Isn't it more effective to field an eleven with as much as multi dimensional players??

[Khota]

9 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

when did i say that ? 

You have always pushed him as a great bowler and an accomplished batsman. In my opinion he is neither. He is a decent bat and below avg bowler but a great athlete.

[vvvslaxman]

5 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

The great WI and Aus teams never had these “multi dimensional” players unless you put  Gilchrist in the  allrounder category.

Roberts. Marshall/ Holding all 3 can bat. Infact Marshall made 92 runs at Kanpur Green park. Roberts made 68 at Eden Gardens i think. They can more than stick around. What we have are duds who looks like they never touched a cricket bat.

[Khota]

The greatest team of all time Clive Llyods WI only had one so called allrounder, Bernard Julien. He was the sorriest player on that team.

[Ankit_sharma03]

4 minutes ago, Khota said:

You have always pushed him as a great bowler and an accomplished batsman. In my opinion he is neither. He is a decent bat and below avg bowler but a great athlete.

when ??? where??? show me the post where i have.....kuch bhi 

 

I have always said he is an all rounder and work in progress, he gives cushion to batting n bowling same time and we need coz we lack batsman who cud bowl

 

As a batsman - he has shown gr8 application n has strokes needed for someone at 6....he will get better with time . He has batted in the most toughest condition. And he is certainely better then rohit sharma in test cricket and its proven

 

As a bowler- his 1st job is to give breather to other bowler , he has pace n a good swing and bowls a good length for overseas so on helpful wkts he ll always be handy 

 

Now ur making it sound like i said he is a strike bowler or batsman, M very clear on him......news channel men kaam krte ho

 

His fielding will always be a plus 

 

So he contributes to the team and thats what matter not names like Specialist , bits n pieces n all rounder. Scorecard looks at contribution not tittles

[philcric]

The greatest team of all time Clive Llyods WI had no front line spinners. Let's chuck out Ash, Jaddu and Kuldeep from the test squad.

 

[Khota]

5 minutes ago, philcric said:

The greatest team of all time Clive Llyods WI had no front line spinners. Let's chuck out Ash, Jaddu and Kuldeep from the test squad.

 

lance Gibbs says hello.

[philcric]

5 minutes ago, Khota said:

lance Gibbs says hello.

Lance Gibbs played all of 13 matches under Clive Lloyd, out of which they won 4 and lost 7. Retired in 1976.

 

Lloyd started captaining in 1974, and lost 8 of about first 15-16 matches he captained. Got absolutely hammered in 5 tests by Australia in 1976, and lost a few test matches to India too. 

 

They turned it around after 1976 with a fearsome pace attack and no spinners. Lance Gibbs played 0 matches when WI was a great test team.

 

[Khota]

1 hour ago, philcric said:

Lance Gibbs played all of 13 matches under Clive Lloyd, out of which they won 4 and lost 7. Retired in 1976.

 

Lloyd started captaining in 1974, and lost 8 of about first 15-16 matches he captained. Got absolutely hammered in 5 tests by Australia in 1976, and lost a few test matches to India too. 

 

They turned it around after 1976 with a fearsome pace attack and no spinners. Lance Gibbs played 0 matches when WI was a great test team.

 

When they came to India they were the greatest team. They bt India 3-2. That was the foundation of greatest team ever with Richards coming in the ranks.

[philcric]

21 minutes ago, Khota said:

When they came to India they were the greatest team. They bt India 3-2. That was the foundation of greatest team ever with Richards coming in the ranks.

 

I know you are trying to circumvent, but that's utter nonsense.

 

They were far from great when they toured India in 1974-1975. India was a piss poor team and WI managed to lose 2 tests to them. They then got their asses handed to them by Aussies who won something like 5 straight tests against them.

 

Holding, Marshall, Garner .... all of them made their debut after 1976

 

WI was all time great test team from late 70's to late 80's. They had no good/successful frontline spinners in that great team. Lance Gibbs was retired by then. I reject the "hello" from Lance Gibbs.

Edited November 25, 2018 by philcric

[Khota]

1 hour ago, philcric said:

 

I know you are trying to circumvent, but that's utter nonsense.

 

They were far from great when they toured India in 1974-1975. India was a piss poor team and WI managed to lose 2 tests to them. They then got their asses handed to them by Aussies who won something like 5 straight tests against them.

 

Holding, Marshall, Garner .... all of them made their debut after 1976

 

WI was all time great test team from late 70's to late 80's. They had no good/successful frontline spinners in that great team. Lance Gibbs was retired by then. I reject the "hello" from Lance Gibbs.

There is no circumventing. Aussie series was tough for them but it had more to do with Lillee and Gilmour with their bats being on top of their game. their losses in India were on spinning paradise like Eden and Chepauk if I am not mistaken.

[philcric]

39 minutes ago, Khota said:

There is no circumventing. Aussie series was tough for them but it had more to do with Lillee and Gilmour with their bats being on top of their game. their losses in India were on spinning paradise like Eden and Chepauk if I am not mistaken.

 

Makes no sense whatsoever. Struggle against Lillee and Gilmour, struggle against Aussie bats, struggle on spinning paradises in India. The greatest WI team apparently 

 

You are digging a deeper hole for yourself with every post.

 

The 74-75 WI was an average team. That team did not have Holding, Garner, Marshall. They lost 2 tests in India and 5 tests to Aussies. The great WI team that everyone talks about was 76-88 or thereabouts. Lance Gibbs was not a part of that team, he did not play a single game for that team. That team did not have any successful spinners. It had 4 fearsome fast bowlers playing and a few others on the bench.

 

[Khota]

4 hours ago, philcric said:

 

Makes no sense whatsoever. Struggle against Lillee and Gilmour, struggle against Aussie bats, struggle on spinning paradises in India. The greatest WI team apparently 

 

You are digging a deeper hole for yourself with every post.

 

The 74-75 WI was an average team. That team did not have Holding, Garner, Marshall. They lost 2 tests in India and 5 tests to Aussies. The great WI team that everyone talks about was 76-88 or thereabouts. Lance Gibbs was not a part of that team, he did not play a single game for that team. That team did not have any successful spinners. It had 4 fearsome fast bowlers playing and a few others on the bench.

 

Your premise that  they did not have a spinner is incorrect. Lance Gibbs played. They did lose two but you conveniently omit they won 3. Maybe does not advance your agenda. They lost to Aussies away so no big deal.

 

Let us stick to the topic. Those were pace bowlers not multi dimensional or all rounders player etc.

[Tattieboy]

9 hours ago, Khota said:

lance Gibbs says hello.

Lance Gibbs did not play in what was deemed to be the greatest WI team. 

That team started to take shape with fast bowlers Roberts, Holding and Daniel in 1976, it  really took off from 1977 with the addition of Garner and Croft . 

Spinners such as Albert Padmore and Derek Parry played a few tests from 1976 but it was usually the four fast bowlers with Viv Richards more than useful off spinners used if needed. 

Of the bowlers only Marshall was deemed to be able to bat , all the others were just tail end throw the bat at the ball. 

[rtmohanlal]

just liked the way ENG operated in the SL series... the all rounders( all of them way off from being ATGs)  complimented each other very well to achieve a white wash. Only 2 specialist bowlers  each played in all the matches it seams... India too can take a leaf out of it ....

[Ankit_sharma03]

1 minute ago, rtmohanlal said:

just liked the way ENG operated in the SL series... the all rounders( all of them way off from being ATGs)  complimented each other very well to achieve a white wash. Only 2 specialist bowlers  each played in all the matches it seams... India too can take a leaf out of it ....

we cnt , we dnt have as good resources

 

Pandya is work in progress

bhuvi bowling form is not good

Ashwin batting has dipped

jadeja batting against pace n bounce is under question 

 

Moeen ali and sam curran batting is in better shape 

[rtmohanlal]

7 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

we cnt , we dnt have as good resources

 

Pandya is work in progress

bhuvi bowling form is not good

Ashwin batting has dipped

jadeja batting against pace n bounce is under question 

 

Moeen ali and sam curran batting is in better shape 

Jadeja averages 51 in the last 2 years(50+ avg: in domestic too). Unfortunately Pandya is out with injury...Ashwin, though  regressed  off late can still  put some useful runs here and there(keep in mind once he was a genuine all rounder level) .Bhuvi has 22+ avg:. Kuldeep  has a decent domestic avg: of almost 28.5  which is indicative of being handy with the bat  here and there  in the long run.And I was thoroughly impressed with Vihari in ENG. It was when Jadeja  was not up to the mark that he picked 3 wkts  in an inns.

So all in all, don't see why all of these can't form a core group of multi dimensional players and compliment each other to produce way better results.More over Jadeja & Kuldeep along with Pant can bring variety too  them being left handers as well.

[philcric]

13 hours ago, Khota said:

Your premise that  they did not have a spinner is incorrect. Lance Gibbs played. They did lose two but you conveniently omit they won 3. Maybe does not advance your agenda. They lost to Aussies away so no big deal.

 

Let us stick to the topic. Those were pace bowlers not multi dimensional or all rounders player etc.

 

Such a dishonest post. Such pig headedness.

 

Losing 1-5 to Aus is no big deal, just because it is away? WTF !!

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/westindies/engine/records/team/series_results.html?class=1;id=4;type=team

 

Facts are very clear. Lance Gibbs played for WI before they became a great team. Winning 3-2 against an average India and losing 1-5 to Aus does not qualify as good, let alone great. They started becoming a very good team from 1976 Eng series. Before that they won 11 tests and lost 19 tests. How is that a great team?

 

The all conquering greatest WI team did not have multi-dimensional players. Everyone knows that. Nor did they have any spinners. Everyone knows that too except you, who somehow wants to include a player who did not even play for that team.

 

 

[Ankit_sharma03]

13 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

Jadeja averages 51 in the last 2 years(50+ avg: in domestic too).

Due to playing in India, make him play overseas and avg will cme crashing less then half

Quote

 

Unfortunately Pandya is out with injury...Ashwin, though  regressed  off late can still  put some useful runs here and there(keep in mind once he was a genuine all rounder level) .Bhuvi has 22+ avg:. Kuldeep  has a decent domestic avg: of almost 28.5  which is indicative of being handy with the bat  here and there  in the long run.And I was thoroughly impressed with Vihari in ENG. It was when Jadeja  was not up to the mark that he picked 3 wkts  in an inns.

Kuldeep batting is not much then a tail ender as of now 

Quote

So all in all, don't see why all of these can't form a core group of multi dimensional players and compliment each other to produce way better results.More over Jadeja & Kuldeep along with Pant can bring variety too  them being left handers as well.

we cnt use them as agroup coz 1st they have to command places as bowler

Pandya is the only who can play as all rounder overseas as of now , at max ashwin in WI

Edited November 26, 2018 by Ankit_sharma03

[Khota]

37 minutes ago, philcric said:

 

Such a dishonest post. Such pig headedness.

 

Losing 1-5 to Aus is no big deal, just because it is away? WTF !!

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/westindies/engine/records/team/series_results.html?class=1;id=4;type=team

 

Facts are very clear. Lance Gibbs played for WI before they became a great team. Winning 3-2 against an average India and losing 1-5 to Aus does not qualify as good, let alone great. They started becoming a very good team from 1976 Eng series. Before that they won 11 tests and lost 19 tests. How is that a great team?

 

The all conquering greatest WI team did not have multi-dimensional players. Everyone knows that. Nor did they have any spinners. Everyone knows that too except you, who somehow wants to include a player who did not even play for that team.

 

 

Using these words without knowing someone shows your maturity level.

 

I don't know if you saw them or not Andy Roberts was unplayable. Clive Llyod could hit harder than anyone else. Viv was at a different level.

 

As far as multi dimensinal players are concerned I have made it very clear they do not help so quit telling me that I am in favor of those. Lance Gibs was not multi dimensional.

 

India lost to England pretty bad butthat does not mean they are not a great team. They are #1. Similarly if you lose on clay does not make you a bad tennis player.

 

You live in your own echo chamber and I know the posters who serve as your reflecting walls.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Khota

[philcric]

1 hour ago, Khota said:

Using these words without knowing someone shows your maturity level.

 

I don't know if you saw them or not Andy Roberts was unplayable. Clive Llyod could hit harder than anyone else. Viv was at a different level.

 

As far as multi dimensinal players are concerned I have made it very clear they do not help so quit telling me that I am in favor of those. Lance Gibs was not multi dimensional.

 

India lost to England pretty bad butthat does not mean they are not a great team. They are #1. Similarly if you lose on clay does not make you a bad tennis player.

 

You live in your own echo chamber and I know the posters who serve as your reflecting walls.

 

On 11/25/2018 at 6:27 PM, Khota said:

The greatest team of all time Clive Llyods WI only had one so called allrounder, Bernard Julien. He was the sorriest player on that team.

 

You mentioned 'the greatest team of all time Clive Lloyd's WI' did not have an all-rounder. I said that team doesn't have a spinner either. Doesn't mean other potentially great teams should not have spinners or all-rounders.

 

Then you said that team had a spinner, Lance Gibbs. Fact is Lance Gibbs did not play for the greatest team of all time Clive Lloyd's WI. He retired before that. But you wouldn't accept that. Instead you try to justify that the team which was humiliated by Aus, and which won only 11 and lost 19 tests in that period, was in fact a great team. That is pig headedness.

 

"As far as multi dimensinal players are concerned I have made it very clear they do not help so quit telling me that I am in favor of those. Lance Gibs was not multi dimensional."

 Where did I say that you are in favour of multi-dimensional players? I stated a fact that the great WI team of yore had neither a multi-dimensional player nor a spinner.

 

"India lost to England pretty bad butthat does not mean they are not a great team. They are #1"

Surely we have different standards about 'great teams'.

 

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by philcric