India All Time XI

[Richard]

why???? you make it sound like gospel truth. i disagree.

ramprakash and hick are classic examples of stupendous success in FC getting them umpteen opportunities in test level. it came to nothing. gower, thorpe, collingwood etc with inferior county records have done much better at international level... how do you explain that?

Thorpe's domestic record was hardly poor. Collingwood I've never really rated much as a Test batsman and he's only succeeded IMO because circumstances have conspired in his favour (same thing's true of Trescothick). Gower was an odd case indeed, as virtually no people who have failed at domestic level (and TBF Gower averaged something like 35-36 for Leics so he wasn't out-and-out useless, simply nowhere near justified his talent at the domestic level) tend to succeed at international. There are exceptions to all rules, though.

Of course, far from every domestic success has succeeded at international level, but if you pick a domestic failure over a domestic success you're crazy. Good at domestic level > poor at domestic level. It's as simple as that.

i find it funny when people compare barry richards or merchant with gavaskar and hutton when they discuss great openers... very unfair to sunny and len..

Very unfair to Richards and Merchant that they didn't get any meaningful Test careers too. Yet those who watched them still attested to their skills, and this was borne-out in their records at the domestic level (even though Richards "only" averaged 50 for Hampshire). Hence, I'm perfectly happy to consider that they were the greatest batsmen produced by South Africa and India. I wouldn't have either on a par with Hobbs and Sutcliffe, nor for that matter Hutton or a few others. But the difference isn't particularly enormous. I take it almost as read that they'd have had huge Test success if they'd had the chance, because I see pretty much zero evidence to the contrary.

 

[bagapath]

Thorpe's domestic record was hardly poor. Collingwood I've never really rated much as a Test batsman and he's only succeeded IMO because circumstances have conspired in his favour (same thing's true of Trescothick). Gower was an odd case indeed, as virtually no people who have failed at domestic level (and TBF Gower averaged something like 35-36 for Leics so he wasn't out-and-out useless, simply nowhere near justified his talent at the domestic level) tend to succeed at international. There are exceptions to all rules, though.

Of course, far from every domestic success has succeeded at international level, but if you pick a domestic failure over a domestic success you're crazy. Good at domestic level > poor at domestic level. It's as simple as that.

Very unfair to Richards and Merchant that they didn't get any meaningful Test careers too. Yet those who watched them still attested to their skills, and this was borne-out in their records at the domestic level (even though Richards "only" averaged 50 for Hampshire). Hence, I'm perfectly happy to consider that they were the greatest batsmen produced by South Africa and India. I wouldn't have either on a par with Hobbs and Sutcliffe, nor for that matter Hutton or Gavaskar or a few others. But the difference isn't particularly enormous. I take it almost as read that they'd have had huge Test success if they'd had the chance, because I see pretty much zero evidence to the contrary.

you haven't dealt with hick and ramprakash's failure at test level all!!! are you going to tell me "circumstances have conspired against" them? just like they "conspired for" collingwood and trescothick.... what other element do we have to add to statistical analysis, richard? fate, maybe????

 

[Richard]

I said, didn't I? Not all domestic successes are international successes. I've nothing that needs to be "dealt" with.

Almost all people who do not do well at the domestic level have zero chance of doing well at the international level. It's as simple as that.

 

[bagapath]

Not all domestic successes are international successes.

thanks for saying that. i agree with that wholeheartedly.

thats why i don't treat barry richards or vijay merchant as legends based on their first class records.

 

[Richard]

I don't treat them that way solely on their domestic records either. Heck, I don't treat Jack Hobbs as a legend purely based on his career record (both domestic and international) either.

I treat players the way I do because I've looked at their records and heard people speak and write about them. Barry Richards was beyond question a magnificent batsman. There are still plenty of people, some inclusive on this forum, who've seen him play. Stuff about Merchant is harder to find, but still perfectly possible if you look hard enough.

In case you haven't noticed, I've never said Ajay Sharma was as brilliant as Merchant. Why? Because I've heard next to nothing about him (though I must say, I very much would like to as his case is a truly perplexing one). I've heard plenty about Merchant and what I've heard tends to suggest he was probably the best batsman yet produced by India. Even though he's obviously far from the batsman who has contributed most to Indian Test cricket.

 

[Arjun]

Better than Nawab of Pataudi jnr? And even with him I would rather have a world class batsman. It just seems like a waste of a spot. And whats your reasoning for a second alrounder?

Maybe Pataudi Jr, but the team has to have a captain. Finding a good player who's been influential as a captain was tough. That is, unless you'd risk Kapil Dev as captain.

Then again, why not?

That second all-rounder was picked because I don't want a long tail, or inadequate bowling options, and Dhoni isn't ready for an all-time XI yet. Kirmani wasn't that good a batsman, and there haven't been too many bowlers (bar Kumble) who could score enough runs. Or else, we can have an extra bowler with Kumble and Kirmani scoring together.

 

[Richard]

If you're worried that Kirmani's batting wasn't good enough, why not pick Engineer? Whose wicketkeeping was hardly poor.

 

[Richard]

I'm happy you picked Nissar and Amar Singh, but...Ishant was in contention?

Just noticed... bit more worrying that Dhoni is picked ahead of Engineer.

 

[silentstriker]

Just noticed... bit more worrying that Dhoni is picked ahead of Engineer.

Ouch, didn't even notice that.

 

[bagapath]

In case you haven't noticed, I've never said Ajay Sharma was as brilliant as Merchant. Why? Because I've heard next to nothing about him (though I must say, I very much would like to as his case is a truly perplexing one).

i remember ajay sharma from the few matches he played for india in mid - 80s. he was aggressive and swung his bat around in some one-day games. there was a 52, IIRC, against new zealand that included some really wild shots.

both ajay and WV Raman were stalwarts in the first class circuit. but it was quite obvious they were not good enough at the highest level to replace the likes of amarnath, vengsarkar, azharuddin or even shastri.

in mid 80s india, at the FC level, the bowling attacks were terribly weak everywhere. kapil was always busy with the national team. average bowlers like chetan sharma, binny, madan lal, shivlal yadav, ravi shastri and maninder singh were also playing for india. when the indian international bowlers themselves were mediocre at best, imagine the trundlers bowling in the rajni and duleep trophies. future champions kumble, srinath and prasad were yet to make a mark in the domestic scene.

the international regulars in the middle order (all of them played in excess of 80 test matches except amarnath who played in a respectable 69) got better and better playing against quality bowlers all around the world. not just the hadlees, marshalls and lillees - but also against good pros in tour games and county matches. but indian domestic batters continued to remain in the cesspool and faded out without ever developing into good batsmen. their bloated first class averages are a shame.

ajay belongs to this category. he could whack the poor bowlers to his heart's content without a sound technique, without continuous honing of batting fundamentals, and the right attitude mixed with hard work and discipline. no wonder he didnt stay too long with the indian team.

but he stayed long enough to befriend some weak minded individuals who helped him fix matches later. but, thats another story...

 

[Richard]

Ah, I see. A latter-day, and more extreme, version of Matthew Hayden, then, I guess.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ah, I see. A latter-day, and more extreme, version of Matthew Hayden, then, I guess.

 

[Richard]

Good obs, Einstein.

 

[bagapath]

Anil should consider having polls to select this all time XI. a lot more meaning ful discussion can come out while filling up individual slots.. I propose 750 runs and 50 wickets as minimum criteria...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I was quite impressed that the thread manage to reach four pages before an attempt to hi-jack it with the same spurious drivel.

 

[bagapath]

anil... with the world cup dream xi coming to a close i am itching to go for an all time india xi poll...would you like to run it? if not, let me know... i'll set it up

 

[weldone]

anil... with the world cup dream xi coming to a close i am itching to go for an all time india xi poll...would you like to run it? if not, let me know... i'll set it up

If you do, then run only 4 polls at first - 1st for selecting 2 openers, 2nd for selecting number 3 4 and 5, 3rd for selecting 2 quicks and 4th for selecting a spinner...Then depending on the results run a 5th poll for selecting the 4th bowler, a 6th poll for selecting the wicketkeeper and a 7th poll for selecting the no. 6 (or number 7 if the wicketkeeper bats higher than 7)...Polls should be in this order...

 

[bagapath]

If you do, then run only 4 polls at first - 1st for selecting 2 openers, 2nd for selecting number 3 4 and 5, 3rd for selecting 2 quicks and 4th for selecting a spinner...Then depending on the results run a 5th poll for selecting the 4th bowler, a 6th poll for selecting the wicketkeeper and a 7th poll for selecting the no. 6 (or number 7 if the wicketkeeper bats higher than 7)...Polls should be in this order...

If you are really sure of how it should be done, you are welcome to run it. My order will be different. But to each his own. I am perfectly fine with just participating in it if you are conducting.

 

[weldone]

If you are really sure of how it should be done, you are welcome to run it. My order will be different. But to each his own. I am perfectly fine with just participating in it if you are conducting.

OK I have no problem conducting it...Just for interest sake I want to know what will your order be...Maybe I can change my order if I find your order better.

 

[bagapath]

My order will be:

2 Openers
2 Fast bowlers
1 wicket keeper
1 all-rounder
1 spinner
no.3
no4 and no.5
4th bowler - could be a spinner or a fast bowler or runner up from all rounder poll