Test Cricket draft: QF : Ijazz17 vs Mani @ National Stadium, Karachi

[Norris]

Mani/Varun are batting first, have a good batting line up.. So will be putting up a good enough total for you to chase, but a chasable one nevertheless.. On a crumbling subcontinental wicket would that be enough? Gupte with support from Clarke will be more than needed variation and support for the awesome pace line up he has..

So again I feel toss might be the deciding factor.. In effect it might cover up for the lack of variation in his bowling..

Saying all this, still haven't decided which way to vote.. You have a deep batting line up that can afford to lose a couple of wickets in the fourth innings but still not panic about it.. Even Kumble can hang around if needed.. Very well balanced match..

I really don't see Clarke (Marun have already said that they won't use him much anyway) as offering anything substantial or even picking up a wicket for that matter. He's actually not even bowled that much in test match. The likes of Hammond, Worrel and Mitchell have bowled more despite playing fewer games.
And he essentially has 3 proper fast bowlers. I've said this before, but he needs to use his part timers more than I do. I really can't see his top 3 bowling more than 10 overs at a stretch in proper subcontinental weather. So he has to be really clever with his bowling combinations, which effectively means the likes of Clarke will have to ball more in the 4th Innings as opposed to the 2nd. I won't be really facing that problem. Spinners in general can go on and on and on....

Agreed about the toss. It isn't ideal. But way too much quality in my batting and too little variation in his bowling to really make the most out of it.

 

[Varun]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=3;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings
This was the link you posted am I not mistaken ?
There is not a single test match there in the subcontinent which leads to him bowling over 61 overs and giving 189 runs. That's what I find confusing?! And Incase you are trying to be clever about this in just simply adding up the numbers, then I find it very convenient how you left out the fact that most of his bowling spells were 7 overs, 10 overs long. C'mon now! Even Garner can't do much in 7 overs. Weird line of attack you are taking mate!

The agreement was that the pitch is just an indication of the conditions of the country or the continent. So most of us are in agreement that this will be a typical subcontinental pitch.

Kumble vs Gupte ? Really ? One has won India more matches as a bowler than anyone else in the history of cricket. And Gupte played in a time when not a lot was known about Spin bowling. Kumble and Shakib played in more recent times, where it was easier to figure them out.

And I would also like to point out that Shakib's plays for a piss poor Bangladeshi side (Despite coming in leaps and bounds). So certain numbers like his bowling average and Econ will be on the higher side. He really has no one good enough on the other side to stop the flow of runs or make things tight and put pressure on the batsmen. But his Sr (Which I feel is a more accurate statistic of how likely he is to pick up a wicket regardless of how piss poor his side is) is very decent for a spinner. It's comparable to Kumble's and much better than Gupte's. Also, many seem to think that pitches nowadays are batsmen friendly, so to be able to hold his own in a poor side against stronger opposition is very good achievement. If Shakib played for a Test Nation like India or a even a Pakistan side of maybe 15 years ago, he would be much more highly rated. He has beaten the likes of Kallis (even a declining Kallis is better than most players in this world) and others to the best Test All Rounder for a number of years now. His biggest problem is that plays for a nation that will almost always lose. One man can't do a job on his own.

Shakib isn't playing in a piss poor side here, he's playing along side some true greats. Numbers like his average and Econ will naturally come down in such a line-up. I expect the first two Innings to be pretty much even stevens, maybe I may even have a 50-75 run lead. Third and fourth Innings I will take control. More variation in my bowling and deeper quality batting line-up should really seal the deal for me.

Trying to be clever? That's how career stats are obtained, adding up individual tests. No? You're contradicting yourself too. On one hand, he's the messiah of Bangladesh cricket having to play alongside shit players and yet you are using him bowling 7 or 10 overs as an excuse. If he's so good, why didn't he bowl more? Why didn't he bowl better in the overs he did bowl? I'm not taking any weird line of attack. Shakib is not good enough for this draft as the 4th bowler and as it's a big weakness, I am pointing it out. Also not sure how you have decided SR is important but avg and econ aren't. I have not bothered checking for all 3 but I guess Shakib would have a better SR and a worse avg and econ leading you to handpick that as the imp stat. Play fair mate.

Now to the most important point which you have been misselling since the start.

What is this great variance in your bowling line up that you keep referring to?

If you actually intend to bowl the likes of Hammond, Worrell and Mitchell substantially in this test, please state so clearly as it's a big advantage to my side. They would be free overs and free runs. If you do not use them for obvious reasons, your bowling would consist of 4 bowlers, 1 of which is not good enough to be the 4th bowler as I have stated.

 

[Akshay]

Karachi pitch is good for fast bowlers. Wasim Waqar Imran and even irfan Pathan has been phenomenal here. So it's a competition between fast bowlers. Trueman and pidge vs garner Tyson holding. Kumble vs Gupte is similar in that both are subcontinent spinners. Shakib is a good bowler but he can't make up for the difference between both.

The agreement was that the pitch is just an indication of the conditions of the country or the continent. So most of us are in agreement that this will be a typical subcontinental pitch.

I think spin will be a major factor here. Of course fast men will still take plenty of wickets because of the quality of those bowlers, but I think Pakistani pitches are generally overrated in terms of their support to seamers. Pakistani seamers have been so good that they would make any ground look favourable. It's a bit like the West Indies when back in the day it was believed their pitches gave undue assistance to fast bowling but the judgment of history is that it's more that their fast bowlers were just very, very good.

Kumble vs Gupte ? Really ? One has won India more matches as a bowler than anyone else in the history of cricket. And Gupte played in a time when not a lot was known about Spin bowling. Kumble and Shakib played in more recent times, where it was easier to figure them out.

And I would also like to point out that Shakib's plays for a piss poor Bangladeshi side (Despite coming in leaps and bounds). So certain numbers like his bowling average and Econ will be on the higher side. He really has no one good enough on the other side to stop the flow of runs or make things tight and put pressure on the batsmen. But his Sr (Which I feel is a more accurate statistic of how likely he is to pick up a wicket regardless of how piss poor his side is) is very decent for a spinner. It's comparable to Kumble's and much better than Gupte's. Also, many seem to think that pitches nowadays are batsmen friendly, so to be able to hold his own in a poor side against stronger opposition is very good achievement. If Shakib played for a Test Nation like India or a even a Pakistan side of maybe 15 years ago, he would be much more highly rated. He has beaten the likes of Kallis (even a declining Kallis is better than most players in this world) and others to the best Test All Rounder for a number of years now. His biggest problem is that plays for a nation that will almost always lose. One man can't do a job on his own.

Shakib isn't playing in a piss poor side here, he's playing along side some true greats. Numbers like his average and Econ will naturally come down in such a line-up. I expect the first two Innings to be pretty much even stevens, maybe I may even have a 50-75 run lead. Third and fourth Innings I will take control. More variation in my bowling and deeper quality batting line-up should really seal the deal for me.

I think Gupte has probably had more influence on the development of spinners given that he was the only one holding the torch for a while, but I rate Kumble as the better bowler technically in the subcontinent. It's close, though.

Shakib is a decent bowler on this pitch imo, definitely the weakest full-time bowler in the match but able support nonetheless. I don't think he's as bad as Varun is making out, the guy has good records against batsmen like de Villiers, Pietersen, Jayawardene, Bell etc.

 

[Varun]

Mani/Varun are batting first, have a good batting line up.. So will be putting up a good enough total for you to chase, but a chasable one nevertheless.. On a crumbling subcontinental wicket would that be enough? Gupte with support from Clarke will be more than needed variation and support for the awesome pace line up he has..

So again I feel toss might be the deciding factor.. In effect it might cover up for the lack of variation in his bowling..

Saying all this, still haven't decided which way to vote.. You have a deep batting line up that can afford to lose a couple of wickets in the fourth innings but still not panic about it.. Even Kumble can hang around if needed.. Very well balanced match..

There is absolutely no advantage in variation in bowling. If he really gives the ball to the likes of Hammond, Worrell and Mitchell in an all time test draft, my batsmen will have a gala time. He has 4 bowlers, one of which is Shakib who is obviously not good enough to be the 4th bowler. At this level of competition, best he could do is be the supporting act to a 4 bowler attack. He's going to rely on 3 bowlers, it isn't enough. Not when we have won the toss and would bat and bowl in the most favorable conditions.

 

[Varun]

I really don't see Clarke (Marun have already said that they won't use him much anyway) as offering anything substantial or even picking up a wicket for that matter. He's actually not even bowled that much in test match. The likes of Hammond, Worrel and Mitchell have bowled more despite playing fewer games.
And he essentially has 3 proper fast bowlers. I've said this before, but he needs to use his part timers more than I do. I really can't see his top 3 bowling more than 10 overs at a stretch in proper subcontinental weather. So he has to be really clever with his bowling combinations, which effectively means the likes of Clarke will have to ball more in the 4th Innings as opposed to the 2nd. I won't be really facing that problem. Spinners in general can go on and on and on....

Agreed about the toss. It isn't ideal. But way too much quality in my batting and too little variation in his bowling to really make the most out of it.

Great. I think your plan to bowl Hammond, Mitchell and Worrell needs to be highlighted. My batsmen will love it.

4 bowlers, 1 of whom is a spinner is more than enough to give the required breaks. Not sure why part timers are required at all.

 

[Varun]

@Akshay Shakib is a support act, as you rightly said. In this match though, he is their 4th bowler and he simply isn't cut out considering the quality of players he's up against. I have already posted his stats vs SA in the subcontinent. His bowling attack is a man short, no matter how much he tries selling the added variance of the likes of Hammond and Co which, if given the ball, is free runs for my batters. I'd actually love it if he did give them the ball to hit us with variance. Much rather face them than have few more overs of Mcgrath or kumble to worry about.

Also, our pacers are pretty much as ideal as it gets to get the most out of tracks like karachi.

 

[kotha]

There is absolutely no advantage in variation in bowling. If he really gives the ball to the likes of Hammond, Worrell and Mitchell in an all time test draft, my batsmen will have a gala time. He has 4 bowlers, one of which is Shakib who is obviously not good enough to be the 4th bowler. At this level of competition, best he could do is be the supporting act to a 4 bowler attack. He's going to rely on 3 bowlers, it isn't enough. Not when we have won the toss and would bat and bowl in the most favorable conditions.

At the same time he has a deeper lineup and your's appears to be a longer tail.. I expect Ijaaz to have a first innings lead.. Which would obviously help him while chasing the target you ll set..

 

[Varun]

At the same time he has a deeper lineup and your's appears to be a longer tail.. I expect Ijaaz to have a first innings lead.. Which would obviously help him while chasing the target you ll set..

We're playing in karachi. We have 7 batters, he has 8 including Shakib. We are also batting first meaning we will bat when the pitch does nothing the first day or day and a half. This isn't a Perth pitch where 20 30 extra runs from a tail ender becomes so important. What wins this test is the ability to take 20 wickets and the obvious benefits of batting first.

 

[Varun]

An extra bowler win tests, an extra batsman draws them. Give me a Holding/Garner/Tyson (take your pick) over Shakib any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[Norris]

Trying to be clever? That's how career stats are obtained, adding up individual tests. No? You're contradicting yourself too. On one hand, he's the messiah of Bangladesh cricket having to play alongside shit players and yet you are using him bowling 7 or 10 overs as an excuse. If he's so good, why didn't he bowl more? Why didn't he bowl better in the overs he did bowl? I'm not taking any weird line of attack. Shakib is not good enough for this draft as the 4th bowler and as it's a big weakness, I am pointing it out. Also not sure how you have decided SR is important but avg and econ aren't. I have not bothered checking for all 3 but I guess Shakib would have a better SR and a worse avg and econ leading you to handpick that as the imp stat. Play fair mate.

Now to the most important point which you have been misselling since the start.

What is this great variance in your bowling line up that you keep referring to?

If you actually intend to bowl the likes of Hammond, Worrell and Mitchell substantially in this test, please state so clearly as it's a big advantage to my side. They would be free overs and free runs. If you do not use them for obvious reasons, your bowling would consist of 4 bowlers, 1 of which is not good enough to be the 4th bowler as I have stated.

The way I see it and this is my opinion ofcourse. A bowling average effectively means how many runs you give away before you scalp a wicket and SR refers how many deliveries you have to ball to usually pick up a wicket. If you are going to play in a poor side, there is a good chance that no matter how good/bad a bowler you are, you will go for runs. Hence the high average. If you have a very good bowler at the other end who is capable of putting pressure on the batsmen, then it's natural that your bowling average will come down. That's why I think even Kumble's average is a little on the higher side. Before Bhajji came along, he really didn't have anyone good enough to complement him. Most of the best bowlers in the world, have excellent average owing to the fact that they usually have someone excellent to accompany them. There will obviously be rules to the exception anyway as is always the case. But a strike rate is more on how likely you are to pick up a wicket. I agree, this too depends on who is bowling on the other end, how well the batsmen are set yada yada yada. Most good spinners tend to have an SR in the 60's, unless you are freak of nature like Warne or Murali. So by those standards, Shakib is certainly a good spinner. I've never claimed him to be a messiah, never said he will win the match for us on his own. But in a stronger team, he can certainly hold his own. I've been saying that from the start of the thread. And I still believe it.

Regarding the link,
I've gone through the Matches.
Match 1: 10 and 7 overs. Bangla only bowled some 60 overs in the match each innings, and he was essentially used as a 4th bowler.
Match 2: 25 overs. South Africa posted a mammoth score and Bangla pretty much crumbled. Followed on and lost the match.
Match 3: Ignoring. As you said, it was played in Bloemfontein. But played brilliantly none the less
Match 4: Same as above.
Match 5: 14 overs and 5 overs. Bowled as much as any other Bangaldeshi player in the 1st Innings. And Match was drawn so, there wasn't really much to bowl in the second.
Match 6: Rain washed out the match. So didn't bowl.

Regarding the "Variation".
Kindly read my write-up. I've clearly mentioned why I have more variation. I've never once mentioned the likes Worrel or Hammond.

 

[Moby]

Why is Worrell's name being taken next to part timers? He was a genuine all rounder of his time and saying he would only get the ball when others have failed or that he doesn't deserve to bowl in a match like this isn't very accurate.

 

[Varun]

Why is Worrell's name being taken next to part timers? He was a genuine all rounder of his time and saying he would only get the ball when others have failed or that he doesn't deserve to bowl in a match like this isn't very accurate.

Haven't seen the man bowl ofcourse but seeing as it's a test draft, we have to consider his performances and stats in test cricket which are that of a part timer.

 

[Norris]

We're playing in karachi. We have 7 batters, he has 8 including Shakib. We are also batting first meaning we will bat when the pitch does nothing the first day or day and a half. This isn't a Perth pitch where 20 30 extra runs from a tail ender becomes so important. What wins this test is the ability to take 20 wickets and the obvious benefits of batting first.

You probably have 6.5 batsmen at best. Don't really rate Dujon all that much on this track. On the other hand, Dhoni would love to play on such pitches.

An extra bowler win tests, an extra batsman draws them. Give me a Holding/Garner/Tyson (take your pick) over Shakib any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I agree your bowling line up is definitely better (on paper atleast), and if given a chance, I'd take your trio too, but mine can get the most out of this pitch. If we were going to play on a very generic stadium, I'd obviously have brought Thommo in. And like I said in my write-up, if there is any hint of Swing in the first day, Trueman will make the most of it.

Why is Worrell's name being taken next to part timers? He was a genuine all rounder of his time and saying he would only get the ball when others have failed or that he doesn't deserve to bowl in a match like this isn't very accurate.

Hammond and Worrel were both all-rounders. But if I brought that up, I know Marun and the rest of the voters will eat me alive.

 

[Akshay]

I'm leaning Ijazz at the moment because I think his superior batting line-up could decide it. Kumble + Hasan is a strong combination on this pitch (with Worrell as backup), and better than Gupte on his lonesome. Mani/Varun have the toss and the better fast bowlers.

 

[Varun]

Dujon is half a batter now while Dhoni and Shakib are proper batsmen? Ok, there's nothing really one can say to that.

 

[Moby]

performances and stats in test cricket which are that of a part timer.

??
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62793.html
Part timers don't bowl 45 overs in one innings.

Part timers don't bowl majority of the times at 1st, 2nd or 3rd either.

What performances are you talking about?

 

[Norris]

Dujon is half a batter now while Dhoni and Shakib are proper batsmen? Ok, there's nothing really one can say to that.

No, I wouldn't say that. I'm just saying, I can see him struggle in the third innings. First innings, he will do well no doubt.

 

[prath92]

@Ijazz17 till about 70s Indian team was all about saving tests than winning. I don't think India went to a game with an intention to win.

@Akshay while Akram and co. are swing kings they also got good bounce pace and all here. Which surely the likes of holding Trueman and pidge can generate too? Not to mention even Balaji and Pathan were helped in 2004

 

[Mani]

Whether itsfast bowler or spin its highly difficlt to chase while playing last in sub continent wkts.we got very good pace supported by leg spin of gupte.Gupte will exploit those roughness created by the fast bowlers on the 4th and 5th day pitch.

 

[Norris]

@Ijazz17 till about 70s Indian team was all about saving tests than winning. I don't think India went to a game with an intention to win.

@Akshay while Akram and co. are swing kings they also got good bounce pace and all here. Which surely the likes of holding Trueman and pidge can generate too? Not to mention even Balaji and Pathan were helped in 2004

Agreed about saving tests part. But then why should Shakib's efforts be discounted. The 70s team may be on a similar parallel in terms of wins to the Bangla team (although they usually play to win). His team almost always invariably loses, but he puts in a very good shift more often than not. He's not a legendary spinner by any means. But with an excellent line-up like Trueman, McGrath and Kumble, he should easily hold his own and not falter at the drop of a hat like Varun seems to think. He normally relishes big ocassions (Every match for them is a big ocassion anyways), no reason why he shouldn't relish this either.

 

[Varun]

??
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62793.html
Part timers don't bowl 45 overs in one innings.

Part timers don't bowl majority of the times at 1st, 2nd or 3rd either.

What performances are you talking about?

Is he going to bowl there when he has Mcgrath and Trueman? Or bowl that many overs when he has kumble? He barely averages a wkt per innings at very high avg and SR.

 

[Varun]

I'm leaning Ijazz at the moment because I think his superior batting line-up could decide it. Kumble + Hasan is a strong combination on this pitch (with Worrell as backup), and better than Gupte on his lonesome. Mani/Varun have the toss and the better fast bowlers.

I don't think an extra bat in Shakib compensates for the lack of a genuine 4th bowler considering the batting friendly conditions of the pitch which we get the best shot at because of winning the toss.

 

[Akshay]

@Akshay while Akram and co. are swing kings they also got good bounce pace and all here. Which surely the likes of holding Trueman and pidge can generate too? Not to mention even Balaji and Pathan were helped in 2004

Pathan did fine there in 2004 but pretty badly when he returned in 2006. My feeling going into that tour in 04 was that Pathan and Balaji just happened to be in very good form at the right time. Neither was able to replicate it afterwards.

Again, I don't mean to dismiss the fast bowlers. They'll play a big role, especially in the first and second innings. But on day 4 and 5, I think the spinners will decide it.

 

[Norris]

Just to kill some tension

 

[Varun]

Agreed about saving tests part. But then why should Shakib's efforts be discounted. The 70s team may be on a similar parallel in terms of wins to the Bangla team (although they usually play to win). His team almost always invariably loses, but he puts in a very good shift more often than not. He's not a legendary spinner by any means. But with an excellent line-up like Trueman, McGrath and Kumble, he should easily hold his own and not falter at the drop of a hat like Varun seems to think. He normally relishes big ocassions (Every match for them is a big ocassion anyways), no reason why he shouldn't relish this either.

I don't think he'l shit himself, haven't said anything to indicate that. He'd be a good 5th bowling option given the match is at karachi. He isn't good enough to be the 4th bowler in the team though which is my point.

 

[Moby]

Is he going to bowl there when he has Mcgrath and Trueman? Or bowl that many overs when he has kumble? He barely averages a wkt per innings at very high avg and SR.

That's the coach's decision here, if he wants him to bowl or not but the fact is that he was as much a part of the bowling unit of his teams as anyone else and always bowled as a primary bowler, never as a part timer. Garry Sobers was way more of a 'part timer' than Worrell, who actually at times would just bowl to give others a break, whereas Worrell took genuine responsibility of the ball. He'll be absolutely fine as a fifth bowler in any test.

 

[Akshay]

Interestingly, the team batting first has won only 6 times in Karachi and lost 17. Second innings average is also some 40 runs higher than first innings. Anyone have any idea why that might be?

 

[Varun]

Pathan did fine there in 2004 but pretty badly when he returned in 2006. My feeling going into that tour in 04 was that Pathan and Balaji just happened to be in very good form at the right time. Neither was able to replicate it afterwards.

Again, I don't mean to dismiss the fast bowlers. They'll play a big role, especially in the first and second innings. But on day 4 and 5, I think the spinners will decide it.

Garner will be the key pacer in the 4th innings. Has an avg of 20 with a SR of 46 in the 4th innings. Marginally better than his overall stats. He was unique in that regard when it comes to pacers

 

[prath92]

Agreed about saving tests part. But then why should Shakib's efforts be discounted. The 70s team may be on a similar parallel in terms of wins to the Bangla team (although they usually play to win). His team almost always invariably loses, but he puts in a very good shift more often than not. He's not a legendary spinner by any means. But with an excellent line-up like Trueman, McGrath and Kumble, he should easily hold his own and not falter at the drop of a hat like Varun seems to think. He normally relishes big ocassions (Every match for them is a big ocassion anyways), no reason why he shouldn't relish this either.

Not discounting shakib. All I said was he won't make up for the difference between the bowling attack. 3 fast bowlers+a very good spinner vs 2 fast bowlers+a very good spinner. Adding shakib to this won't make it equal imo. Mind you this I'm going because I believe 'fast bowlers will be helped here'

Pathan did fine there in 2004 but pretty badly when he returned in 2006. My feeling going into that tour in 04 was that Pathan and Balaji just happened to be in very good form at the right time. Neither was able to replicate it afterwards.

Again, I don't mean to dismiss the fast bowlers. They'll play a big role, especially in the first and second innings. But on day 4 and 5, I think the spinners will decide it.

That's exactly my point. Good bowlers will be able to get the pitch to help them. If decent at best bowlers like Pathan and Balaji could use this, I don't see why McGrath holding and all couldn't.

 

[Mani]

Coming into the last days play and when you look at bowlers like Holding/Garner/Tyson bowling those Short pitch delivery and yorkers qill be difficult to score aganist.
Bowler will have their chance even though batsmen going strong at 50 's may lack consentration and we are speaking about last day pitch, short pitch /yorkers.
Yorkers with swing happens from Garner bowling would be the difficult to get away.

 

[Varun]

That's the coach's decision here, if he wants him to bowl or not but the fact is that he was as much a part of the bowling unit of his teams as anyone else and always bowled as a primary bowler, never as a part timer. Garry Sobers was way more of a 'part timer' than Worrell, who actually at times would just bowl to give others a break, whereas Worrell took genuine responsibility of the ball. He'll be absolutely fine as a fifth bowler in any test.

He didn't take enough wickets, didn't have a good avg or a good SR. He could give respite to his top 3 bowlers but he wouldn't be decisive in any way when it comes to Ijazz winning the test due to him being a bowling option. Quality wins matches.

 

[Varun]

Interestingly, the team batting first has won only 6 times in Karachi and lost 17. Second innings average is also some 40 runs higher than first innings. Anyone have any idea why that might be?

No idea tbh. Would have a lot to do with the opposition, their quality and which side batted first. For instance, the toss wouldn't be a factor if Pak were weak opposition, they would win regardless.

 

[Moby]

He didn't take enough wickets, didn't have a good avg or a good SR. He could give respite to his top 3 bowlers but he wouldn't be decisive in any way when it comes to Ijazz winning the test due to him being a bowling option. Quality wins matches.

That's a completely different argument that what was previously, where you were clubbing him with part timers and treating him as one, his impact in this game is a different discussion altogether. Are you expecting him to have the stats of an all time great fast bowler? He'll make the same impact on this pitch with the ball as any other batting all rounder e.g. Kallis or Sobers. Would it be correct to say Kallis can't do anything more than giving the bowlers a rest?

 

[Norris]

Not discounting shakib. All I said was he won't make up for the difference between the bowling attack. 3 fast bowlers+a very good spinner vs 2 fast bowlers+a very good spinner. Adding shakib to this won't make it equal imo. Mind you this I'm going because I believe 'fast bowlers will be helped here'



That's exactly my point. Good bowlers will be able to get the pitch to help them. If decent at best bowlers like Pathan and Balaji could use this, I don't see why McGrath holding and all couldn't.

If the idea is that it is a normal subcontinental pitch, I don't see how much additional help the pace bowlers will get on the last two days of play. If there is any help to the seamers, it will be on the first day. If there is even a hint of Swing (If we consider Pakistan, it's possible, if Sub continent as a whole, maybe not so much), the likes of McGrath and Trueman will relish bowling on a Day 1 pitch.

 

[Varun]

That's a completely different argument that what was previously, where you were clubbing him with part timers and treating him as one, his impact in this game is a different discussion altogether. Are you expecting him to have the stats of an all time great fast bowler? He'll make the same impact on this pitch with the ball as any other batting all rounder e.g. Kallis or Sobers. Would it be correct to say Kallis can't do anything more than giving the bowlers a rest?

How's that a different argument? My entire premise and why I labeled him a part timer or Shakib as not good enough to be 4th choice is that a team needs 4 top bowlers in a test especially in batting friendly conditions and he's lacking one. Shakib or Worrell won't make up for that imo. Is there no middle ground between an all time great and someone who barely picks a wicket per innings with poor avg and SR to go with it?

 

[Moby]

How's that a different argument? My entire premise and why I labeled him a part timer or Shakib as not good enough to be 4th choice is that a team needs 4 top bowlers in a test especially in batting friendly conditions and he's lacking one. Shakib or Worrell won't make up for that imo. Is there no middle ground between an all time great and someone who barely picks a wicket per innings with poor avg and SR to go with it?

You are mixing up two things here. Ask these questions about Worrell - 1. Was he a genuine bowler and a part of the bowling unit throughout his career and 2. How good was he at it? The answer to one is a fact, and yes, he was a genuine bowler, as much as Kallis or Sobers or Faulkner or or any other battling 'all rounder' was, which he was, an all rounder. I trust you to know the difference between a part timer and a genuine all rounder, which is what I had to say here. Hammond and Clarke are part timers, Worrell was an all rounder. It doesn't matter what their wicket taking averages are, a role in the team is not decided by what stats it would generate, it decided by your skill. Clarke never had the bowling skill to be regularly a part of the bowling unit and bowl as much as or more than your primary bowlers, Worrell did.

Kallis also has barely over a wicket per innings(272 innings, 292 wickets). Was he a part timer too? Seriously, that's the best way to evaluate Worrell's impact here, just imagine what Kallis would have done with the ball here. You can't find a better analogy.

 

[Varun]

Lot of people still to vote with time running out. @The Man Himself @VanGaalEra @kotha @ skills @rimaldo @Akash

 

[Varun]

You are mixing up two things here. Ask these questions about Worrell - 1. Was he a genuine bowler and a part of the bowling unit throughout his career and 2. How good was he at it? The answer to one is a fact, and yes, he was a genuine bowler, as much as Kallis or Sobers or Faulkner or or any other battling 'all rounder' was, which he was, an all rounder. I trust you to know the difference between a part timer and a genuine all rounder, which is what I had to say here. Hammond and Clarke are part timers, Worrell was an all rounder. It doesn't matter what their wicket taking averages are, a role in the team is not decided by what stats it would generate, it decided by your skill. Clarke never had the bowling skill to be regularly a part of the bowling unit and bowl as much as or more than your primary bowlers, Worrell did.

Kallis also has barely over a wicket per innings(272 innings, 292 wickets). Was he a part timer too? Seriously, that's the best way to evaluate Worrell's impact here, just imagine what Kallis would have done with the ball here. You can't find a better analogy.

I'm not mixing anything up. You seem to rate him as high as sobers or Kallis which I don't as I have never heard or read anything to suggest Worrell was as much of an all rounder as them, they are w of the best the game has seen. Could you link me up to articles about his genuine all round capabilities or his qualities as a bowler?

 

[Varun]

@Skills

 

[Varun]

@RedTiger Tagging you too as I'm not sure whether you read and decided as you said you would later. If you did, then just ignore it.

 

[The Man Himself]

I will definitely vote but will think over more.