenciating Factor: Balance. I’ve maintained this through, contrary to what people are using to judge, a test match is almost always won by a team which is better balanced. Have number of bowling options in case 1 or 2 frontliners fail. Have batting that can scrap in case 2 early wickets go down. Have people who can score big along with those who can consistently chip in with 30-40s. It’s the basis of my team selection.

My team dynamics (skippable)
Batting:

My opening is a solid combo. While people might not rate Gambhir that high, keep in mind that I’m not calling him Gavaskar or Tendulkar. I’m saying that he is a steady opener who is certainly capable of playing great test innings. Him along with Watson, I expect atleast 50-60 to be added for the opening.

After that, due to some inspired picks :P and some luck, that middle order has turned into a strength of mine. Ponting, Adams and Chanderpaul all averaged above 60 at their peaks (peaks as long as 30+ matches). Chanderpaul and Adams are horrendously difficult to get out.

The lower order is also very difficult to handle. McCullum, Lehmann are established batsmen at test levels with high credentials and ability to hold their own. Akram is also adecent batsman who can help hold fort with the help of the other 2.

Tail Enders are gritty, slow and annoying. Mushtaq and Cork were both like that. Gul is strictly meh!

Depth: My batting has established batsmen till 7 with Akram at 8. It probably bats the deepest in this draft. And when I say established, I don’t say semi-all rounder Irfan Pathan type established. Proper batsmen


Bowling:
Left Hand fast swing: Akram.
Right hand fast: Gul
Right hand swing: Cork
Right hand medium fast, accurate types: Watson
Right hand, offspinner with doosra and the leg spin ball: Saqlain.
Part timers: Lehmann, Adams.
You have your partnership breakers in the form of Akram, Mushtaq and Watson.
You have your “On my day I will run through your entire top order” in Gul, Akram
You have your tail finishers in Saqlain.
Steady bowlers with wicket taking skills: Watson and Cork.

I have depth in bowling, skill in bowling and, I feel, the ability to run through an entire team.

Comparison against Donadol’s team. I feel I should win this. Barely, but should.

This is what I think he will go for: Anwar, Atherton, Sangakarra, Mark Waugh, Pietersen, Hooper, Cronje, Klusener, Vettori, McDermott and Donald.

I think his openers marginally shade mine due to Anwar. However, my middle order is stronger. Our lower order is similar though he does bat 1 place lower than mine with Vettori coming in but losing out that 1 position since neither McDermott nor Donald could wield anything with the bat. Overall, I’d say both our batting is similar.

Bowling: I feel this is where I knick it. His bowling has only 2 established quickies in McDermott and Donald. Klusener is a disappointing 80 wickets in 50 matches. His spinner is a good international, but nowhere near the talent of Saqlain. I have a lot of time for Vettori but it is possible to keep him out when batting sensibly. So once my batting plays out an opening spell of Donald, I’ll get to his core immediately with Klusener, Hooper, Waugh and Cronje having to bowl with Vettori. Whereas, in my team, after the opening of Cork and Akram, you have Gul and Watson with Mushtaq and Adams, Lehmann to back them up.
 
Interval Level said:
Same to you. I think ours will be a classic. I hate RI for pointing out the Aamir exclusion. See my team comparison explanation.
Click to expand...

Sorry buddy...I do have a habit of offering comments on everything whether needed or not. Klusener was an utterly pointless inclusion...batting at a ridiculous 9 so hardly counted in the batting order and an awful test bowling average. A bit like Razzak in my game against harooney...as I pointed out then, Michael Clarke had a better average than him.
 
mmmmm this is another close one.

At first glance Donado's batting is better but problem is that Sanga's average goes down as a keeper. So he can't quite neutralize Pointing. And even though I rate KP, I think Saqlain would have him. I have no idea why IL is playing Jimmy Adams at 4 though, should have been chanderpaul. Still batting wise I would pick Donaldo with Mark Waugh scoring over Adams, not to mention Anwar at the top.

Problem with Donaldo's bowling for me is Amir. Basically IMO it goes

Akram > Donald (Akram edges it, no shame in losing to him though)
Mcdermott > Cork
Saqlain > Vettori (Talking about peaks, at his peak the pakistani fella was better for me)
Gul > Amir

Then IL also has Watson better bowling option than any of Donaldo's part-timers.

This all combined with presence of Cronje and Amir in the same team, has me voting for IL!

As mentioned in last thread, Cronje was one of my fav. crickters so it hurt a lot when all his shenanigans were exposes. Nothing were than having your sporting memories being polluted due to cheating.
 
Red-Indian said:
Sorry buddy...I do have a habit of offering comments on everything whether needed or not. Klusener was an utterly pointless inclusion...batting at a ridiculous 9 so hardly counted in the batting order and an awful test bowling average. A bit like Razzak in my game against harooney...as I pointed out then, Michael Clarke had a better average than him.
Click to expand...
But you can't seriously give any amount of weightage to Amir as a bowler.
 
crappycraperson said:
mmmmm this is another close one.

At first glance Donado's batting is better but problem is that Sanga's average goes down as a keeper. So he can't quite neutralize Pointing. And even though I rate KP, I think Saqlain would have him. I have no idea why IL is playing Jimmy Adams at 4 though, should have been chanderpaul. Still batting wise I would pick Donaldo with Mark Waugh scoring over Adams, not to mention Anwar at the top.
Click to expand...

I picked Adams there because those were their natural positions. Adams was a gritty middle order batsman and Chanderpaul excelled at number 5.

I don't think his batting wins clearly against mine because Ponting and Sangakarra are equal. Waugh takes it above Adams but their averages aren't much different and Adams actually wins if you just count the peak. Chanderpaul wins over Pietersen for me. His openers shade mine. But McCullum, Lehmann + Akram are equivalent Hooper, Cronje and Vettori. Its so close that its a coin toss for me.
 
Averages aside, Waugh was clearly a better batsman than Adams.

Also Hooper over McCullum (come on, have you watched Hooper bat?), Vettori over Akram (Vettori's nearly a full batsman). I'll give you Lehmann = Cronje.

His batting's better and longer. Your bowling's better and more varied. Very little in it.
 
I'll get my vote in before I'm too drunk to remember I didn't :P

The problem I see with IL's batting is that the middle order just looks too brittle to me. Ponting is almost Tendulkar-esque, circa 90s in there, and the bigging up of Adams is slightly confounding. His career average isn't 'misleading', it's actually very indicative of what his actual caliber was. If he'd been a 60s averaging, swashbuckling, game changing middle order bat, we'd be looking at him as the previous generations Hussey, not as the bloke with the loopy left arm action.

Chanderpaul, I respect immensely, and whilst I would never want him in my team, there's no denying his staying ability. Which is part of the problem with your team...after the slightly unreliable openers, you're depending way too heavily on Ponting and Shiv to pull you above a reasonable score. The rate of scoring depends on Ponting, which is a burden in itself.

Your bowling is balanced and very good, but I'd say, looking at it objectively, that the honours would be mostly even in this case.

Also, Vettori is better than Saqlain in my opinion if you look at their Test careers and their consistency, and this is a massive Saqlain fan saying this.
 
Red-Indian said:
Averages aside, Waugh was clearly a better batsman than Adams.

Also Hooper over McCullum (come on, have you watched Hooper bat?), Vettori over Akram (Vettori's nearly a full batsman). I'll give you Lehmann = Cronje.

His batting's better and longer. Your bowling's better and more varied. Very little in it.
Click to expand...

Naah, R-I. Its a case of bigging up the old players. Good aul times type. McCullum is a better batsman in my eyes. Hooper was good, I remember watching alot of him. At worse, he really isn't that much better than McCullum.

Yes, Waugh is better than Adams, but then Chanderpaul is better and more consistent than Pietersen

Donadol: I never said Adams was a swashbuckling middle order types. He was gritty, bore you to death but hang in there types. Like I admitted, on the whole, Waugh was better quality than him. But averages should mean something too.
 
Alright, lets look at this now.

Opening – Atherton over Watson; Anwar over Gambhir. Donadol wins

Middle order – Ponting, Adams and Chanderpaul up against Sangakarra, Waugh and Pietersen. I’m tempted to give it to Donadol on aesthetic grounds (save the world from having to watch Adams and Chanderpaul bat together again) but given that Sangakarra is also keeping, I’ll call it level

Lower order – Lehmann, McCullum and Akram Vs. Hooper, Cronje and Vettori. I’ve already called it to Donadol. Clearly superior in my opinion.

Quicks – Akram, Cork, Gul and Watson Vs. Donald, McDermott and Aamir. Interval has it. It’s not huge though. I don’t rate Gul for whatever reason and Watson’s not a test bowler in my opinion.

Spin – Saqlain, Adams and Lehmann against Vettori, Hooper, Waugh and Pietersen (at a stretch). I’ll give it to Interval. You can’t be an Indian and not love/hate Saqlain.

Overall, I’m not absolutely sure but I’m leaning Donadol. I think he can bat IL out of most games and give himself enough time despite Chanderpaul and Adams to get the 20 wickets. I’ll give it some more time before I decide.

Edited it to make it slightly more readable.
 
You don't rate Gul but you're rating Aamir?

And also, Watson is a proper bowler.

I really think you're underrating my batting and overrating his. But I guess this is all opinions.
 
Interval Level said:
You don't rate Gul but you're rating Aamir?

And also, Watson is a proper bowler.

I really think you're underrating my batting and overrating his. But I guess this is all opinions.
Click to expand...
It comes down to personal preferences but if Sanga was not keeping then I would have defo picked his batting. I do agree regarding the Aamir/Gul thing, no way you can rate Aamir better.
 
Definitely is about opinion. If I had to pick a bowler out of Gul, Cork, Watson and Amir I would pick Amir...but then I've always been a bit swayed by the romance of cricket.
 
I did say I rate your quicks higher

Akram > Donald
Cork < McDermott
Gul > Amir (due to lack of evidence)
Watson >

Watson just doesn't strike me as a test bowler. Just doesn't seem to have any real weapons and for me seems to get wickets because he maintains line and length and he's not as bad as batsmen think he is. Just an opinion though.

I'm not sure why I don't rate Gul. Partly I suppose it's expectations. He's carrying the burden of being the current flag bearer of a line of great Pakistani quicks - Imran, Wasim, Waqar and then you have this guy who has the kind of pace, style and figures you'd expect from an Indian or Lankan quick. He's also boring.
 
Donadol said:
Definitely is about opinion. If I had to pick a bowler out of Gul, Cork, Watson and Amir I would pick Amir...but then I've always been a bit swayed by the romance of cricket.
Click to expand...
Fixing has nothing to do with romance. If Amir had just arrived on the scene and was actively playing, it would be a different issue.

As someone said previously, Ifran looked like an Akram clone after 15 matches.
 
Red-Indian said:
I did say I rate your quicks higher

Akram > Donald
Cork < McDermott
Gul > Amir (due to lack of evidence)
Watson >

Watson just doesn't strike me as a test bowler. Just doesn't seem to have any real weapons and for me seems to get wickets because he maintains line and length and he's not as bad as batsmen think he is. Just an opinion though.

I'm not sure why I don't rate Gul. Partly I suppose it's expectations. He's carrying the burden of being the current flag bearer of a line of great Pakistani quicks - Imran, Wasim, Waqar and then you have this guy who has the kind of pace, style and figures you'd expect from an Indian or Lankan quick. He's also boring.
Click to expand...
Gul is a poor test bowler, no two ways about it. But in the context of this current draft, you have to give him more points than Amir IMO.
 
And I did. I repeat

Opening - D
Middle order - Level
Lower order - D
Quicks - I
Spin - I

They're both pretty balanced. Overall though, I'm giving it to Donadol. Mostly gut feel I suppose...I think he has more winners.
 
This one is too close. I might go IL just due to the 5th bowler, but Donadol has Hooper, Vettori and Donald, who I really like. Then he also has Aamir and Cronje.. Might have to think some more about this one!
 
Aldo PM'd me. The gist was KM is a cnut and he is offended at being accused of him being KM, and that he is definitely not a bot.

He also votes for IL. Below is his real PM:

Hey mate, could you forward my vote for the game between IL and Donadol? I am going for IL in this one.

Reasons : I'll start with the areas I think Donadol is superior. I think his batting depth shades it. Hooper and Cronje at 6 and 7 is very solid. But the fact is while these two very extremely solid players and if you are looking to save a game on the fifth day, you cannot ask for more grit, the amount of runs they will add won't make a huge difference if you are putting on a lead. On the other hand, IL has Lehmann and McCullum, Lehmann and Hooper were pretty even more or less, both with their bats and the part time bowling options, with McCullum being someone who can score quick runs. That could be quite useful IMO.

But the reason I would go for IL is his bowling attack. Akram and Saqlain are two of the most naturally talented cricketers to have ever played the game. Saqlain's downfall was pretty steep, but at his pomp he was constantly in the top bracket of spinners with Warne and Kumble. Atherton is a player who has fallen prey to every good pacer of his time A LOT. He is the most dismissed batsman by both McGrath and Ambrose. While Akram got him 4 times in 10 games, not as much as those two, it was still pretty easy for him. Atherton against a quality strike bowler is a dangerous proposition and he is not someone like Sehwag who can take the game away before giving away his wicket cheaply. I think Watson would provide similar fragility at the top, and Donald would get him as well. On the other hand, there is Donald and Vettori, both of whom IMO are inferior to Wasim and Saqlain. I don't see Vettori giving a lot of trouble while on the other hand Saqlain was unplayable at times.

Ponting and Chanderpaul is an excellent middle order to have. Compliment each other excellently and neither of them would be easy to get 9 out of 10 times. The most important thing is Ponting can accelerate the scoring without risking his wicket like few others.

To me the bowling attack of IL is more decisive than Donadol's, which added with his superior middle order changes the game.
 
And to think I wanted him to be promoted..tsk tsk.

My team wasn't built to specifically to bat the opposition out of the team, it just so happens that I can...the overall composition is extremely balanced, IMO, with a capable fifth bowling option in either Cronje, or Hooper ( who has over 100 test wickets btw). Waugh is a handy option to have too but I doubt I'd event have to use him keeping in mind my four pronged,varied attack comprises of bowlers with genuine wicket taking ability.
 
To you too, IL, woke up with a massive hangover, will try and fly some kites now.
 
It's just an incredibly close match up. If it were to eventuate in real life, <cliche> literally any one player from either side has the potential to swing it for their side. </cliche>
 
I just think Donadol just doesn't have the bowling. Aamir can't be counted and really just leaves him with Vettori, McDermott and Donald.
 
Might be my tad bias in understanding how it feels to have everyone overstate a perceived lack of quality in a certain bowling line-up that doesn't exist to the extent that it is stated. Not sure though, my gut just says Donadol.
 
6-6 now if Interval votes and counting Aldo. Should be another close one.

Now about Amir. I'd say he should count as much as a bowler as Watson does. They have almost the same number of wickets albeit Amir has them in fewer games.
 
Red-Indian said:
6-6 now if Interval votes and counting Aldo. Should be another close one.

Now about Amir. I'd say he should count as much as a bowler as Watson does. They have almost the same number of wickets albeit Amir has them in fewer games.
Click to expand...

For one Watson isn't my frontline bowler. The point about Aamir is exactly what YOU yourself have said in the previous threads. Irfan Pathan looked like Akram II in his first 15. I'm sorry if I don't want to count a bowler as valid frontliner having played so few matches. Watson has 35 matches, is a 5th bowler sharing duties with Lehmann and Adams.

I'm going to maintain, biases aside, our batting is similar and I have edge in bowling. I never expected a runaway win in this one. But I think my team genuinely shades his due to better balance.
 
I agree that he can't be counted as a frontline bowler. He's a step up from Klusener who wasn't really useful at all in tests but didn't get good enough (yet) to be counted as a prime bowler. Thats why i compared him to Watson.

I stopped him from taking an absurd risk but he's still chancing it a fair bit with his bowlers.
 
Interval Level said:
That sinking feeling :(
Click to expand...

It's still definitely on.

You made your team with very similar intentions to mine, to keep that balance which is essential in a great test team. Too many people opted for a strong batting or bowling unit in this draft.
 
On the one hand, Donadol's team looks stronger. On the other, it contains two players who would lose on purpose.

Assuming that this is being conducted under the assumption that all eleven players are actively trying to win the game, I will go with Donadol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.