Lets play selector-selector !!

[Fusion]

So basically you are inclined to strengthen the batting at the cost of bowling (since you have talked of replacing Mankad, or Miller or Botham).

Why? Do you think it is not strong enough? When you look at the original side does batting look more deficient than bowling?

My whole premise is to have Viv in the team. It’s a personal bias, but that sets the whole thing in motion in regards to whom to replace. I will generally not have that many all-rounders in my all-time XI. So if I was not limited to one replacement, then I would’ve taken out Mankad for a pure bowling option as well (Marshall to be specific). So then I would’ve had Marshall/Hadlee/Imran/Benaud as my front line attack with Sobers providing valuable part-time spin if needed. Actually if I was not limited to one replacement, then I would’ve had Warne in for Benaud!

 

[SJS]

My whole premise is to have Viv in the team. It’s a personal bias, but that sets the whole thing in motion in regards to whom to replace. I will generally not have that many all-rounders in my all-time XI. So if I was not limited to one replacement, then I would’ve taken out Mankad for a pure bowling option as well (Marshall to be specific). So then I would’ve had Marshall/Hadlee/Imran/Benaud as my front line attack with Sobers providing valuable part-time spin if needed. Actually if I was not limited to one replacement, then I would’ve had Warne in for Benaud!

Fair enough.

There is a specific reason to having so many all rounders. That is what makes the replacement interesting. By putting so many quality all rounders we have tried to make both batting and bowling strong and an embarrassment of riches in both departments if you wish.

This makes the choice of a replacement very interesting and shows what people prefer to do even when a side looks very strong in both departments.

This is not going to end with this poll. There is going to be a second stage to it

 

[Ikki]

Interesting.

You have considered two options. Replace the specialist keeper with a batsman keeper or Specialist spinner (Warne's batting being limited in a way) to replace spinner all rounder. The first option looks to strengthen the batting at the cost of a specialist while the second looks to add a specialist at the cost of batting.

Why this contradiction?

It's not a contradiction in preferences, those were merely two instances where I thought there would be a big jump in the reserve.

For example, a Gilchrist vs a Healy is a non-contest, there is much more to gain with Gilchrist. But when a team bats so deep it's not likely to be as important as a team that has no specialist spinner where the difference between Mankad and Warne is also huge.

The fast bowlers are covered with Miller, Imran and Hadlee comfortably. The batting is superb and the keepers are even good. So that was my choice as it was the best step up.

 

[SJS]

It's not a contradiction in preferences, those were merely two instances where I thought there would be a big jump in the reserve.

For example, a Gilchrist vs a Healy is a non-contest, there is much more to gain with Gilchrist. But when a team bats so deep it's not likely to be as important as a team that has no specialist spinner where the difference between Mankad and Warne is also huge.

The fast bowlers are covered with Miller, Imran and Hadlee comfortably. The batting is superb and the keepers are even good. So that was my choice as it was the best step up.

Fair enough.

I must mention here (and I will put it in the thread starter as well) that the four specialist keepers are put only because people differ as to who is the better keeper. You must assume that the one you consider the best 'behind the stumps' amongst the four is in the final eleven. So if you think Duckworth is the best keeper amongst those four, you have to think whether you want to replace him with a keeping allrounder.

 

[Ikki]

Fair enough.

I must mention here (and I will put it in the thread starter as well) that the four specialist keepers are put only because people differ as to who is the better keeper. You must assume that the one you consider the best 'behind the stumps' amongst the four is in the final eleven. So if you think Duckworth is the best keeper amongst those four, you have to think whether you want to replace him with a keeping allrounder.

I used Healy as example. For me, the difference between Gilchrist's keeping vs the above four's is negligible but their batting isn't; hence why I think he is the better choice. But since the batting is so deep his batting becomes less important.

Whereas with Warne and Mankad, the difference between their prowess with the ball is huge and that extra that Mankad gives with the bad is wasted in such a line-up.

As much as I want the likes of Viv and Lillee, this line-up is fine without them.

 

[SJS]

I used Healy as example. For me, the difference between Gilchrist's keeping vs the above four's is negligible but their batting isn't; hence why I think he is the better choice. But since the batting is so deep his batting becomes less important.

Whereas with Warne and Mankad, the difference between their prowess with the ball is huge and that extra that Mankad gives with the bad is wasted in such a line-up.

As much as I want the likes of Viv and Lillee, this line-up is fine without them.

Fine

 

[Ikki]

Without wishing to sound too much like the Miller fan-boy that I am, why would you take out Miller instead of Mankad?

Was gonna ask that too. Miller shouldn't be touched in this line-up, really, when there is Benaud or Mankad.

 

[Ikki]

Fine

When are you revealing your choice then?

 

[SJS]

So far three people have preferred bringing in specialist spinner to replace a spinner-allrounder and one has preferred bringing in a specialist batsman to replace a pace bowling all rounder.

 

[The Sean]

So far three people have preferred bringing in specialist spinner to replace a spinner-allrounder and one has preferred bringing in a specialist batsman to replace a pace bowling all rounder.

I'm actually torn as to whether to bring in a specialist spinner or a specialist quick. Definitely at the expense of a spinner-allrounder though.

 

[SJS]

When are you revealing your choice then?

My choice is not important. This is a kind of survey which will have further stages.

If I make a choice now, it prevents me from playing Devil's advocate effectively since I am questioning every choice basically to understand the reasoning.

 

[SJS]

I'm actually torn as to whether to bring in a specialist spinner or a specialist quick. Definitely at the expense of a spinner-allrounder though.

I can understand that. I made a mistake. I should have taken an off spinning all rounder in place of Mankad. Now with Sobers already available people tend to consider Mankad dispensable. Unfortunately great off spinner all rounders haven't been many and I did not want to put someone like Jackson since many people are not very familiar with him.

My idea was for the bowling attack to have everything. A pacer who brings the ball in (Imran), another who can take it out (Miller), a left arm pacer (Sobers), a fast medium bowler of fantastic accuracy (Hadlee), a left hand spinner (Mankad) and a leg spinner (Benaud). Hammond fills in as a right hand medium pacer. He was of course a much better bowler than people are aware of.

That would give a complete attack and people, if they wanted to maintain the variety in attack would have to replace like with like as one poster has done by replacing Benaud with O;reilly

 

[The Sean]

I can understand that. I made a mistake. I should have taken an off spinning all rounder in place of Mankad. Now with Sobers already available people tend to consider Mankad dispensable. Unfortunately great off spinner all rounders haven't been many and I did not want to put someone like Jackson since many people are not very familiar with him.

My idea was for the bowling attack to have everything. A pacer who brings the ball in (Imran), another who can take it out (Miller), a left arm pacer (Sobers, a left hand spinner (Mankad) and a leg spinner (Benaud). Hammond fills in as a right hand medium pacer. He was of course a much better bowler than people are aware of.

That would give a complete attack and people, if they wanted to maintain the variety in attack would have to replace like with like as one poster has done by replacing Benaud with O;reilly

Yeah for sure SJS - I see what you were doing and I think that for the aim of the exercise you picked the right players. Even if you had included Jackson I reckon that he (or Benaud) would still have been my first one to go. It's a question of how important specialists are to the individual at the expense of the depth provided by all rounders.

 

[Sanz]

Thats a clearly stated preference; a specialist for an allrounder. Clearly you think the batting is good enough and we could do with a batsman less to bring in higher quality in the form of a specialist spinner.

Yes and I considered Mankad and Benaud both but in the end I decided to replace Benaud for reasons :-

a. I consider Mankad a better batsman than Benaud, infact barring Sobers I consider Mankad a better batsman than all other alrounders in the team (Correct me If I am wrong here), hence I wanted to keep him in the team.
b. Wanted a leggie replacing another hence didn't consider Murali and rate OReilly better than others, so was an easy pick who I wanted in place of Benaud

 

[vic_orthdox]

Dropping Mankad for Murali. Want a specialist off-spinner in that team, bringing the ball away from left handers and bowling into the rough created by my three right arm fast bowlers.

 

[SJS]

Dropping Mankad for Murali. Want a specialist off-spinner in that team, bringing the ball away from left handers and bowling into the rough created by my three right arm fast bowlers.

Cant find fault with that. Suppose I had been able to find a good off spinning all rounder. Lets say Ashley Mallett or Venkatraghvan or Fred Titmus had a batting average of 30 plus with the bat in Tests and he was in the original side in place of Mankad, what would you have done?

 

[Jamee999]

Marshall for Mankad. But Warne or Murali for Mankad is good too.

 

[Jakester1288]

Warne or Murali (I rate Warne higher) for Benaud or Mankad.

 

[SJS]

Since I’m only limited to one replacement, I just know that I would want to get Viv Richards in the side. So the question becomes whom do I replace to make that possible? The obvious option would be to replace someone from the middle order. Bradman is untouchable, so that would leave Sobers and Hammond. Since Sobers is, IMO, the most complete player to ever put on the whites he can’t be axed either. So that leaves Hammond. I’m debating whether to truly axe him or go another rout. For example, I can keep both Hammond and Viv and take out Miller. Leaves me light on bowling, but I have plenty of all-rounders to compensate. Actually that sounds good. I’m taking out Miller and putting in Sir Viv.

Probably sub in Marshall for Mankad. Gives me the lethal bowling pace battery of Marshall/Imran/Hadlee with great spin options as well.

I will admit that I’m not an expert on either Miller or Mankad. If Miller is the better bowler, then I would take out Mankad and vice versa. I was not going for an extra spin option. Please not that I chose "batting all-rounder" in the poll. Meaning my preference is to take out the extra batting all-rounder instead of a bowling one.

Replaced Botham with Viv. I have enough all-rounders (and better ones IMO) in Sobers/Imran/Miller.

My whole premise is to have Viv in the team. It’s a personal bias, but that sets the whole thing in motion in regards to whom to replace. I will generally not have that many all-rounders in my all-time XI. So if I was not limited to one replacement, then I would’ve taken out Mankad for a pure bowling option as well (Marshall to be specific). So then I would’ve had Marshall/Hadlee/Imran/Benaud as my front line attack with Sobers providing valuable part-time spin if needed. Actually if I was not limited to one replacement, then I would’ve had Warne in for Benaud!

Okay. The original team has had one change.

Viv Richards is in the eleven and Hammond has been sent to the sidelines.

What's your choice now, if any ?

 

[SJS]

Warne or Murali (I rate Warne higher) for Benaud or Mankad.

If you dont mind, would you also cast your vote since this is also a survey.