Jump to content

Fit Akhtar wants crack at Aussies


King

Recommended Posts

CC -> I'd rather have a 25-10-50-3 figure than 15-2-50-3.
u lost me there, buddy.... u jus earned urself an extra 10 overs to seal the match and u are saying u dont prefer that??? this is like saying, u prefer a batter making 100 off 200 balls than one who makes 100 of 140 balls... :hmpf:
Link to comment
u lost me there, buddy.... u jus earned urself an extra 10 overs to seal the match and u are saying u dont prefer that??? this is like saying, u prefer a batter making 100 off 200 balls than one who makes 100 of 140 balls... :hmpf:
not just that but by dismissing a team quickly the better bowler makes sure that runs dont come of the other end! So by having a good SR you are saving both time AND runs!
Link to comment
u lost me there, buddy.... u jus earned urself an extra 10 overs to seal the match and u are saying u dont prefer that??? this is like saying, u prefer a batter making 100 off 200 balls than one who makes 100 of 140 balls... :hmpf: not just that but by dismissing a team quickly the better bowler makes sure that runs dont come of the other end! So by having a good SR you are saving both time AND runs!
You are making sure that runs dont come from the other end by being a leaky run-machine yourself! Keeping it tight increases the pressure on batsmen- and as i said, since you got 110 overs per innings in a test match, there aint no facking difference if you dismiss the other side in 85 overs or 95 overs. It earns you no tangable advantage to try and finish off the match quicker- if anything, it detrimental to the spectacle if the match is done in 4 days. Whats the bottomline is tht if your strike rate is well below the required average ( ie, 110 overs/side, ie 66 strike rate), it doesnt matter for squat if its 54 or 45. Sorry but by sporting a strike rate too low, you are essentially a bowler who cannot staunch the flow of runs- and on your bad days (Which every bowler has), you will be a FAR WORSE option than a miser like Ambrose or McGrath. On their good days, they may take 10 overs more to take 5 wickets than Actor..but on their bad days, they wont get smashed around for 100 runs in 20 overs like Actor.
Link to comment
You are making sure that runs dont come from the other end by being a leaky run-machine yourself! Keeping it tight increases the pressure on batsmen- and as i said, since you got 110 overs per innings in a test match, there aint no facking difference if you dismiss the other side in 85 overs or 95 overs. It earns you no tangable advantage to try and finish off the match quicker- if anything, it detrimental to the spectacle if the match is done in 4 days. Whats the bottomline is tht if your strike rate is well below the required average ( ie, 110 overs/side, ie 66 strike rate), it doesnt matter for squat if its 54 or 45. Sorry but by sporting a strike rate too low, you are essentially a bowler who cannot staunch the flow of runs- and on your bad days (Which every bowler has), you will be a FAR WORSE option than a miser like Ambrose or McGrath. On their good days, they may take 10 overs more to take 5 wickets than Actor..but on their bad days, they wont get smashed around for 100 runs in 20 overs like Actor.
well there's a difference between simply keeping it tight and blasting through to get a wicket. When you say that you've got 100 overs to finish off a side it doesn't matter whether to bowl them out in 85, or 95, I got a problem with that. Every single over counts. How many times have we seen Test matches go down to the wire and teams saying..if only I had3-4 more overs? Example the first two tests in WI this year. I watched Akhtar bowl in the Aussie series in 2005 and I was very impressed. He was basically a one man team and many of his runs given away were results of edges.
Link to comment
CC wrote - there aint no facking difference if you dismiss the other side in 85 overs or 95 overs.
If you think it is ok for one bowler (especially your main strike bowler) to take 10 extra overs to get the same number of wickets, it sure must be ok for the rest. So you are talking 85 vs 125 overs. Yes, it does matter if you can run through a side quickly. And it especially matters if your main bowlers get wickets quickly cause not all bowlers are ging to be as efficient. It gives captains more room to work with. It is precisely the problem with Indian bowlers. We take forever to get sides out.
Link to comment

If two bowlers have the same average, then picking the one with a better SR is a no brainer as far as I am concerned. Having said that SR cannot be the primary criteria over average unless in one particular situation when a team has enough runs to defend in the final innings and bowling the opposition out in the stipulated overs becomes the primary criteria. India's lack of strike bowlers in such situations has been apparent on numerous occasions.

Link to comment
If you think it is ok for one bowler (especially your main strike bowler) to take 10 extra overs to get the same number of wickets, it sure must be ok for the rest. So you are talking 85 vs 125 overs. Yes, it does matter if you can run through a side quickly. And it especially matters if your main bowlers get wickets quickly cause not all bowlers are ging to be as efficient. It gives captains more room to work with. It is precisely the problem with Indian bowlers. We take forever to get sides out.
exactly plus by dismissing a team in 85 overs you are only allowing the opposition 42 overs to score of the "lesser" bowlers while by dismissing a team in 120 overs you are allowing 60 overs from the weaker bowlers. So it’s quite obvious that the best bowler should aim to take wickets as quickly as possible.
Link to comment
plus by dismissing a team in 85 overs you are only allowing the opposition 42 overs to score of the "lesser" bowlers while by dismissing a team in 120 overs you are allowing 60 overs from the weaker bowlers.
What could possibly be the logic behind this ?
Link to comment
If two bowlers have the same average, then picking the one with a better SR is a no brainer as far as I am concerned.
If you pick a bowler who gets 20-4-90-5 on his good days as opposed to someone who goes 30-10-90-5, i can garantee you that you will lose more matches than win compared to the latter bowler. Because a bowler who can keep it tight is a FAR useful bowler on his off day than a bowler who gives a four-ball every over. A bowler who keeps it tight still exerts pressure on his off days. A bowler who does not is a total waste of time on his off days. For eg, Akhtar and Walsh average nearly the same. If someone picked Walshie instead of Akhtar, you can easily see why Walsh is a better choice due to his far better economy rate.
Link to comment

Don't agree. When you have a long and established partnership in progress you want someone to break the partnership rather than stop a few runs. He might give away a few boundaries in the process but if you don't pick up a wicket you are staring at a few hundred runs difference. Between Lillee and Walsh, I would choose Lillee any day though ultimately you need both kinds of bowlers for a lethal attack.

Link to comment
When you have a long and established partnership in progress you want someone to break the partnership rather than stop a few runs.
If you take a few extra balls and leak a few less runs in breaking that partnership, you have done better in my books.
Between Lillee and Walsh, I would choose Lillee any day though ultimately you need both kinds of bowlers for a lethal attack.
Lillee has a significantly better record than Walsh, especially his wickets/match ratio. Walsh & Akhtar are a good comparison base for this- both same match/wicket rate, same average but Walshie has a higher strike rate. And i'd pick Walsh over Akhtar 10 times out of 10. Case in point : Waqar and Wasim- Wasim on his off days was a far far better bowler than Waqar on his off day, when he'd be taken apart by almost anybody. Having a low strike rate is all good- but if your average isnt correspondingly lower, your low strike rate means you are someone who cannot stop the flow of runs- whether you take wickets or not. Since it is reasonable to expect that a worldclass/great bowler will have 1 excellent day,1 average day and 1 off day on average, its noteworthy to consider the performances in every scenario before picking the bowler.
Link to comment
If you take a few extra balls and leak a few less runs in breaking that partnership, you have done better in my books.
Cricket doesn't work that way. When a big partnership is on the last thing a captain has on his mind is conceding half a run less per over on average. He wants a wicket.
Lillee has a significantly better record than Walsh, especially his wickets/match ratio. Walsh & Akhtar are a good comparison base for this- both same match/wicket rate, same average but Walshie has a higher strike rate. And i'd pick Walsh over Akhtar 10 times out of 10.
Holding and Walsh have similar records. Akhtar has not even played 50 tests and has not even crossed 200 wickets.
Case in point : Waqar and Wasim- Wasim on his off days was a far far better bowler than Waqar on his off day, when he'd be taken apart by almost anybody.
Waqar is an over rated minnow basher compared to Akram. Their records are not even similar taking out the minnows.
Link to comment
Cricket doesn't work that way. When a big partnership is on the last thing a captain has on his mind is conceding half a run less per over on average. He wants a wicket.
Cricket doent work that way either. A captain wants wickets- to break the partnership. He doesnt care if you take an extra over or two but he does care if you leak an extra few boundaries in the process- its adding to his misery directly rather than hypothetically!
Holding and Walsh have similar records. Akhtar has not even played 50 tests and has not even crossed 200 wickets.
I am comparing Walsh & Akhtar because their role in the team has been remarkably similar and their proficiency is similar in wicket-taking. Only difference between the two is Walsh takes a few more overs and leaks a few less runs than Actor. Holding as i said before, is a 'Glenn McGrath' level bowler in my eyes- even though his 'test' record may not reflect it but when WSC is included (as it should be), he is quite 'up there'. Stop going purely by numbers- its a perspective more in line with people who do not watch cricket but crunch numbers . The bottomline here is a bowler who goes 20-5-50-5 is a better choice than one who goes 12-2-50-5 and i've given reasons why that is so.
Link to comment
Waqar is an over rated minnow basher compared to Akram. Their records are not even similar taking out the minnows.
Thats not the point- and i don't agree with it either. My point was, Waqar, like a bowler with significantly low strike rate and a high economy rate (ie, bowler with same average but lower strike rate) would be taken apart by nobodies on his off days while Akram would be far better. Same with Akhtar vs Walsh. When everything is equal ( ie, average & wicket/match ratio), a bowler who is more economic will be the one i pick.
Link to comment
Cricket doent work that way either. A captain wants wickets- to break the partnership. He doesnt care if you take an extra over or two but he does care if you leak an extra few boundaries in the process- its adding to his misery directly rather than hypothetically!
When both bowlers have the same average, how is one leaking more runs than the other, pray tell? Also the bowler with a worse strike rate is allowing more opportunities to score from the other end than the one with a better SR. Say, there are two bowlers, A and B, who average 20 and another bowler X bowling with both of them. Case A : Bowler A takes 6 overs to take a wicket giving 20 runs and X on the other end also gives away 20 runs in his overs. Case B :Bowler B takes 8 overs to take a wicket giving also 20 runs but X this time has given away 27 runs. Score after 12 overs in case A : 40/1 Score after 16 overs in case B : 47/1 Extrapolating simplistically : Final score in case A : 400 all out in 120 overs Final score in case B : 470 all out in 160 overs. Can't break it down more for the adamant I am sorry.
I am comparing Walsh & Akhtar because their role in the team has been remarkably similar and their proficiency is similar in wicket-taking.
Walsh and Akhtar have a similar role??????? One bowled with Ambrose for the majority of his career and the other with the likes of Sami and Rana Naved!!!!!!!! Please!!
Link to comment
how is one leaking more runs than the other, pray tell
Err..15-4-60-5 is leaking more runs per over than 25-10-60-5.
Also the bowler with a worse strike rate is allowing more opportunities to score from the other end than the one with a better SR.
Which is exactly why he is a superior bowler. On his good days, when he takes 5-60 in 25 overs, he's done well...on his bad days, he isnt gonna get clobbered for 100+ in 25 overs like an expensive 'low strike rate' bowler would.
Can't break it down more for the adamant I am sorry.
What part of ' a bowler who is expensive (ie, lower strike rate) is gonna be FAR BIGGER a burden on his off days than a bowler who takes 5 more overs to concede the same # of runs and take same # of wickets' dont you understand ? Sorry,i cant break it down anymore for the adamant. You pick a player assuming they will have good days as well as bad days...not someone who will keep performing at best everytime. I'd rather have a bowler who in good day will have 25-10-60-5 and on a bad day have 25-10-60-1 than someone who on his good day is 15-5-60-5 and bad day is 10-0-60-1. Its pretty simple to see why too if you thought like a cricket captain.
Link to comment
BTW' date=' Holding took 35 wickets in WSC @ 23.25.[/quote'] Which is an incredible record...facing down the top team outside of his own and the rest of the best from the world. 35 @ 23.25 vs Aussies and the best of the rest is worth more than 21 ave. against regular lineups.
Link to comment
Walsh and Akhtar have a similar role??????? One bowled with Ambrose for the majority of his career and the other with the likes of Sami and Rana Naved!!!!!!!! Please!!
Walsh bowled without Ambrose too and did a MUCH BETTER job of carrying the attack than Akhtar has because Walsh, if he failed to take wickets, could choke up the runs and create pressure on the batsmen..He earnt wickets for the Benjamin duo and Dillon this way- he frustrated the fack outta batsmen (and yes, in tests, a spell of 7-5-8-0 is very frustrating for the batsmen) who chanced their arm against lesser bowlers and holed out. Actor-Waqar types are totally useless on their bad days- they cannot staunch the flow of runs and they arnt taking wickets either. Bowlers who keep it tight are always serving some purpose. The 'boom or bust' type who either do 20-5-80-5 or 20-0-80-0 are utterly useless in their bad days.
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...