View Single Post
Old July 18, 2012, 04:47 PM
BANFAN's Avatar
BANFAN BANFAN is offline
Cricket Sage
Join Date: March 26, 2007
Favorite Player: Bangladesh Team
Posts: 18,705

Originally Posted by Gowza
that's the thing, if you go with 2 specialist pacers they have to be quality and turn up everyday otherwise you need a 3rd pace option even if they are just a part timer, they need to be at least reasonable though.
Even if you have 2 quality specialist pacers, still you need to have a pace/medium pace part timer preferably an all rounder. Because you need to also cater for injury during Mach, Off days even of a quality pacer, too pace friendly conditions etc Question here is about a 3rd specialist pacer or a third part time pacer.

Originally Posted by Gowza
the fact is BD are very fortunate to have shakib, a guy who is good enough of a batsman to be in the top 5 and a good enough bowler to basically be the #1 bowler it means BD should be able to take an extra bowling option. so we have shakib and sunny/razzak and 2 specialist pacers. that should be a definate, the final spot can then be decided on pitch, if it's a pacers pitch then take another pacer, if it's a spinners one then go with a spinner.
That's the main premise of this discussion. I feel even if its a pace friendly pitch still we need to go with above setup. Because our pacers can hardly use the conditions and the third specialist pacer will just be a waste of a position, while the third spinner is still expected to do better than him. While the MP all rounder won't do that bad than a third specialist pacer with ball and be usefull with the bat.

Originally Posted by Gowza
in one-dayers and t20s we can probably take shakib, sunny and razzak into a match but in tests we can't, razzak has shown he's not a test match bowler. what it comes down to in tests is taking wickets, you have to take 20 wickets to win, so really whoever is the better wicket-taker should be that last spot. a spinner who can't take wickets in test will be just as much of a liability (perhaps more) than a pacer who can't take wickets. why perhaps more? because the opposition will probably score slower against them meaning they'll take longer to get their runs and thus declare leaving less time for BD to chase the runs (even thought that's a really bad way of thinking and i realise this means more chance of drawing but we want to win not draw).
We have a lots of wicket taking spinning options to replace razzak in test matches, than an additional specialist pacer as the 5 th bowler.

Originally Posted by Gowza
and shahadat is not an option he has a test match strike rate of 71, he is not a wicket-taking bowler, he might take a haul of wickets on occassion but it's balanced out by his overall high strike rate. i'd take a bowler who takes 3 wickets every match over a bowler who takes no wickets for 5 matches then a 5 wicket haul in the next match.
I would love to have that too... Theoretically that makes good sense. Practically we don't have a pacer who will take 3 wickets every match, so we have to take a pacer who make occasional but miraculous performance and that gives us a fair chance to win the match.... Any way we aren't able to create a winning situation even once in a blue moon. So that occasional performer can create that situation once in a while at least. So at this moment I will go for the later, the best type currently available....
[Post CWC15 Consistency Record: [B]Test: W-0 L-1 D-1/B]// ODI: W-3 L-0 // T20: W-1 L-0]
Reply With Quote