what would be your zimbabwe 11 atm ,no holds barred?

[Jemisi]

Just so I can understand your ballpark, is Taylor better than Matsi, Hhm?

More talented? By a country mile!
Better? Are you on some kind of substance!

Think of it more like Mark - Steve Waugh; Laxman/Ganguly/Azharudin - Tendulkar; Gibbs - Kallis; Younis Khan - Yousuf Youhanna(I still call him that - maybe too tight to call between these two); Grant - Andy! Yes, I belive the young Grant or should I say 75% of their career was a more talented batsman!

I am having some semantic difficulty. Andy = better than Grant. Stephen = better than Mark. Sachin better than VVS.
BRM better than Matsi.

Trying to get you. Do you mean these less productive batsmen are prettier to watch?

[hhm]

Trying to get you. Do you mean these less productive batsmen are prettier to watch?

Prettier to watch and more naturally talented. Unfortunately, were never as effective.

If you look at it closely, it's those kind players who often can win matches or setup wins for their sides. Guys like Kallis&Tendulkar seldom win matches for their sides 'single-handedly' so to speak, more the kind of guys who resist than take the game to the opposition. Which is why I rate Ricky & Brian higher than those two because no only are they more naturally talented, they were also effective - capable of taking the game away from the opposition at will, wining matches for their sides!

In truth, I and most people watched when Gibbs was in, then immediately went away when the Kallis&Kirsten show(later Smith) resumed. In the case of India, I strictly waited for Azharudin&Ganguly to come to the crease, later Laxman. Now once both Gambhir and Sehwag go, I wait for one of Sachin/Dravid to fall so I can watch Laxman. Unfortunately the likes of Gibbs, Mark, Ganguly, Azharuddin, Laxman etc, were never as consistently effective like Lara and Ponting were, which is why most people tend to devalue their worth.

That's not to say these other guys cannot turn on the stlye or class because I think barring Sehwag, they all have similar strike rates. The key for me is the class, elegance, strokemaking, all combined with aggression makess for better viewing. Sachin(plus Gavaskar) is the controvertial one, but I've always felt that when he looks to dominate the attack or display his class, he often falls early or for a lower score than he would like, so just like usual Kallis, they mostly get comfortable only after they've already done the damage(which in itself was painful viewing while they were at it).

Many years down the line you'll look at Michael Clarke and put him in that below class category, yet more pleasant to watch, but the Steve Waugh, Border type players will rank higher.

NB: I'm not for the Hayden, Warner, Sehwag-type players to be honest!

[betterdays]

Although I agree with this

NB: I'm not for the Hayden, Warner, Sehwag-type players to be honest!

I seem to be in a minority about this

In truth, I and most people watched when Gibbs was in, then immediately went away when the Kallis&Kirsten show(later Smith) resumed.

I love to watch the early exchanges of an innings (the Gibbs, Ponting ... guys I get to see every year at the IPL. Ok, but of a denigration but in the end i know what it looks like to carress a ball to the boundary and i've seen Ponting in full swing - fine, entertaining for a bit but it will never really be remembered like Donald vs Atherton, McGrath vs Lara - who always started a little shakily as most do - Ambrose vs Waugh or even Steyn vs Colllingwood more recently) ... Give me Kirsten or Chanders over Laxman or Ponting every day of the week. In the end, I only watch the early exchanges then get on with things while keeping a half eye on the wickets (then watch the next bat).

[andybligz93]

1.V.Sibanda
2.G.Ballance
3.B.Rogers
4.M.Goodwin
5.B.Taylor (c)
6.T.Taibu (wk)
7.S.Ervine
8.A.Blignaut
9.G.Cremer
10.K.Jarvis
11.R.Price

[eugene]

I always loved watching Damien Martyn.

[foreignfield]

The debate on aesthetics vs numbers has raged ever since cricket punditry was invented. Add to that the drama-factor, betterdays has alluded to, and you'll never reach an agreement on "who do you prefer to watch".

My favourite type of batsman might just be the "gutsy tail-ender sticking it out to stave off defeat or inch his team over the line towards victory", as in:

There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night --
Ten to make and the match to win --
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.

[Jemisi]

1.V.Sibanda
2.G.Ballance
3.B.Rogers
4.M.Goodwin
5.B.Taylor (c)
6.T.Taibu (wk)
7.S.Ervine
8.A.Blignaut
9.G.Cremer
10.K.Jarvis
11.R.Price

This side bats deep, might struggle for seam depending on what Sean does.

[Jemisi]

Trying to get you. Do you mean these less productive batsmen are prettier to watch?

Prettier to watch and more naturally talented. Unfortunately, were never as effective.

So you could gain general agreement about Mark's elegance over Steve's or VVS over Sachin, and perhaps that means that they are physically more talented. The top players always emphasise the mind, though. I think that most of the productivity comes from better mental strength and hence more runs. Particularly Stephen Waugh, Kallis who makes runs whenever and wherever. Dravid, the only Indian to truly dominate away from home over the years. These guys have been more productive and that is what I mean by the general tag of 'better'.

So Matsi may look prettier than Taylor and may have more physical talent, but in the end Taylor is the one passing 50 regularly and the one making hundreds much more often.

[hhm]

will never really be remembered like Donald vs Atherton, McGrath vs Lara - who always started a little shakily as most do - Ambrose vs Waugh or even Steyn vs Colllingwood more recently) ... Give me Kirsten or Chanders over Laxman or Ponting every day of the week. In the end, I only watch the early exchanges then get on with things while keeping a half eye on the wickets (then watch the next bat).

Fair enough, and I respect that. Watching Zim must be a painstaking process then, and you must've yearned for a longer career for Gripper. All the more reason why you should want Duffin in there! As for Tino, I know his Pakistan innings has developed some kind of reputation of him being of the Gripper-class but I think Tino is far more fluid than Duffin&Gripper. Why, until NZ, a WC bound batsmen continued to be excluded from our ODI XI remeians a mystery to me!

The debate on aesthetics vs numbers has raged ever since cricket punditry was invented. Add to that the drama-factor, betterdays has alluded to, and you'll never reach an agreement on "who do you prefer to watch".

Well stated!

This side bats deep, might struggle for seam depending on what Sean does.

His intention is clearly not to bowl sides out before they reach 700, but to ensure they can bat twice and avoid an innigs defeat! Sean - ineffective seam bowler; Blignaut - can conjure up one or two masterful spells in the Test, but will for the most part be wayward and appreciated by the opposition; Jarvis - with 700 on the board they won't need to bat twice so his soel wicket in the 1st innings is as far as he can go; Cremer - symbol for a white flag being raised; Poor Ray might have to get his left arm amputated after the match!

The top players always emphasise the mind, though. I think that most of the productivity comes from better mental strength and hence more runs. These guys have been more productive and that is what I mean by the general tag of 'better'. So Matsi may look prettier than Taylor and may have more physical talent, but in the end Taylor is the one passing 50 regularly and the one making hundreds much more often.

I couldn't agree more! Anyway, of modern batsmen none have matched Ponting at his peak, however, above everyone else, Dravid is the ultimate batsman - the only one I would model any student batsman on.

[betterdays]

Anyway, of modern batsmen none have matched Ponting at his peak, .

nor has any had the luxury of such a foundation... Ponting and Sachin have unquestionable class but Kallis and Chanders would be joining Dravid in my top three modern bats and the passion in my reasoning is unwavering...

will never really be remembered like Donald vs Atherton, McGrath vs Lara - who always started a little shakily as most do - Ambrose vs Waugh or even Steyn vs Colllingwood more recently) ... Give me Kirsten or Chanders over Laxman or Ponting every day of the week. In the end, I only watch the early exchanges then get on with things while keeping a half eye on the wickets (then watch the next bat).

Fair enough, and I respect that. Watching Zim must be a painstaking process then, and you must've yearned for a longer career for Gripper. All the more reason why you should want Duffin in there! As for Tino, I know his Pakistan innings has developed some kind of reputation of him being of the Gripper-class but I think Tino is far more fluid than Duffin&Gripper. Why, until NZ, a WC bound batsmen continued to be excluded from our ODI XI remeians a mystery to me!
.

I did like Gripper but letting the dead bury the dead i will move on to the Duffin point...yes, i quite like the idea of Duffin and Tino opening with Vusi at three. I haven't seen him recently but for me i rather like someone who will get you 20 runs in the #1/2 slot more often than not - than someone who'll get you a 50/100 1 in 7 times and not make double figures in 5 of those 10.