Really harsh to be honest. He has a much better strike rate than the above two and is a threat on almost any surface. To each his own then.
Test Cricket draft: Mani vs NM @ Basin Reserve, Wellington
- Thread starter The Man Himself
- Start date
Yeah, guess we have to agree to disagree. I must say though, he is one of my favourites, easily at that but just rate him marginally below the top ones. I agree with that you say too, the guy was a threat on any surface.
Hope this gets more votes btw. Just 5hrs to go.
We aren't making him out to be anything he isn't.
Re your point, Gupte and Clarke are more than capable of eating overs up to keep the quickies fresh if that's all you're looking from them. Guess who will run in to your batters after that though? Garner. Holding. Tyson
Clarke as an overs eater will be fun. Easy runs for my boys
. I'd fancy my middle order against those lads. Lloyd probably battered them in practice and I'd fancy Crowe/Lara over them anytime.I wouldn't fancy Wessels/Smith/Ganga against my boys though.
Argh
It isn't JUST about the bowlers. There are batsmen in a cricket match too mate, and I win that battle.
Source on Viv not being against to score against Garner? I'd back Viv againist a combination of Akram/Marshall/McGrath FFS
Guys, this is silly. The criteria said test matches, but if we are going to judge people on their FC records, then I'd have picked the likes of Richard and Pollock much quicker. I picked to the criteria, but if people don't want to judge that way, that's on them.
Here's my thoughts on the actual game:
Day 1: I bowl and get an early wicket. His strong middle order stabilizes, but once 4 (yes you heard that 4!!!) wickets fall, we are into the likes of Darren Ganga and Ian Smith. He isn't going to last more than a day IMO. His top 5 are excellent, but the lower middle order is non existent. To give you an idea, "Ian Smith" has an average comparable to my sheep. Granted, he seems to do better in NZ, but in general, he isn't going to last. Same for Darren Ganga. His entire series hinges on 5 batsmen scoring runs. That isn't sustainable. Not in one match, certainly not over a series.
Day 2: His boys will get wickets, but my boys will score runs too. Personally, I would back 2 of my boys (specifically Lara who LOVES the big occasions) to put up a big scare and get us a good lead. His bowlers will eventually tire if they don't get my boys soon as well. Alternately, Michael Clarke can allow my boys to score for free. On the other hand, if my boys tire, I have one of the best over eaters of all time in my lineup. Gibbs can bowl and bowl and bowl (seriously, see the write up)
Day 3: They start batting again about mid day. I'lll have a small lead, and they will probably wrap up on Day 4 sometime leaving me a decent chase.
Day 4: We chase down the target by early day 5.
Obviously, it isn't that simple, but I don't think you win test series with 5 good batsmen and 4 bowlers. Certainly not against a team with 7 folks who can bat, 4 good bowlers, and a part timer. We need to look past the quicks and focus on the fact that there is a realistic chance of a collapse in his batting if I get early wickets. Mani/VArun will disagree, but even great batting line ups do collapse. He is a lot more susceptible to it than I am, and that is what will make the difference. 7 batsmen vs 5 (5 + 2 poor ones really) and 4 bowlers + 1 good part timer vs 4 bowlers.
He needs every single person to perform to win. I don't IMO. I'll win a series and am more likely to win in a one-off
Which part timer are you referring to NM?
Also, what do you make of Gibbs' poor performances in the 3 tests he played in NZ?
Lloyd was very poor too. And I think he means Hooper.
I don't really rate Hooper's bowling though. If Clarke is going to get eaten up I don't know what'll happen to him.
If we are judging folks based off 3 tests in NZ when there are seaming conditions around the world, including WI where Gibbs and Lloyd were very good, I'm not sure what to think.
Lloyd was consistently good against other pace attacks too. I'd add that mai/varun don't have the NZ pace bowlers that actually seemed to trouble Lloyd. He had a poor record against NZ in general. His overall average against them was poor.
@NM No one batters the likes of Holding and garner, let alone Lloyd. The bit about even Viv not hitting Garner in the nets is from an interview. It's there in the OP where Boycott explains how difficult it was to face Garner and score off him. Says even Viv didn't hit him in the nets. I didn't say Clarke would be an overs eater, I said I doubt I'd need him but only responded to you naming hooper as a part timer but leaving Clarke out. Hooper wouldn't fancy bowling to my batters either. It's both sides with 4 bowlers or both with 4 + a part timer and our 4 are definitely better and comfortably so.
Your entire argument is based around bigging Gibbs up while downplaying Gupte who was a genuine legend and then throwing hooper in as a useful part timer while writing off Clarke.
Also, it's a lie to say Ganga and Smith have an average equal to your sheep. Hooper, who you are bigging up so much has an average of 10 higher than them and that's when you consider Ganga faced the new ball and fresh pacers while hooper came in the middle order. Smith was known to be a gritty bat too. I doubt you're not aware of that so I'll just let it be. I do agree your lower middle is slightly better ofcourse but you're making it out to be something it isn't.
Your entire argument is based around bigging Gibbs up while downplaying Gupte who was a genuine legend and then throwing hooper in as a useful part timer while writing off Clarke.
Also, it's a lie to say Ganga and Smith have an average equal to your sheep. Hooper, who you are bigging up so much has an average of 10 higher than them and that's when you consider Ganga faced the new ball and fresh pacers while hooper came in the middle order. Smith was known to be a gritty bat too. I doubt you're not aware of that so I'll just let it be. I do agree your lower middle is slightly better ofcourse but you're making it out to be something it isn't.
True. I'm not saying Hooper is a better wicket taker. Just that he is a better option (IMO) than Clarke. My write up was very honest about Hooper.
I still don't understand people questioning my batsmen's records when he has less batsmen and IMO a weaker middler order. Great write ups seem to make all the difference.
Aye. Not sure where this idea of hooper being such a good part timer while Clarke wasn't is coming from. Fwiw, I don't think either bowler would fancy a run out this game.
@Varun: I just wanted the info on Garner. I love the Big Bird too.
My entire argument is about the fact that you have 5 good batsmen.
The bit about Smith's average being equal to my sheep is about true:
Ian Smith: 25.62 (your player)
Darren Ganga: 25.71 (your player)
Roger Twose: 25.12 (my sheep)
Whose lying now?
If you read my write up, I'm doing anything but bigging up Hooper: "I’m not going to call Hooper a great – he isn’t. However, he is a capable number 7 who will chip in with the bat (high score 200+ and 13 centuries means he is certainly no mug – he was a very good player – just not on par with the rest of my lineup) and act as a handy fifth bowler. 100+ wickets in test cricket is certainly nothing to sniff at. To put it simply, he is a good batsman and a decent 5th bowler. I’m happy to have him. Adding to the fact that his laisy gait made him a personal favorite, and I will defend him to the end."
Compare that with your spin jobs in your write up and then comment.
I know Smith was supposed to be a gritty bat. That doesn't change the fact that he simply wasn't as good as you are making him out to be.
I've said my piece.
Fair enough, I was just wondering if there were any mitigating circumstances to that series or such.
I don't think either would play a major part, but I think they might need to come in for a few overs each. If either team wants to employ spin from both ends at any point they are the only option.
That is a really weak argument with all due respect. Lloyd got out to the likes of Yuile, Cunis, Troup, players no one has ever heard of and cricinfo showed me had very short careers and poor wicket taking ability (Ave of 37. Even at home, they were pretty poor). The only remarkable name I found there was Hadlee and perhaps Cairns.
Edit: I still think your middle order will outdo Marun's though.
Last edited:
Re Garner : In the interview with Boycott, he talks about facing Garner and how impossible he found to score off him. So he talks to Botham and asks him for advice. Botham had played with Garner in County cricket or something, forgetting as I saw the video couple of days back. So Botham tells him you just have to try and survive as you can't hit Garner. So Boycott asks him how Viv bats against him then as Botham and Viv played for the same county some time I believe. Botham tells him even Viv says he can't hit him in the nets. So Boycott says I'll go off to bed then and leaves
I didn't lie about their average. I said hooper on average has 10 runs more. That when you consider Ganga opened the batting is not a big difference at all considering Ganga won't need to face the new ball here.
There are no spin jobs in our write up mate. Everything we have said about Gupte is true which is what you are referring to I believe. The guy was a legend. Not only sobers but our spin generation of bedi and Prasanna talk about him that way. I have quoted them in the OP too.
I'm not bigging up Smith to be some world beater either. Don't think anything I have said indicates that. Just said he is gritty and not a free wicket as you are implying. Playing at home is a big plus too.
Assume this is about Gupte. All of it is true mate. Nothing we have made up there.
It's far from over too. We'll have atleast 5-6 more votes. You know that we'll
No Lloyd's NZ record. I did prove you were talking crap about your lower order average though. sorry runningAssume this is about Gupte. All of it is true mate. Nothing we have made up there.
It's far from over too. We'll have atleast 5-6 more votes. You know that we'll
If you don't, I might as well go home. Lara/Crowe/Lloyd/Ames/Hooper is better than Kanhai/Kalli/Clarke/Ganga/Smith. It's a no contest that I thought would easily win me the game, but it doesn't look that way.
I do think you've under-sold Ames. Not as good a batsman as the modern greats like Sanga and Gilly but a better wicket-keeper than either in my book. His 1 stumping per every 2 tests should be highlighted too, it's an insane record.
Wtf mate? It was me that actually told Ijazz not to be so specific about that as it's about the condition in general and not specifically about the venue or country.
And no, you didn't point out anything. You misread the point I made initially and refuted that. I specifically compared their average to hooper in the first post itself which you have ignored.
Uhmm, so the Sheep draft goes into meltdown ?
What happens if we end up with a tie?
A combined XI in the quarters ?
Was I not the one to tell you not to consider specific records for the likes of Lloyd and to consider the venue indicative of the pitch only saying it'd be much like aus, Eng etc?
I am slightly leaning towards NM right now. His batting looks stronger, bowling maybe slightly better for Mani/Varun but presence of Ganga nullifies that advantage. Hooper+Ames >> Smith+Ganga. Rest all is decently matched. NM has advantage of bowling first. Still tough to call though, not able to make up mind for sure.
Yep. NM said something similar too if I recall correctly. But I ignored the both of you, since most of the other match ups also took that into consideration. Especially RT vs PS18, Prath92 vs Kazi, Samid vs Harshad (last one was only about stats in England ffs).
Cheers. There you go NM.
Yeah, it has been a little over-done imo and I'm at fault for that too. Tbf in the RT vs PS match I think everyone came around to looking at subcontinental records instead of only SL. Matches in England are a little different to other 'seamer-friendly' countries though, because they offer plenty of reverse-swing and can be good for spinners too depending.
He does have the marginally better lower middle order. We have much better pacers and that's where the game will get decided in such conditions imo. Ganga isn't a write off though. Avg of 26 as an opener. Hooper has 36 in the middle order. That's 10 runs. Ganga has centuries at aus vs Mcgrath and Co too. He is a sheep ofcourse but he can stitch together a decent knock especially given he'll bat in a comfortable area.
It's a very close game ofcourse but I think our side would nick it with Garner, holding and Tyson being the difference.
Well, that was the point I made with with NZ also. I'm sure every one remembers India's horrendous showing maybe 5-6 years back. I think only Sehwag came out of that tour respectfully. The balls swings more wildly in NZ than anywhere else imo (but I may be wrong), which was why I was the first to point out that it will probably be a low scoring game. My decision to vote for NM is based on that alone. Had it been in some other condition, I might have had a rethought.
Wow, I thought votes would go up. But many chickening out. Maybe I should have too
Bowlers wins matches(which any greats would agree), yes you need batters to score runs but coming into the 4-5 days play were we need to bowl last and with pitch showing all wear and tear bowlers will have field day. Especially when bowlers such as Holding/Garner/Tyson coming at you and pitch to assist it would be difficult to score,With odd ball getting low even the set batsmen had struggled to score out of it.
WTH @Akshay , I thought Akash was the fickle one.
What changed your mind man?
Bloody hell I can't make my mind up about this one. Now leaning NM because his batting is better, toss, diversity of bowlers, and I like Ames. I'm like MG at the moment.
Please don't tell me my constant non stop yapping swayed it!
I'm reading about Garner now. Might come out of that with a different opinion yet again.