Test draft - Akshay vs Akash - Akshay wins

[Varun]

Welcome to the first match of the test draft!

• Judge the players on their peaks excluding any 6-12 month purple patch.

• Vote for the team you think will win a 3 match test series between these 2 sides based on the given nature of pitches.

1. 1st test: Good batting pitch.
2. 2nd test: Slow wicket which gets worse as the game goes on and will assist spinners heavily.
3. 3rd test: Green top. Assists pace, seam and swing bowling.

 

[Varun]

Team Akash:

1. David Boon
2. Sunil Gavaskar
3. Younis Khan
4. Martin Crowe
5. Virat Kohli / Seymour Nurse (Nurse to play in 3rd test)
6. Carl Hooper
7. Jeff Dujon
8. Ryan Harris
9. Darren Gough
10. Shoaib Akhtar
11. Mutthaiah Muralitharan


Batting

Sunil Gavaskar and David Boon will be opening the batting for my team and will form a solid backbone. The one thing you are absolutely guaranteed with this pair is that they are not going to give away their wickets cheaply. Gavaskar needs very little introduction. The greatest opening batsman and one of the greatest players of fast bowling of all time. He took the great West Indian attack on and averaged a remarkable 65. Boon lacked Gavaskar's grace but made for it by his sheer tenacity and technique. His average stands at a respectable 43.

Younis Khan and Martin Crowe will come in 3 and 4 respectively. Two technically brilliant batsmen are extremely well equipped to handle world class bowling or the rigours of spin bowling. Younis Khan is perhaps Pakistan's greatest ever batsman and one of the best number 3's in this draft. Unlike a few other subcontinent batsmen Younis Khan compliments his home record with very good records in places like Australia. Younis averages over 50 over all in Tests. Unlike, Younis khan, there's no doubting the fact that Crowe is his country's best ever player. Not only a fantastic batsman but an exceedingly good captain who lead by example. Crowe averaged over 45 in Tests. Khan and Crowe will build on the foundations laid by the openers and have the talent to build on a huge score.

Hooper, Kohli and Dujon complete the batting order. Elegant and classy, Hooper and Kohli are both perfect fit to take the innings forward after the foundations have been set by the excellent top 4. Hooper never truly did justice to his enormous talent and ability. Hooper averaged 36 in Tests however his peak came when he came out of retirement and averaged close to 50 late on his career before promptly retiring again. Virat Kohli is one of the most talented batsman of his generation without doubt. Averages over 44 in Tests with an excellent record overseas with the exception of England. Coming in at 5 and 6 with the strength of batting above them will allow and Hooper and Kohli to play their shots and flourish. Jeff Dujon will be my keeper. He averages 31 in Tests which was more than respectable for a keeper during his times.

Perhaps not as well known as the rest of my players is Seymour Nurse. Nurse only played 29 Tests for the Windies, partly down to taking up the Sport much later and partly down to the ridiculous talent in the Windies team (Rohan Kanhai stood in his way). Once he established himself in West Indian team however there was no looking back. Nurse averaged in the mid 50's in his last two years of cricket while playing in the testing conditions of England, New Zealand and Australia. He bowed out with a knock of 258 in his final innings, a record which stands to this day. He was named Wisden Cricketer of the Year in 1967.

Bowling

Shoaib Akhtar, Ryan Harris and Darren Gough make up my fast bowling quota. Shoaib Akhtar needs very little introduction. Flamboyant and often controversial, he's the fastest bowler in the world and a genuine wicket taker. Only two bowlers better his brilliant strike rate of 45 in the entire draft which he achieved with an excellent average of 25. Supplementing him are Darren Gough and Ryan Harris. Injuries deprived Harris of a much longer career but in what games he did play he was truly fantastic. An average of 23 complimented with a strike rate of just over 50 point towards another outright wicket taker. In Darren Gough, I get versatility and quality. Gough mastered both the conventional swing and reverse swing make him lethal with the old ball. He's one of the few bowlers who not only did well in tough Asian conditions but actually thrived in them.

Complimenting the above will be one of two greatest spinners of all time. No player in the history of Test Cricket has more wickets. Of all the spinners he has the best average (at 22) and the best strike rate (at 55). A magician who could spin the ball on any surafce and well used to bowling long spells. Combating his vicious spin and variations will not be easy on any pitch never mind a square turner. To support his workload will be Carl Hooper who's a big danger on pitches than offer spin and variable bounce. In short, this bowling lineup has no weakness, no bowlers that could be targeted and wicket takers throughout. Every single bowler has a strike rate of less than 55 and an average of less than 28. Batsmen are not going to find it easy against this attack.


General Strategy

• The lineup remains the same for the first two games. Nurse replaces Kohli in the 3rd Test.

• The way I see it the real test is Ambrose and Steyn, two undoubtedly world class bowlers. And I have the perfect batsman to counter that in Gavaskar. Alongside Boon, Younis and Crowe I believe I have more than enough to quality to blunt if not entirely quell the threat of his frontline bowlers. The res tof his attack isn't much to write home about and will basically be cannon fodder for my batting lineup.

• Can his batting hold out against my bowlers? The world's fastest bowler and the world's best spinner complimented with two more wicket takers in Gough and Harris might be too much for his batting. Spin is quite clearly an area where I have a huge edge but another area where my team is well equipped in is reverse swing. In Gough and Akhtar I have two fantastic exponents of the art. There will be no respite even with the old ball be it Murali or Akhtar.

• Overall, I feel I have the better batting lineup and a lot more variety in the bowling lineup. Akshay's team is going to find it very difficult to pick 20 wickets in the first test whereas the second test is tailor made for my bowling with Murali in the ranks. The third test will see Gavaskar and rest of my quality batters come to the fore and deliver the runs.

 

[Varun]

Team Akshay:

Playing XIs in Batting Order:
Pitch 1: Sehwag, Gooch, Abbas, Gower, Misbah, Ganguly, Healy, Ambrose, Steyn, Fraser, Lyon
Pitch 2: Sehwag, Gooch, Abbas, Gower, Misbah, Ganguly, Healy, Ashwin, Ambrose, Steyn, Lyon
Pitch 3: Sehwag, Gooch, Abbas, Gower, Misbah, Ganguly, Healy, Ambrose, Steyn, Fraser, Lyon

Batting:

Virender Sehwag (8500 runs, AVG: 49)
A destructive opener with a strike rate in the 80s, Sehwag is capable of dominating bowlers and hitting them out of the attack like few others. On a flat wicket he is a bowler's nightmare, with matchwinning scores such as his 309 in Multan against the likes of Shoaib Akhtar. Even on a raging turner as in Galle where spinners accounted for 30 of the 40 wickets, he humiliated Muralitharan on his home turf with an innings of 201*, when only two other Indian batsmen managed double figures.

Graham Gooch (8900 runs, AVG: 42)
England's 2nd highest Test run scorer, Gooch was an immaculate blend of offense and defense, combining steady run accumulation with heavy hitting when he deemed appropriate. He frequently faced and stood up to fearsome pace bowling, such as his 153 at Sabina Park against an attack featuring Marshall, Holding, Garner and Croft. He played almost a quarter of his Tests against various dominant Windies attacks, averaging 45 throughout.

Zaheer Abbas (5000 runs, AVG: 45)
A fluent stroke-player with immense concentration levels, Abbas (aka 'Zed') was adept in swinging conditions as well as those favouring spin, with scores of 274 and 240 in England, as well as hammering 176, 96, and 235* in consecutive innings against India's spin trio of Bedi, Chandrasekhar and Prasanna. Playing against India always seemed to bring the best out of him, to the extent that Amul ran billboard ads pleading 'Zaheer, ab bas...Have some Amul butter'.

David Gower (8200 runs, AVG: 44)
Gower was an elegant left hander who at times made batting seem effortless. England's 4th highest Test run scorer, he found success against spinners like Chandrasekhar and Qadir, scoring 200* against Kapil Dev's India in Birmingham, and 173* against Pakistan in Lahore. He also scored 154* in the second innings of that test at Sabina Park.



Misbah-ul-Haq (4300 runs, AVG: 49)
A gritty battler, Misbah serves as an anchor in this batting order, allowing the other batsmen to play their shots. Defensively solid and consistent, Misbah does not give away his wicket easily, and consequently has 32 Test fifties in just 106 innings. He is also an excellent leader, having taken over Pakistan in difficult times with the team being unable to play at home, but still managing to lead them to 20 wins in 42 Tests, the highest percentage for a Pakistani captain.

Sourav Ganguly (7200 runs, AVG: 42)
Dada is our captain and inspiration. He was also a graceful and precise batsman who loved scoring on the off side with commanding square cuts and cover drives. His vulnerability to bouncers early in his career was also largely negated by hard work and improvement after 2007. Ganguly was a big fan of David Gower, and he will relish the chance to line up alongside his idol.

Ian Healy (4300 runs, AVG: 27)
Arguably Australia's best keeper of the 20th century, averaging two catches per innings and a stumping every six. He kept wicket to both quicks like Hughes and McGrath, as well as being particularly known for his keeping to spinners like Warne. His earlier struggles with the bat notwithstanding, he was also a very useful batsman in his prime from 93-98, during which he scored 3000 runs at an average of 35.

Bowling:

Sir Curtly Ambrose (405 wickets, AVG: 21.0)
A 6'7 giant with a release point almost 10 feet off the ground, Ambrose could get bounce on any kind of wicket. He also had incredible control, displayed for example when the Windies toured England in 1991. Despite the series being played on slow pitches, Ambrose finished as the top bowler with 28 wickets at an average of 20. Of course when the conditions were helpful he took full advantage and was often unplayable, such as Perth 1993, where he collected 7 wickets for the price of 1 run in the space of 32 deliveries. Overall, Ambrose's blend of pace, bounce and control notched him 22 five-fors during his career, often turning a match on its head in the process.

Mcgrath said:

His control was amazing. I admired him, no doubt about that. We were similar, but he probably did it a lot easier.

Dale Steyn (406 wickets, AVG: 22.5)
The ability to swing the ball both ways with accuracy and extreme pace (his fastest ball was 156km/h) makes Steyn the perfect complement to Ambrose. He has the best strike rate (41.7) of any bowler with 100+ wickets since WWI, a number made even more staggering by the fact that Steyn has bowled entirely in the 21st century, ostensibly the era of batsmen and batting friendly pitches. His ability to conjure reverse swing on slow subcontinental wickets thought to be seamer unfriendly has allowed him tremendous success there, as he's taken 90 wickets at 22.5 in Asia, exemplified in spells like his 7-51 in Nagpur.

Angus Fraser (177 wickets, AVG: 27.3)
Regarded as one of the best medium pace bowlers, Fraser was extremely controlled and consistent, with a stock offswinging delivery he had perfected in all conditions. His parsimonious economy of 2.66 earned him the nickname of 'Scrooge'. Fraser was also tireless, and could lockdown one end for long spells, creating pressure and allowing interchanging bowlers to come in and reap wickets. He was also a capable wicket-taker in his own right, such as in his 6-82 against Australia at the MCG and two 8 wicket hauls against the West Indies.

Nathan Lyon (195 wickets, AVG: 32.9)
Lyon's Test selection ended Australia's constant search for a viable spin option and since then he has become Australia's most prolific offspinner. Lyon has maintained a respectable average despite having played most of his Tests in spinner-unfriendly conditions. He relishes playing as an attacking spinner and is consequently the 4th highest wicket taker of the current decade. His 7-152 against India in Adelaide proves he can succeed in hostile conditions even against batsmen experienced at playing spin.

Ravichandran Ashwin (176 wickets, AVG: 25.4)
An accomplished offspinner, Ashwin is a matchwinner on slow wickets. In the subcontinent his average improves to 20.5 with a strike rate of just 44, in fact only Imran Khan has a better average in Asia (among bowlers with 100+ wickets in Asia). Among his best spells are 7-66 against South Africa in Nagpur, 7-103 against Australia in Chennai, and 6-46 in Sri Lanka at Galle. He's also a credible batsman, with an average of 32 and two Test centuries to his name.

Why We'll Win:
- Batting Pitch: On a pitch which offers little for bowlers you need control and precision to keep the batsmen in check and build pressure, and that's an area where Ambrose-Steyn-Fraser is far superior to Akhtar-Gough-Harris. Added to that our batsmen (especially Sehwag) are natural stroke makers, and are more likely to be able to chase down a large score in time. On the other hand, Akash will have Gavaskar plodding along and ruining any chance of a fast chase to prevent a draw.

- Spinning Pitch: Our chief advantage here is being able to employ specialist spinners from both ends. Muralitharan is undoubtedly a big threat but on a pitch like this Ashwin is almost his equal, and has better support to boot. Steyn also has had tremendous success in these conditions, and Ambrose is a threat anywhere.

- Seaming/Swinging Pitch: The best pitch for us as our pace spearheads will be simply unplayable here. Steyn and Ambrose will open the bowling, and then Fraser will relieve Steyn, allowing both spearheads to interchange and bowl in short devastating bursts. Lyon will be bowling in home conditions, and will be able to contribute ably although we won't need to call on him much.

 

[Varun]

@Akash @Akshay

 

[Akshay]

Best of luck, Skyman.

 

[Nighteyes]

This was what Akhtar could at his peak to two of the all time greats of the game.

 

[Akshay]

This is what Sehwag actually did to Akhtar.

 

[Nighteyes]

This is what Sehwag actually did to Akhtar.

This is a peak draft. Akhtar was drugged up and injured by then

 

[Varun]

 

[Akshay]

This is a peak draft. Akhtar was drugged up and injured by then

That was his 3rd most prolific season in terms of wickets!

 

[Varun]

Just to make it clear, the poll options are the way they are to ensure voters consider all the conditions separately and nothing more. The winner will be the guy who gets more votes and not judged by number of tests won by each.

So, if just 3 voters voted in a game with 2 of them going for 1-0 wins for team X and 1 going for a 3-0 win for team Y. It will be team X that wins.

 

[Akshay]

Will it be used as a tie-breaker?

 

[Nighteyes]

Batting Pitch: On a pitch which offers little for bowlers you need control and precision to keep the batsmen in check and build pressure, and that's an area where Ambrose-Steyn-Fraser is far superior to Akhtar-Gough-Harris. Added to that our batsmen (especially Sehwag) are natural stroke makers, and are more likely to be able to chase down a large score in time. On the other hand, Akash will have Gavaskar plodding along and ruining any chance of a fast chase to prevent a draw.

They are not far superior at all. They only have marginally better economy rates negated by the fact that my bowlers have the better strike rates. My lower middle order is filled with stroke makers who will make merry after Gavaskar drains down your attack.

-

Spinning Pitch: Our chief advantage here is being able to employ specialist spinners from both ends. Muralitharan is undoubtedly a big threat but on a pitch like this Ashwin is almost his equal, and has better support to boot. Steyn also has had tremendous success in these conditions, and Ambrose is a threat anywhere.

Specialist spinners are all well and good but yours are bang average. Gavaskar and co are going to eat Lyon and Ashwin up and shit them out without even the hint of indigestion. Ashwin and Lyon are to Murali what Smalling is to Maldini. Utterly irrelevant. Second as far as support goes, Gough and AKhtar have excellent records in the subcontinent and masters of reverse swing.

And this is Carl Hooper on turners

- Seaming/Swinging Pitch: The best pitch for us as our pace spearheads will be simply unplayable here. Steyn and Ambrose will open the bowling, and then Fraser will relieve Steyn, allowing both spearheads to interchange and bowl in short devastating bursts. Lyon will be bowling in home conditions, and will be able to contribute ably although we won't need to call on him much.

Ambrose and Steyn are good, granted but you're selling my seamers short. Having someone like Murali in my team who can bowl mammoth spells (Has bowled the most balls in Tests by a huge distance) allows me to rotate the rest and they are all wicket takers.

That was his 3rd most prolific season in terms of wickets!

He was obviously past his best by then. Even his strike rates and averages have climbed from his peak. Of course, he still managed to get Sehwag out for a first ball duck later on in the series so they're still even.

 

[Nighteyes]

For anyone who's forgotten the genius of Murali.

 

[Varun]

Will it be used as a tie-breaker?

Only if we can't get more voters.

 

[Akshay]

They are not far superior at all. They only have marginally better economy rates negated by the fact that my bowlers have the better strike rates. My lower middle order is filled with stroke makers who will make merry after Gavaskar drains down your attack.

If you're saying Akhtar and Gough are on the same level as Ambrose and Steyn, I have no words. Gavaskar is a very good batsman, the best opener in the draft imo, and will be a good contest between him and my spearheads. However, David Boon played his best innings at no. 3, and although he also has a good record as an opener Ambrose has accounted for him 8 times for an average of 31. Younis Khan has been dismissed by Ambrose 3 times in 3 matches, for scores of 2, 4, and 2. Gavaskar doesn't score at a particularly high rate, so if wickets are falling all around him, he's going be under a lot of pressure.

Also, you missed the point. The idea was that on a flat deck you need controlled pace, with accurate line and length, otherwise you will get hit, and hit hard. My seamers are all excellent at that. Akhtar and Gough are not.

Specialist spinners are all well and good but yours are bang average. Gavaskar and co are going to eat Lyon and Ashwin up and shit them out without even the hint of indigestion. Ashwin and Lyon are to Murali what Smalling is to Maldini. Utterly irrelevant. Second as far as support goes, Gough and AKhtar have excellent records in the subcontinent and masters of reverse swing.

Ashwin is bang average on a turning pitch? I don't even know how you've come to that conclusion. You're very keen on the statistical record to prove Akhtar and Gough's competence, so then you should rate Ashwin too. He's got a better record than Murali in the subcontinent. Fwiw, Ambrose and Steyn also have great records in Asia, and Steyn reverse swings the ball as well.

 

[Interval]

Openers: Boon/ Gavaskar vs Sehwag/ Gooch - Think the former shade this; Because of Gavaskar

Middle order: Khan/ Crowe/ Kohli/ Hooper vs Abas/ Gower/ Misbah/ Ganguly - I think I like the latter here; Right left combo completely missing in the former; Although Gower tends to be hit and miss, so would Kohli; Dont rate Hooper too much in tests dont think he is anywhere near consistent enough; Younis Khan helps close the gap considerably though

On the whole I'd say both teams' battings are on par; team 1's disadvantage with Hooper is covered by having Sunil.

Bowling for spin tracks
Akhtar/ Gough/ Harris/ Murali with Hooper vs Ambrose/ Steyn/ Ashwin/ Lyon
Pacy conditions: Replace Ashwin with Fraser

I tend to the former for spin tracks due to Murali and definitely the latter in pacy conditions; In pacy conditions, the former has a very good batting line up to counter it - Gavaskar/ Boon/ Crowe/ Khan are all good in pacy conditions;The former's batting can also match up to Murali in spin conditions;

These are my initial impressions; will think about this and vote

 

[Akshay]

He was obviously past his best by then. Even his strike rates and averages have climbed from his peak. Of course, he still managed to get Sehwag out for a first ball duck later on in the series so they're still even.

Wouldn't call 309 not out and a duck exactly even. Any batsmen will take that trade!

But about Akhtar, I'm not clear I get you. What would you call his peak years?

 

[Akshay]

Gavaskar/ Boon/ Crowe/ Khan are all good in pacy condition

Agree with the other three but not Younis Khan. He was an excellent player of spin, but not as good against the top quality seamers. Look at his record against Ambrose, for example. 3 dismissals in 3 matches for 2, 4 and 2. Or against Steyn, 6 dismissals in 10 matches for an average of 29.

 

[Nighteyes]

If you're saying Akhtar and Gough are on the same level as Ambrose and Steyn, I have no words. Gavaskar is a very good batsman, the best opener in the draft imo, and will be a good contest between him and my spearheads. However, David Boon played his best innings at no. 3, and although he also has a good record as an opener Ambrose has accounted for him 8 times for an average of 31. Younis Khan has been dismissed by Ambrose 3 times in 3 matches, for scores of 2, 4, and 2. Gavaskar doesn't score at a particularly high rate, so if wickets are falling all around him, he's going be under a lot of pressure.

That's not what I was saying. I was relying to the point you made below.

Also, you missed the point. The idea was that on a flat deck you need controlled pace, with accurate line and length, otherwise you will get hit, and hit hard. My seamers are all excellent at that. Akhtar and Gough are not.

I did not miss the point. The difference between their economy rates are marginal so the idea that your bowlers are great at it and mine aren't doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Ashwin is bang average on a turning pitch? I don't even know how you've come to that conclusion. You're very keen on the statistical record to prove Akhtar and Gough's competence, so then you should rate Ashwin too. He's got a better record than Murali in the subcontinent. Fwiw, Ambrose and Steyn also have great records in Asia, and Steyn reverse swings the ball as well.

He will be bang average against the caliber of batsmen even on turners. And pretty much useless on any other pitch. Gavaskar, Hooper, Kohli, Younis Khan..he's not going to trouble any of those. Besides, Murali has played like 5 times the number of games so not really comparable. That's like me saying Harris is just as good as Ambrose.

 

[Nighteyes]

Wouldn't call 309 not out and a duck exactly even. Any batsmen will take that trade!

But about Akhtar, I'm not clear I get you. What would you call his peak years?

Point was, Sehwag is quitely to get out for 0 as he's make a triple 100 and this was Akhtar past his best. I'd say he was at his peak until about the world cup

 

[Nighteyes]

Also, Sehwag is more miss than hit in conditions that favour fast bowling. Good record in Australia but averages in the 20's in England, South Africa and New Zealand.

 

[Nighteyes]

FYI Nurse is in for the seaming pitches. Averages over 60 in England. Let's not ignore him.

 

[Akshay]

I did not miss the point. The difference between their economy rates are marginal so the idea that your bowlers are great at it and mine aren't doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

It's not a matter of the economy stats, man. It's a matter of the bowler's styles. Ambrose, Steyn and Fraser are accurate, consistent line and length bowlers. That's just a part of who they are. That is not what Akhtar and Gough are known for. You are side-stepping this issue by leaning only on selective stats.

He will be bang average against the caliber of batsmen even on turners. And pretty much useless on any other pitch. Gavaskar, Hooper, Kohli, Younis Khan..he's not going to trouble any of those. Besides, Murali has played like 5 times the number of games so not really comparable. That's like me saying Harris is just as good as Ambrose.

Ashwin isn't playing on the other pitches, so that's irrelevant. Also, you are very keen to play the 'peak' card and 'stats' card for your seamers, but when it comes to Ashwin vs Murali you want to disregard the stats altogether and talk about longevity. It's very two-faced of you.

Btw, the caliber of batsmen that Ashwin has faced and dismissed:
Chanderpaul, 4 times in 4 matches (average 32)
Sangakkara, 4 times in 2 matches (every innings, and only for 23.5 average)
Duminy, 3 times in 4 matches
AB and Amla, twice each in 5 matches each (for an average of 26 and 22 respectively)
Pietersen, twice in 4 matches (average 27)

Hooper, Kohli, Younis Khan..these are all Test batsmen far better than those I just mentioned according to you?

 

[Raees]

Just trying to concentrate on not getting your names mixed up.

 

[Akshay]

Point was, Sehwag is quitely to get out for 0 as he's make a triple 100 and this was Akhtar past his best. I'd say he was at his peak until about the world cup

Starting when? (his peak)

 

[Akshay]

FYI Nurse is in for the seaming pitches. Averages over 60 in England. Let's not ignore him.

He was a good player of pace, although that particular record comes against an attack of Snow, Higgs, Titmus, and Allen. Good bowlers, but not a patch on the likes of Ambrose and Steyn. Meanwhile, Gooch averages above 40 against attacks of Marshall, Holding, Garner and Croft, who were quite a bit better than Akhtar, Gough, and Harris.

 

[Nighteyes]

It's not a matter of the economy stats, man. It's a matter of the bowler's styles. Ambrose, Steyn and Fraser are accurate, consistent line and length bowlers. That's just a part of who they are. That is not what Akhtar and Gough are known for. You are side-stepping this issue by leaning only on selective stats.

This was your initial post

On a pitch which offers little for bowlers you need control and precision to keep the batsmen in check and build pressure

The point seemingly being (And correct me if I'm wrong) that your bowlers would be better at building up pressure by keeping the runs down. How does this not relate to the economy rates? Second, while Ambrose definitely fits your description that's not quite the case with Steyn. He wasn't your typical line and length bowler. Third, you've been slagging off Gavaskar's strike rates and now you think you can get him out by building up pressure? Doesn't quite fit I'm afraid. Same for Boon who could graft like feck and had a low strike rate.

Ashwin isn't playing on the other pitches, so that's irrelevant. Also, you are very keen to play the 'peak' card and 'stats' card for your seamers, but when it comes to Ashwin vs Murali you want to disregard the stats altogether and talk about longevity. It's very two-faced of you.

Btw, the caliber of batsmen that Ashwin has faced and dismissed:
Chanderpaul, 4 times in 4 matches (average 32)
Sangakkara, 4 times in 2 matches (every innings, and only for 23.5 average)
Duminy, 3 times in 4 matches
AB and Amla, twice each in 5 matches each (for an average of 26 and 22 respectively)
Pietersen, twice in 4 matches (average 27)

Hooper, Kohli, Younis Khan..these are all Test batsmen far better than those I just mentioned according to you?

Didn't realize that. Well, Lyon ain't gonna pose much of an issue I don't think.

I didn't ignore the stats. I pointed out that Murali had played about 5 times the number of games as Ashwin in subcontinental conditions. This is why I've not compared Harris to any of your bowlers. You were the one to claim Ashwin was almost as good as Murali in such conditions. That's just not true.

Far better? I don't know. But they are quite good either way against spin spin bowling and two of them grew up playing on such conditions.

Second, some of the pitches Ashwin has bowled on recently would barely even qualify as a pitch. I very much doubt that's the kind of pitch we're playing on.

 

[Nighteyes]

Starting when? (his peak)

About 2000 I'd say.

 

[Akshay]

The point seemingly being (And correct me if I'm wrong) that your bowlers would be better at building up pressure by keeping the runs down. How does this not relate to the economy rates? Second, while Ambrose definitely fits your description that's not quite the case with Steyn. He wasn't your typical line and length bowler. Third, you've been slagging off Gavaskar's strike rates and now you think you can get him out by building up pressure? Doesn't quite fit I'm afraid. Same for Boon who could graft like feck and had a low strike rate.

The point is that on a seamer favouring wicket, you can keep the runs down by just delivering with pace. The batsmen have to be too wary of unpredictable bounce and swing to be able to hit out comfortably. On a flat deck, this is not the case. If you deliver errant balls with speed, they will just run to the boundary all the quicker. So, on these types of pitches, in order to keep batsmen (especially batsmen that love to play their shots) under control, you have to be able to bowl with precision, to not give away bad balls that can be hit. As for Steyn, I have to disagree. He himself is on record saying that consistent line and length has been the reason for his success in the subcontinent.

I don't see why my statement on Gavaskar is contradictory? The point is, if Boon gets out for 30 odd (as he has repeatedly to Ambrose) and Younis Khan falls for a low score (like he has repeatedly against Steyn and Ambrose), your team will be 2 down with not many on the board as Gavaskar doesn't score freely. If any more wickets fall, he will be under a lot of pressure to score. Just holding up one end won't help if the wickets are tumbling at the other. That's my point.

 

[Raees]

Gavaskar vs West Indies (what are your thoughts on this..)

Sunny Gavaskar is, without doubt, one of the greatest batsmen of all-time. Gavaskar is a true legend of the game. His technique was near faultless, and when combined with limitless patience, you had the mould for the perfect opening batsman. Gavaskar’s test career saw a total of 10122 runs at an average of 51.12, with an astounding 34 test centuries.

Gavaskar retired from test cricket in 1987, and therefore his era would appear to almost completely coincide with the great Windies bowling lineups of the late 70s and 80s. In 27 tests against the West Indies, Gavaskar scored an almost unbelievable 2749 runs at an average of 65.45, with an astonishing 13 centuries. These statistics are often used by fans and supporters to underline his claims as the greatest opening batsman of all-time. However, one of the great myths that has grown up about Gavaskar is his amazing dominance of the otherwise unconquered West Indian four pronged pace battery that these statistics would suggest. If you break down the actual series that he played, Gavaskar’s record doesn’t quite look as impressive as a first glance would indicate.

Gavaskar made his debut for India against the West Indies on the 6th of March, 1971 at Port of Spain. He played four tests, and finished the series with an impressive total of 774 runs at the astronomical average of 154.80 with four centuries. During this series, the West Indies were in a state of change. The leading pacemen of the 60s including Hall, Griffith and Gilchrist had all played their final test. The Windies bowling attack was dominated by spin, with Lance Gibbs well on his way to passing Fred Trueman as the leading test wicket-taker. The fast bowlers that Gavaskar faced during this series were Keith Boyce, Grayson Shillingford, Vanburn Holder and Uton Dowe (he of the 11th Commandment – Dowe shall not bowl). The other medium paced bowlers used included Gary Sobers and John Shepard. With all due respect to the bowlers of the time, it was hardly an attack to cause significant concerns to a player of Gavaskar’s obvious skill.

Gavaskar only played two tests of the 1974/75 home series against the West Indies. He struggled, scoring 108 runs at an average of just 27. The quick bowlers he faced in this series included a young Andy Roberts, and the medium paced Holder, Boyce and left armer Bernard Julien. Gavaskar’s next series against the West Indies was again away from home in 1975/76. Gavaskar again batted beautifully, scoring 390 runs at 55.71, with another two centuries. By this time, the Windies fast bowling battery was just starting to take form. The first two Tests saw Gavaskar opening the batting against genuine quicks Michael Holding and Andy Roberts. In support was swing bowler Julien, and spinners Holford and Jumadeen. After disappointing initially with 37 and 1 in the First Test, Gavaskar did score a wonderful 156 in the second. The Third and Fourth Tests saw no Andy Roberts, with Michael Holding in his second series as a Windies player supported by Wayne Daniel, Holder, Julien, Jumadeen, Albert Padmore and Imtiaz Ali. There was not yet any sign of the four pronged pace attack that would soon dominate the cricket world.

The West Indies then toured India in 1978/79. This tour was in the middle of the Packer years, and the West Indies bowling attack was decimated. Rather than facing Holding, Roberts, Garner and Croft, Gavaskar opened the batting in the First Test against the legendary Norbert Phillip, his old nemesis Vanburn Holder, and Sylvester Clarke. The Windies attack again had reverted to spin, with Derek Parry and Jumadeen both playing. Gavaskar again gorged himself, scoring 732 runs at 91.50, with another 4 centuries. A very young Malcolm Marshall made his debut during this very high scoring six test series that Indiawon 1-0, with five draws.

Gavaskar’s second last series against the Windies was away in 1982/83. He scored 240 runs at an average of 30, with one century. Against the full might of the Windies four quicks (Holding, Roberts, Garner and Marshall), he scored 20 and 0 in the First Test, 1 and 32 in the Second, a very good 147 not out in the Third (which was badly affected by weather and India didn’t even finish their first innings), 2 and 19 in the Fourth, and 18 and 1 in the Fifth. This was the first time Gavaskar had played against all of the Windies quicks, and he clearly struggled.

In 1983/84, Gavaskar played the Windies for the last time. This series was at home, and the bowling attack was weakened by the absence of Garner. In the first test, the Windies fielding four quicks, but whilst Holding and Marshall were genuinely fast, neither Eldine Baptiste or Winston Davis really threatened. Gavaskar started poorly with 0 and 7 in the First Test, before finding some form with 121 and 15 in the Second, and 90 and 1 in the Third. 12, 3, 0 and 20 were his scores in the next two tests, before Gavaskar played one of his great knocks. In the final test, he dropped himself down the order to no. 4, with Gaekwad and Sidhu opening. The fact that Malcolm Marshall took two wickets without a run being scored meant that Gavaskar may as well have opened anyway. Gavaskar proceeded to totally dominate the Windies attack and scored a wonderful 236 not out. This was a fantastic innings, and underlined why Gavaskar is a great. There is a wonderful account of this innings at http://tcwj.blogspot.com/2007/10/29.html that is highly recommended reading. Unfortunately, his previous failures in the series were effectively covered up by this large unbeaten double century.

When you examine the record of Gavaskar against the West Indies, it is clear that only the final three centuries were actually scored against an attack that resembled the fearsome Windies pace barrage that we remember. A large percentage of his runs were accumulated in two series against very much weakened bowling attacks. As a consequence of factors outside of his control, Gavaskar didn’t play against the Windies full strength team between 1975/76 and 1982/83. This analysis is not to decry Gavaskar – he is a legend of the game and deserves ultimate respect for what he has achieved. He could, after all, not control who he played against. A very strong argument can be made that Gavaskar should be considered of the best few opening batsmen in the history of the game. However, the claims made by some supporters that he is the greatest opener of all-time based solely on his record against the Windies is one that simply does not hold up to closer scrutiny.

 

[Akshay]

I didn't ignore the stats. I pointed out that Murali had played about 5 times the number of games as Ashwin in subcontinental conditions. This is why I've not compared Harris to any of your bowlers. You were the one to claim Ashwin was almost as good as Murali in such conditions. That's just not true.

Far better? I don't know. But they are quite good either way against spin spin bowling and two of them grew up playing on such conditions.

Second, some of the pitches Ashwin has bowled on recently would barely even qualify as a pitch. I very much doubt that's the kind of pitch we're playing on.

Sure, Murali has played far more Tests than Ashwin. And he's a far superior bowler overall because Ashwin has fallen very flat in non-spin favoring conditions while Murali has also found considerable success there. I don't dispute any of these things.

However, Ashwin has an excellent record on slow wickets. He's hardly someone who your batsmen will "eat up and shit out without a hint of indigestion" nor is he "utterly irrelevant" in such conditions. He's taken many wickets of very good batsmen on these kinds of pitches. It is a "slow wicket which gets worse as the game goes on and will assist spinners heavily". Sounds exactly like the kind of pitch Ashwin has had so much success on. On the other hand you are bringing up Hooper as a great asset on spinning tracks, who has a bowling average of 50.

 

[Nighteyes]

The point is that on a seamer favouring wicket, you can keep the runs down by just delivering with pace. The batsmen have to be too wary of unpredictable bounce and swing to be able to hit out comfortably. On a flat deck, this is not the case. If you deliver errant balls with speed, they will just run to the boundary all the quicker. So, on these types of pitches, in order to keep batsmen (especially batsmen that love to play their shots) under control, you have to be able to bowl with precision, to not give away bad balls that can be hit. As for Steyn, I have to disagree. He himself is on record saying that consistent line and length has been the reason for his success in the subcontinent.

I don't see why my statement on Gavaskar is contradictory? The point is, if Boon gets out for 30 odd (as he has repeatedly to Ambrose) and Younis Khan falls for a low score (like he has repeatedly against Steyn and Ambrose), your team will be 2 down with not many on the board as Gavaskar doesn't score freely. If any more wickets fall, he will be under a lot of pressure to score. Just holding up one end won't help if the wickets are tumbling at the other. That's my point.

I'm really struggling to see how this has nothing to do with economy rate. Your main point is keeping the runs so economy rate is the relevant statistic here no matter how much you talk around it. Second, what matters even more on flat wickets is the ability to get wickets. Gough and Akhtar are great at it. So is Steyn. Ambrose barely played on the subcontinent and Fraser never played in Asia at all. My bowlers are tried and tested here except for Harris. Only Steyn cam claim that on your side.

Gavaskar is more than comfortable trudging on and boring everyone to death no matter the circumstance.

 

[Nighteyes]

@Raees

It's not just West Indies. The guy averages in the 50's in Australia. That's more than Allan Border averages in Australia!

 

[Nighteyes]

Sure, Murali has played far more Tests than Ashwin. And he's a far superior bowler overall because Ashwin has fallen very flat in non-spin favoring conditions while Murali has also found considerable success there. I don't dispute any of these things.

However, Ashwin has an excellent record on slow wickets. He's hardly someone who your batsmen will "eat up and shit out without a hint of indigestion" nor is he "utterly irrelevant" in such conditions. He's taken many wickets of very good batsmen on these kinds of pitches. It is a "slow wicket which gets worse as the game goes on and will assist spinners heavily". Sounds exactly like the kind of pitch Ashwin has had so much success on. On the other hand you are bringing up Hooper as a great asset on spinning tracks, who has a bowling average of 50.

Really? The most recent series against SA and Aus often had the ball turning square with unpredictable bounce before Lunch on day 1.

The Hooper comment was a joke.

 

[Akshay]

I'm really struggling to see how this has nothing to do with economy rate. Your main point is keeping the runs so economy rate is the relevant statistic here no matter how much you talk around it. Second, what matters even more on flat wickets is the ability to get wickets. Gough and Akhtar are great at it. So is Steyn. Ambrose barely played on the subcontinent and Fraser never played in Asia at all. My bowlers are tried and tested here except for Harris. Only Steyn cam claim that on your side.

Gavaskar is more than comfortable trudging on and boring everyone to death no matter the circumstance.

Fraser's record (or lack of one) in the subcontinent also doesn't matter since he isn't playing in the match on the slow wicket. Ambrose played 6 Tests in Asia and did well in those - I don't think you can say he won't be effective in such conditions on the back of that.

 

[Akshay]

Really? The most recent series against SA and Aus often had the ball turning square with unpredictable bounce before Lunch on day 1.

It's a pitch which assists spinners heavily. Anyway, Ashwin has a great record on slow tracks in SL too. He took 21 wickets at 18 runs apiece in the recent series there. Are those pitches also not representative?

 

[Akshay]

When you examine the record of Gavaskar against the West Indies, it is clear that only the final three centuries were actually scored against an attack that resembled the fearsome Windies pace barrage that we remember. A large percentage of his runs were accumulated in two series against very much weakened bowling attacks. As a consequence of factors outside of his control, Gavaskar didn’t play against the Windies full strength team between 1975/76 and 1982/83. This analysis is not to decry Gavaskar – he is a legend of the game and deserves ultimate respect for what he has achieved. He could, after all, not control who he played against. A very strong argument can be made that Gavaskar should be considered of the best few opening batsmen in the history of the game. However, the claims made by some supporters that he is the greatest opener of all-time based solely on his record against the Windies is one that simply does not hold up to closer scrutiny.

Hmm well, I wouldn't consider him the greatest opener of all-time anyway, as I rather like the opening pair of Hobbs and Sutcliffe. But I think he is the best opener since the 1960s, and he's widely regarded as such. I expect him to be a tough wicket to prise out. That said, I don't think Gooch is getting enough credit as a very accomplished opener himself, who did play series against the Marshall-Holding-Garner-Croft attack, as well as Ambrose-Walsh led attacks later on.

 

[Nighteyes]

Let's not forget about Crowe. One of the best batsmen in the world at his peak.

England fast bowler Angus Fraser described Crowe's 142 in 1994 as the best technical innings he had seen. "In terms of the way the innings was constructed, that was pretty much perfect. Every ball was played on its merits, by a player completely in control of his game."

The word 'control' often comes up wherever Martin Crowe is discussed. Whether he was in world-beating form - as he was against the West Indies in 1992 - or in the middle of a bad run, Martin Crowe exuded confidence and focus. By 1994, a series of knee and hamstring injuries meant he was beginning to lose control over his body. Instead, he batted with mental strength as his key weapon.

The 142 against England was the epitome of that. It's a great example of how to build a long innings within one's limitations. It also shows how cleanly Crowe could hit a cricket ball, almost at will.

188 v West Indies, Guyana, April 1985
The pitch may have been of the highway variety but still this was the West Indies, in their back yard and in their pomp. The Windies had made 511 for six and when Crowe strode out, New Zealand, who had drawn the opening test, were 45 for two. Crowe was masterly, last man out for 188, over 571 minutes and 462 balls against Malcolm Marshall, Joel Garner and Michael Holding. Test saved and the series still 0-0 with two to play. It finished in two defeats.

Averaged over 45 against the West Indies often coming up against Holding, Marshall, Garner and even a young Walsh.

 

[Nighteyes]

It's a pitch which assists spinners heavily. Anyway, Ashwin has a great record on slow tracks in SL too. He took 21 wickets at 18 runs apiece in the recent series there. Are those pitches also not representative?

Against one of the worst Srilankan teams of all time (Even Sangakkara was past it and retired during the series). Their best batsman was Chandimal who's a bit shit and relies on slogging blindly. Not particularly impressive if you ask me.