That basically makes the table a bit ridiculous. There is no point going for 2nd team innings and then breaking it down further to 3rd and 4th innings.
Also, I just don't think I'd need to bat the 2nd innings. Innings defeat
Fair enough. I concede. Are you sure Shaun Pollock will be able to do the mathematics to calculate when he will need to follow on?Well, I don't really rate Bairstow much tbh. All the batsmen who debuted post 2010 have inflated averages. Marsh was pretty good, and was one of the best gloves-men too. Very good keeper.
Do not disagree with that analysis. But like Raees pointed out, aparently, even Amiss struggled against pace.
Yep. I don't particularly rate him too high either. Don't think he is a 40 averaging batsman. But he seems more of a batsman than Marsh. Marsh was was a great gloveman.
Yep. Bowling averages since the turn of the century have gone up by about 3 compared to the 90s. The 60s, 70s, 80s are not too different to one another.
Because I'm not. For one, its Johnson, Boult, Caddick and Kallis.
Yeah - 60s-80s was largely similar. Now look at Johnson who averages 28.4 vs Botham who averages 28.4. Again, not implying that Johnson is a better bowler. But to just claim easy win on a pacy pitch because you have two better names is not that straight forward. Added a massive let-off in terms of playing 2 spinners doesn't help.
That is pretty cool. So do I - Saqlain, Chandra, Jaya; Obviously Jayasuriya isn't a full fledged spinner
The thing with Mitch is that he was so darn inconsistent. When he was at his best he was brilliant, but that rarely lasted for more than a few months at a time. When he was poor he was very poor. On the other hand, Botham had a more consistent career and his stats are weaker due to struggling (but playing on) in his twilight years. At his peak he was very good.
Erm isn't that the same way you're trying to prove your middle order is better when admitting that Sachin is the best player in the draft?
D'oh that came out stupid. I was trying to say that the gap between the top 3 isn't as much as you guys are painting it out to be. See above
Sure, next game onwards.
Thanks.
I'll just make last few points. I won't be able to log on for a while now. @anant @RDCR07
1. My batting is better than this. Both the opponents have admitted that Botham at number 6 is a gap (vs my team, is a good player in his own right). I have 3 greats in my batting order (Kallis, Border, Greenidge) vs his Tendulkar. I also have Laxman who is amongst the better number 6s vs his Botham. His batting can be flakey when shit hits the fan (see below)
2. He still hasn’t addressed him playing 2 spinners on a pace pitch: Yes, his pacers are better than mine. But he is playing 2 sub-standard (for those conditions) spinners on pacy pitch and that’s a huge let off.
3. My spinners are better: I think Chandra, Saqlain > Harbhajan, Herath
The latter 2 points combined with a superior batting means that he will not get a let off on any pitch. Yes, his team is quality enough but I think, this will be a 1-1 or a 2-1 in my favour.
That's interval's write up.
Chandra /Saqlain > Harbajan/Hearth
On spin track it becomes Chandra Saqlain vs Harbhajan, Herath and kaneria. Add to that, I have useful fast bowlers as well, bowlers who have performed well in such conditions, Not bowlers who are likely to be ineffective on such wickets.
The flipside would then be true for bouncy wickets. Can Harbhajan/ Herath provide support to the trio of Pollock/ Botham and Hoggard? I have 4 pacers backed by by Chandra who is more suited to those conditions.
If we're using quality vs quantity argument, please consider that I have one more pacer than you for the pacy conditions then.
Chandra and Saqlain is much better bowler compared to those three mentioned there but i take your point on Botham/Pollock useful in these conditions.
Yeah, I can't see Anant's spinners proving much use in the third match. Then again, I don't rate Caddick at all. Still have you down as slightly favoured due to your batting on that one but there's not much in it.
