Choose the 3rd & 4th bowlers for Pre Packer XI

[adharcric]

Davidson and Laker/Benaud. I'll go with Laker as Benaud seems to be out of the race already.

 

[stephen]

I went Lindwall and Benaud. Though Davidson is also a very top choice, as is Laker.

 

[Ikki]

Johnston (because no one else will vote for him) and Chandrasekhar (because Sobers is nowhere near good enough to take on the mantle of sole spinner in an all time side). This way we have two spinning options to put up a fight against the Post Packer XI on a turning track. Wouldn't mind Benaud ahead of either of them too.

BTW, Ikki, why Chandra ahead of Benaud?

Actually, looking over it, I think Benaud could be better. I was looking at Chandra's record a while back and it was one of the best with regards to spinner's of his time. Viv Richards, IIRC, also said he was the toughest spinner he faced. But Benaud has a great away record and is frankly an all-rounder. I'd change my vote if I could, now giving Richie a better look in.

I was under the impression that Laker was more a bully in the right conditions and not as good otherwise. For the older folks: Laker, Benaud or Chandra?

 

[weldone]

For the older folks: Laker, Benaud or Chandra?

Laker is probably the best bowler of the three. But in this team, Benaud. Because we already have three and a half bowlers in Trueman, Lillee, Miller and Sobers. If we are selecting two more bowlers then one of them must be a bowling all-rounder. Otherwise five and a half bowlers is always an overkill in a test team.

 

[bagapath]

Laker is probably the best bowler of the three. But in this team, Benaud. Because we already have three and a half bowlers in Trueman, Lillee, Miller and Sobers. If we are selecting two more bowlers then one of them must be a bowling all-rounder. Otherwise five and a half bowlers is always an overkill in a test team.

i would rather not give the ball to sobers at all. he deserves a place as a batsman and fielder. he is not in the class of trueman, lillee, miller, lindwall and laker as a bowler. dont want to see what richards, gilchrist, sachin and lara might do to him.

 

[weldone]

i would rather not give the ball to sobers at all. he deserves a place as a batsman and fielder. he is not in the class of trueman, lillee, miller, lindwall and laker as a bowler. dont want to see what richards, gilchrist, sachin and lara might do to him.

Still five bowlers (without Sobers) of the highest calibre will leave the batting a bit suspect (yes, even with that kind of a top five)....And moreover, Benaud was no mug with the ball (I wouldn't have selected if it was a Vettori, say)...

 

[chaminda_00]

The whole thing about a slightly poor batting line is more to do with who is that seven then six tbh. Miller is a better batsmen then Imran Khan. It just that out of all the 6s and 7s Knott the worst batsmen so far. If it wasn't for Gilchirst in the other side it wouldn't really matter.

The problem not Miller, the problem is that Knott was selected over Walcott as the keeper. I wonder if we did the keeper poll latter and put Walcott in, how many people would have voted for Walcott as the keeper. To counter the Gilchirst factor.

 

[nightprowler10]

I voted Lindwall and Davidson, but could I please change my vote to Davidson and Chandreshaker? I voted before voting for Miller in the other thread.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The whole thing about a slightly poor batting line is more to do with who is that seven then six tbh. Miller is a better batsmen then Imran Khan. It just that out of all the 6s and 7s Knott the worst batsmen so far. If it wasn't for Gilchirst in the other side it wouldn't really matter.

The problem not Miller, the problem is that Knott was selected over Walcott as the keeper. I wonder if we did the keeper poll latter and put Walcott in, how many people would have voted for Walcott as the keeper. To counter the Gilchirst factor.

Walcott? He played barely a third of his Tests as a keeper and when he did his batting generally wasn't as effective.

 

[G.I.Joe]

It was his first 14 tests tbh.

 

[Matt79]

Walcott? He played barely a third of his Tests as a keeper and when he did his batting generally wasn't as effective.

This - I don't buy Walcott as a genuine, long term keeping option.

 

[chaminda_00]

Walcott? He played barely a third of his Tests as a keeper and when he did his batting generally wasn't as effective.

This - I don't buy Walcott as a genuine, long term keeping option.

Never rated him as a great keeper and would have picked Knott personally over him. But it would have interesting to see what the masses did and whether they would take a punt on his batting to counter Gilchirst and potentially Ames.

There no doubt Knott batting will be the weaklink in these sides imo.

 

[bagapath]

I voted Lindwall and Davidson, but could I please change my vote to Davidson and Chandreshaker? I voted before voting for Miller in the other thread.

sure mate. lets see if it comes to that towards the end. if there is a tie or a difference of one vote between these guys yours might make a difference.

 

[bagapath]

The whole thing about a slightly poor batting line is more to do with who is that seven then six tbh. Miller is a better batsmen then Imran Khan. It just that out of all the 6s and 7s Knott the worst batsmen so far. If it wasn't for Gilchirst in the other side it wouldn't really matter.

The problem not Miller, the problem is that Knott was selected over Walcott as the keeper. I wonder if we did the keeper poll latter and put Walcott in, how many people would have voted for Walcott as the keeper. To counter the Gilchirst factor.

i had kept 100 dismissals as minimum cut off for keepers. interesting question you've raised. but on a poll that had knott, marsh, waite and evans as options i dont think walcott would've got any votes. CW members as far as i know are purists. test cricket over ODIs. specialists over part timers.

 

[chaminda_00]

i had kept 100 dismissals as minimum cut off for keepers. interesting question you've raised. but on a poll that had knott, marsh, waite and evans as options i dont think walcott would've got any votes. CW members as far as i know are purists. test cricket over ODIs. specialists over part timers.

I'm not sure about that when it comes to keepers anymore. Most guys when it comes to drafts have picked guys that can played as specialist batsmen as keepers. Most guys that were brillant keepers were forgotten about or were after thoughts. I think you will find most guys will pick keepers on batting first and keeper second.

Also most people seem to prefer batting all rounders like Walters, Grieg over bowling all rounders. People love depth when it comes to all time sides. One of reasons why someone like McGrath misses out over Marshall and Hadlee. When it comes to 50/50 selection most guys would go for the better all round option.

I would be surprised actually if Walcott didn't come close if not win. Especially after Miller got selected at six. The thing that you have to remember with Knott is that he wasn't the best keeper of era. It was his batting that separates him from the other keepers and other top line pure keepers. Probably being harsh here on Knott, as he was a fine keeper. But in some ways he was that fall back when you want a quality keeper that bats to high standard.

 

[bagapath]

I'm not sure about that when it comes to keepers anymore. Most guys when it comes to drafts have picked guys that can played as specialist batsmen as keepers. Most guys that were brillant keepers were forgotten about or were after thoughts. I think you will find most guys will pick keepers on batting first and keeper second.

i dont think walcott would have had any takers since this is not a draft where once the best ones are gone you end up going for next best and start looking at complimentary skills. in the first team, if they were to go for a better batsman they would have gone for andy flower. they didnt. gilly's glove work is also appreciated as much as his batting. i dont think anyone would have looked at walcott as an answer to gilly in this team. he didnt keep in enough matches to be considered at that level.

any which way i had to have a minimum criteria for all departments. 100 dismissals is a very fair cut off limit which means the player should have played about 30 - 35 tests as a regular keeper. i dont think you would want a part-time keeper in a team representing 35 years of test cricket.

 

[Ikki]

Walcott as a keeper averaged 40, good but I don't think that much more likely to oppose Gilchrist equally as Knott who averages 32 and is, as I understand, infinitely the greater keeper.

 

[bagapath]

i really hope laker maintains his lead. would hate to see a team without any specialist spinner.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm not sure about that when it comes to keepers anymore. Most guys when it comes to drafts have picked guys that can played as specialist batsmen as keepers. Most guys that were brillant keepers were forgotten about or were after thoughts. I think you will find most guys will pick keepers on batting first and keeper second.

Also most people seem to prefer batting all rounders like Walters, Grieg over bowling all rounders. People love depth when it comes to all time sides. One of reasons why someone like McGrath misses out over Marshall and Hadlee. When it comes to 50/50 selection most guys would go for the better all round option.

I would be surprised actually if Walcott didn't come close if not win. Especially after Miller got selected at six. The thing that you have to remember with Knott is that he wasn't the best keeper of era. It was his batting that separates him from the other keepers and other top line pure keepers. Probably being harsh here on Knott, as he was a fine keeper. But in some ways he was that fall back when you want a quality keeper that bats to high standard.

Actually he was the best keeper of his era. The only one that came close was Bob Taylor and it's true opinion was split, but either way it was never more than a minimal difference purely on keeping.
It's bad enough the England selectors chopping and changing every other series in search of a "Gilchrist" that doesn't exist, but trying to unearth one retrospectively is even sillier.

 

[chaminda_00]

i dont think walcott would have had any takers since this is not a draft where once the best ones are gone you end up going for next best and start looking at complimentary skills. in the first team, if they were to go for a better batsman they would have gone for andy flower. they didnt. gilly's glove work is also appreciated as much as his batting. i dont think anyone would have looked at walcott as an answer to gilly in this team. he didnt keep in enough matches to be considered at that level.

any which way i had to have a minimum criteria for all departments. 100 dismissals is a very fair cut off limit which means the player should have played about 30 - 35 tests as a regular keeper. i dont think you would want a part-time keeper in a team representing 35 years of test cricket.

Walcott was generally picked as keeper before Knott quite often.

He doesn't meet the criteria as pure keeper, but I think you will find these days a lot of guys have their own criteria that a keeper averages 40 with the bat atleast and that counters their abilty with the gloves.

It has surprised me how much people rate batting over keeper, but their does seem to be a common trend.