Lets play selector-selector !!

[Jakester1288]

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

Done.

 

[Fusion]

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 ?

Well now that my favorite batsman is in there, I will focus on the bowling. The batting is deep enough IMO, but I want another lethal pacer. In specific, I want Marshall. I will sub him in in place of the weaker bowling all-rounder between Miller and Mankad. Here I'm a bit confused. The Sean has convinced me (here and in the greatest all-rounder thread) that Miller is the better bowler. So Mankad is out. Marshall in for Mankad.

By the way, if you let me have one more replacement (I know I"m being greedy), I'll move out Benaud for Warne.

 

[vic_orthdox]

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?

At this stage, I'm still thinking that I'd drop the off-spinning all-rounder for Murali, because the difference between Benaud and the greatest leg-spinner (from what I know/believe) is smaller than the difference between Mallett et al and Murali.

 

[SJS]

At this stage, I'm still thinking that I'd drop the off-spinning all-rounder for Murali, because the difference between Benaud and the greatest leg-spinner (from what I know/believe) is smaller than the difference between Mallett et al and Murali.

Fair enough. I was going to say Prasanna with a batting average of 30 plus because I realised you may not think much of Mallett and the other two

 

[SJS]

By the way, if you let me have one more replacement (I know I"m being greedy), I'll move out Benaud for Warne.

I know I know.

We will come to that.

 

[Athlai]

Would like to see how they play before I make any changes TBH. No indicators of form or where we are playing or injuries.

The team looks great as it is.

 

[SJS]

Would like to see how they play before I make any changes TBH. No indicators of form or where we are playing or injuries.

The team looks great as it is.

I am so glad someone finally said that.

Why should you make any changes in the team. It does look perfect.

Have a look at the batting of numbers 1 to 10.

[B]Player	Runs	Avg	100's	50+	200	300[/B]
						
Hobbs	5410	56.9	15	43	1	
Hutton	6971	56.7	19	52	4	1
Bradman	6996	99.9	29	42	12	2
Hammond	7249	58.5	22	46	7	1
Sobers	8032	57.8	26	56	2	1
						
[B]Top 5	34658	62.9	111	239	26	5[/B]
						
Miller	2958	37	7	20	0	0
Imran	3807	37.7	6	24	0	0
Mankad	2109	31.5	5	11	2	0
Hadlee	3124	27.2	2	17	0	0
Benaud	2201	24.5	3	12	0	0
						
[B]All ten	48857	48.7	134	323	28	5[/B]

And the six bowlers...

[B]TYPE        	Wkts	Avg	5 fors	10 fors[/B]

Pacers (3)	963	22.6	66	16

Spinners (2)	410	29.1	24	3

Sobers      	235	34	6	0

[B]All SIX  	1608	25.9	96	19[/B]

Add to that your choice from amongst the greatest specialist keepers in the history of the game at number eleven; why would anyone want to change the side. Good question

PS I have put Hammond's figures at number four but if it was Richards instead it wouldn't make much of a difference.

 

[bagapath]

I would replace mankad with murali. this team doesnt need the 20 extra runs he can make. but murali's off spin would compliment benaud's leggies to complete the picture. i would also tweak the batting order a little bit and make it like this.

hobbs
hutton
bradman
richards
sobers
miller
imran
hadlee
healy +
benaud (c)
murali

ten of them have scored test centuries. solid openers followed by god. and two of the greatest attacking middle order bats, one right and one left. two more stroke players to bolster the late middle order followed by three extra batsmen to make the opposition bowlers cry.

there are two great fast bowlers to open the attack, one excellent fast bowler to support them in short bursts, one very good leggie to use their foot marks and the greatest off spinner of all time himself capable of bowling out the opposition. there is also a left hand versatile bowler if needed.

the wicket keeper will never miss anything that comes in his vicinity. he is also a shrewd thinker who will offer valuable advice to his bowlers.

the skipper is a master at man-management. he is capable of leading by example and earn the respect of super talents playing under him. he will let the natural talents flourish and he will take care of all the thinking, planning and handling the media.

this team is unbeatable.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It seems a bit odd to have a batting/all-rounder obcessed XI and then throw a rabbit behind the stumps (insert exaggeration smiley) when Alan Knott was the equal of any of them with the gloves (I didn't see Tallon or Duckworth be he's superior to Healy and Taylor) and could also bat.

I always put this as my All Time XI - not based on balance or any statsmongering just the best 5 batsman (two openers - 3 middle order), best allrounder, best keeper, best two pace bowlers and best two spinners - wouldn't lose many matches against any other XI.

Gavaskar
Hobbs
Bradman
Richards
Tendulkar
Sobers
Knott
Warne
Marshall
Lillee
Murali

 

[bagapath]

.....wouldn't lose many matches against any other XI.

if at all

 

[SJS]

It seems a bit odd to have a batting/all-rounder obcessed XI and then throw a rabbit behind the stumps (insert exaggeration smiley) when Alan Knott was the equal of any of them with the gloves (I didn't see Tallon or Duckworth be he's superior to Healy and Taylor) and could also bat.

I always put this as my All Time XI - not based on balance or any statsmongering just the best 5 batsman (two openers - 3 middle order), best allrounder, best keeper, best two pace bowlers and best two spinners - wouldn't lose many matches against any other XI.

Gavaskar
Hobbs
Bradman
Richards
Tendulkar
Sobers
Knott
Warne
Marshall
Lillee
Murali

There is a specific purpose for putting a specialist behind the stumps.

See there are three broad possibilities here.
1. Bring in another specialist batsman
2. Bring in a specialist bowler.
3. Remove the only specialist (besides the top four batsmen) in the side.

Each choice requires a different type of mindset.

• Do you want to strengthen batting at the cost of bowling (replacing Mankad with Richards)?
• Do you want to strengthen bowling at the cost of batting (replacing Mankad with Miller or Warne)?
• Do you want to further strengthen batting without affecting the bowling strength (replace the keeper with another who can bat better)?

If I had put Knott there, the last option would not have been available.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There is a specific purpose for putting a specialist behind the stumps.

See there are three broad possibilities here.
1. Bring in another specialist batsman
2. Bring in a specialist bowler.
3. Remove the only specialist (besides the top four batsmen) in the side.

Each choice requires a different type of mindset.

• Do you want to strengthen batting at the cost of bowling (replacing Mankad with Richards)?
• Do you want to strengthen bowling at the cost of batting (replacing Mankad with Miller or Warne)?
• Do you want to further strengthen batting without affecting the bowling strength (replace the keeper with another who can bat better)?

If I had put Knott there, the last option would not have been available.

That's a bit deep for a wet Saturday morning in England.
Presumably the point of the keeper option is to determine whether you'd follow the modern fad of putting in an inferior keeper who is a better batsman despite the long batting line-up. The presence of Knott renders that option meaningless as he's a better keeper and batsman than those already chosen. If the best available was a batsman/keeper like Gilchrist then it would be more debatable. In that instance I would take the better keeper given the strength of the batting.

 

[SJS]

That's a bit deep for a wet Saturday morning in England.
Presumably the point of the keeper option is to determine whether you'd follow the modern fad of putting in an inferior keeper who is a better batsman despite the long batting line-up. The presence of Knott renders that option meaningless as he's a better keeper and batsman than those already chosen. If the best available was a batsman/keeper like Gilchrist then it would be more debatable. In that instance I would take the better keeper given the strength of the batting.

Yes that was the idea. Whether in a side with Benaud at number ten, someone is still tempted to throw out a specialist keeper to put in Gilchrist .... or Ames, or Stewart or Dhoni

 

[weldone]

I'd replace Mankad with Murali...