Geoffrey Boycott: ICC's Dream XI is a joke - it has no credibility

[Lillian Thomson]

What is far superior and on the basis of what ? Gilchrist played almost 100 tests and replaced Healy with great success. And if having the best wicketkeeper is the criteria, why not Godfrey Evans ?

I've seen Knott and Gilchrist keep wicket and Knott is vastly superior - we're talking wicketkeeping skills not stats.

I can't comment on Godfrey Evans but Boycott can and obviously considers Knott to be superior.

 

[BlazeDragon]

what is far superior and on the basis of what ? Gilchrist played almost 100 tests and replaced healy with great success. And if having the best wicketkeeper is the criteria, why not godfrey evans ?

+1

 

[hang on]

Maybe so, but there were some pretty peculiar selections for the fans XI

I mean, Kapil Dev, really?

totally agree with the dev selection being out of left field. but all the other selections, though debateable, were justifiable. whether sehwag or akram.

 

[Teja.]

A 7/8/9 of Knott, Marshall and Warne would probably only be par at best even in a regular Test match. An All-Time World XI is two whole levels above that (Era World XIs being the step in between, or All-Time National XIs if you want to look at the other way). It'd essentially be the equivalent of calling up three blokes averaging 32, 19 and 17 in weekend club cricket to bat 7, 8 and 9 in a Test. I reckon they'd all be at least one spot too high at this level, if not two in whoever-bats-eight's case.

It's a pretty common gripe I have with ATWXIs though - that they just automatically assume a position of great strength and do away with proper balancing options. It's nothing compared to the gripe I have with picking Sehwag and Kapil so thumbs up to Sir Geoffrey.

That's why you play Shaun Pollock at no.10 in an AT XI.

 

[BlazeDragon]

I think everybody has bashed the Kapil Dev selection so far. I don't think that its even debatable that it was a biased selection.

 

[GotSpin]

I think its quite hypocritical to say that players today have it tougher today. Sure players from back in the days would struggle with today's rules but vice versa also applies. Players of today would also struggle back in the days with no helmets, no bouncer limitations etc.

It gets on my nerves when people that try to take credit away from old legends saying its tougher than its tougher today than it was back then. I mean really how would feel 50 years if people take credit away from our generation's greats when even more modifications have been made to the game?

Completely agree.

The implementation of covered pitches, protective helmets, and bouncer regulation has had an outstanding effect on the game. If helmets were prohibited batsmen would have to completely change their techniques. I'm pretty sure we'd have a few body bags filled following the WI v India series if there were no helmets.

That's not to say the great batsmen of today couldn't adjust, but it's a comparison to the idea that the greats of yesterday couldn't adjust to a more professional environment today

 

[GotSpin]

totally agree with the dev selection being out of left field. but all the other selections, though debateable, were justifiable. whether sehwag or akram.

I dunno, Akrams inclusion is highly debatable if you ask me, especially when he's keeping out MM.

 

[Sanz]

I've seen Knott and Gilchrist keep wicket and Knott is vastly superior - we're talking wicketkeeping skills not stats.

I can't comment on Godfrey Evans but Boycott can and obviously considers Knott to be superior.

I am sorry but that is anecdotal evidence at best and IMO a cop out. When selecting a cricket team, the preference is to select the strongest team and as a wicketkeeper Gilchrist offers way more to the team than Alan Knott.

 

[hang on]

I dunno, Akrams inclusion is highly debatable if you ask me, especially when he's keeping out MM.

excellent bowler. good average. variety as a left armer. reverse swing for dry and flat conditions. i would have marshall but i can see whereof someone speaks when akram is chosen. in dev's case, i cannot.

to make it more interesting, here are my points based on agreement! 10 being completely agree

gavaskar 8
sehwag 7
bradman 10
tendulkar 9
lara 8
dev 1
gilchrist 9
akram 7
warne 9
ambrose 8
mcgrath 8

 

[Cevno]

Maybe so, but there were some pretty peculiar selections for the fans XI

I mean, Kapil Dev, really?

Alan Knott, really?
There have been many pretty good glovesman in the history, that have been mediocre bats but Gilchrist stands out for a reason and was a pretty good keeper too.

And Shane Warne as a definite Lock in , really?

He then says Sachin will get into everyone's 11 when he retires or if he retires now ,but doesn't because he is still playing. But then at the same time talks about Headley in a way that it was some sort of crime not to pick him and a joke.
When the ICC has allowed people to pick current players, what does he expect people to do? Ignore Tendulkar and Pick Headley and Richards or pick 12 players?

Then he goes on and gives a essay about how he thinks it was difficult batting in the past and it favored the bowlers, but then goes on and picks Barnes from a even more allegedly bowler friendly era ahead of Mcgrath from a era he is saying is easier for the Batsman.

There are more holes in his argument, than the initial selection,tbf. Bit of a cheerleading article for the target audience if i am being honest.

 

[vcs]

That's why you play Shaun Pollock at no.10 in an AT XI.

And struggle to get the Martian openers out?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I am sorry but that is anecdotal evidence at best and IMO a cop out. When selecting a cricket team, the preference is to select the strongest team and as a wicketkeeper Gilchrist offers way more to the team than Alan Knott.

If you seriously think that Gilchrist is a better wicketkeeper than Knott then a cricket forum is probably not the best place for you.

 

[Sanz]

Far far far superior wicketkeeper, and a fairly competent batsman too.

Don't make him sound like superman. He was great with his skills, but what did he bring to the team that Gilchrist couldn't as a wicketkeeper ?

 

[GotSpin]

Alan Knott, really?
There have been many pretty good glovesman in the history, that have been mediocre bats but Gilchrist stands out for a reason and was a pretty good keeper too.

And Shane Warne as a definite Lock in , really?

He then says Sachin will get into everyone's 11 when he retires or if he retires now ,but doesn't because he is still playing. But then at the same time talks about Headley in a way that it was some sort of crime not to pick him and a joke.
When the ICC has allowed people to pick current players, what does he expect people to do? Ignore Tendulkar and Pick Headley and Richards or pick 12 players?

Then he goes on and gives a essay about how he thinks it was difficult batting in the past and it favored the bowlers, but then goes on and picks Barnes from a even more allegedly bowler friendly era ahead of Mcgrath from a era he is saying is easier for the Batsman.

Is it really that bad to have Shane Warne as a definite lock in? No

Is it really that bad to choose a far far far superior keeper over a very good bat and good keeper? No

Nothing wrong with solely basing his selection upon players that have retired either.

 

[vcs]

I think there is a romantic idea of the older keepers with impeccable footwork, low crouching stance etc. which is held against modern ones if they don't look as "classical" while doing it. You can see it with the way Gilchrist, Dhoni, Prior etc. are judged on their keeping.

 

[Sanz]

If you seriously think that Gilchrist is a better wicketkeeper than Knott then a cricket forum is probably not the best place for you.

And If you seriously think that Alan Knott brought more to the team than Gilchrist did then I must say you should apply your rules to yourself.

I think as a wicketkeeper batsman Gilchrist is a much better option for a team and much more worthy of the wicketkeeper slot than Alan Knott.

 

[hang on]

i have seen knott - ok i was perhaps a little young - and he was quit amazing. i used to be amazed by taylor too. but it is certainly not that gilchrist was bad keeper.....he was not as silkily adept at knott but it is being made to sound that it is anathema to speak of them in the same breath, which is certainly not the case. gilcrhist kept to extreme pace, to supreme medium paced skill as well as genius spin. and competently enough to have the highest number of dismissals. not exactly the second mr. irongloves except for perpetuity.

 

[centurymaker]

I would like to point out that Boycott's XI is just as biased as the ICC one. He has picked only 1 player from our generation and no players from the sub-continent, nz or sa!!!!! What a joke!!!!

His selections have only come from great players of 3 COUNTRIES- England, australia and teh west inides!! What a joke!!

I agree with him about the fact that all player at some point benefit from facing weaker attacks/ batting line-ups though...

Then there are runs and wickets achieved against weak opposition like New Zealand, India and Pakistan when they first became Test playing nations. The equivalents today are Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and the current West Indies team.

But him only picking players from 3 teams is as big a joke as fans picking kapil dev in the icc xi.

 

[Prince EWS]

Then he goes on and gives a essay about how he thinks it was difficult batting in the past and it favored the bowlers, but then goes on and picks Barnes from a even more allegedly bowler friendly era ahead of Mcgrath from a era he is saying is easier for the Batsman.

Reckon this is a silly point to bring up, tbh.

Sehwag averages 53; Hutton averages 56 - those are very comparable averages (in fact Hutton averages more). Boycott thinks batting was more difficult during Hutton's time so he opts for him.

Boycott can admit bowling was easier in Barnes's time than McGrath's and still pick Barnes though because the bloke averaged 16; it's about four fifths of McGrath's average. Even if you take the relative ease of bowling then as compared to now into account, Barnes still comes out very favourably.

 

[Cevno]

Is it really that bad to have Shane Warne as a definite lock in? No

Is it really that bad to choose a far far far superior keeper over a very good bat and good keeper? No

Nothing wrong with solely basing his selection upon players that have retired either.

Yes to the first question. As he is picking one spinner and can't really dismiss Muralitharan.

Secondly, don't think it is possible to far far far superior to Gilchrist for anyone and though Knott was a fantastic keeper there have been other very good keepers in history too who are mediocre bats.

To suggest that Kapil Dev's selection is more biased and based on personal taste than this is
Kapil Dev is among the best all rounders of all time atleast even according to the shortlist.