ICC Greatest Test Team

[smash84]

have to agree with GIMH there. When I read that I couldn't make sense of it either

 

[Teja.]

Must say I find looking at the 'In the Subcontinent XI' at a 'pitch' level a pretty ridiculous concept .

Essentially, the way some people are interpreting it, It requires a massive, massive generalization as to what a hypothetical 'typical' subcontinental pitch would constitute of and that's a debate I'd rather not take part in because unless a specific sort of pitch is defined, I don't think the pitches in the subcontinent are homogenous enough to make an AT XI, particularly to make a generalization 'good' and accurate enough insofar as to actually play players who've never played in the Subcontinent.

The way I interpreted it basically was how 'In Australia/England/Pakistan/India' XIs are usually interpreted on the forum, Players who have performed well in the specific geographical region are chosen for the XIs, nothing more, nothing less.

If we're picking a 'In SriLanka XI', I'd probably have Sanga at 3. Bradman would probably have done considerably better if he actually played in SL but the fact is he did not. Hence I don't think it's an insult to Bradman to have Sangakkara at No.3 in the 'In SriLanka XI'. TBOMU, It's a bunch of players who have performed well in Sri Lanka who should make the XI not Bradman and Hobbs because they will probably do better if they actually played in SL.

I'd think similar logic applies to 'In the SC XI' with the added note that even if we were looking at it differently, while Hobbs is certainly a better test opener than Sehwag(and everyone else), The gap actually would be pretty negligible if playing in most, and I hate using the term, 'typical' SC pitches; Major spinners, Pancakes, The ones which start of flatter than the lovely Ms. Knightley and deteriorate to become bunsens by the end.

Cheers.

 

[ankitj]

cbf with the rest of your posts because we'll go round in circles, and aside, I find discussions with you annoying because you try the high horse approach, which ****s me at the best of times

But I've been trying to work out what you are saying in the 'sentence' I've quoted there and can't figure it out. Please assist.

Ok. Huge typos there. What I meant was your assertion, that to some people performance in subcontinent means everything, had no basis.

As for being on high horse, I find that Archie and Lillian are actually doing that. Go back and see the sequence carefully. Calling others kids for a viewpoint that many sane people on this thread (Nufan for example) have found justified, is quite dire. And you'd find me calm unless someone pisses me off with stupid generalizations and name calling - something people do here quite recklessly.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think the main problem is this thread has come from differing interpretations. Some people have decided that "Subcontinent XI" means a team based on performances in the subcontinent, and some have decided it means a team you'd pick to play a match in the subcontinent. Those are two very different questions and you'll come up with two vastly different answers depending on what you think you think you're answering.

 

[ankitj]

I think the main problem is this thread has come from differing interpretations. Some people have decided that "Subcontinent XI" means a team based on performances in the subcontinent, and some have decided it means a team you'd pick to play a match in the subcontinent. Those are two very different questions and you'll come up with two vastly different answers depending on what you think you think you're answering.

Yes. I am perfectly fine with either view tbh, so are many others. There's really no need for a heated debate on this. We can just state what perspective we are taking and leave it at that.

 

[GIMH]

Ok. Huge typos there. What I meant was your assertion, that to some people performance in subcontinent means everything, had no basis.
.

Pretty sure I provided the basis for it in my post actually. I've read enough player comparison threads over the last five and a half years to know that a player with an average to poor record in Asia is far more likely to be brought up than a poor record elsewhere.

 

[hang on]

Pretty sure I provided the basis for it in my post actually. I've read enough player comparison threads over the last five and a half years to know that a player with an average to poor record in Asia is far more likely to be brought up than a poor record elsewhere.

not sure about that - the far more likely bit - at all. seems like poor subcontinental records are brought up - justifiably, in my book - to question the quality of non subcontinental players' achievements. ponting, pietersen being prime examples. similarly, poor records in england, south africa, australia are also brought up to question - again, with reason - the achievements or quality of subcontinental players. happens just as often from my experience here as a poster as well as a reader prior to that. sehwag, sangakkara and jayawardene being the most recent examples.

assuming, to begin with, that the subcontinent can be categorised as one place. obviously not, strictly speaking, though, in contrast to the conditions in england, australia and southafrica, perhaps it can for the sake of argument.

 

[GIMH]

As I said though, how many England fans have you honestly seen dismiss Sanga's achievements as a player on the basis of his record here? Compared to the amount of people who have don't the same for Ponting?

 

[hang on]

cannot give u an exact number, obviously, but a fair few posters of all 'allegiances' have questioned sangakkara's record in england (and elsewhere). and jayawardene's. there is, in my opinion, a biggish question mark over his reputation based on his relative non performance in certain places. that does not mean that he is not a superb batsman.
it's not about dismissing his achievements. don't think that too many on here would do that. ditto ponting and dismissing his achievements.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

As for being on high horse, I find that Archie and Lillian are actually doing that.

Calling others kids for a viewpoint that many sane people on this thread (Nufan for example) have found justified, is quite dire.

I don't have a horse, high or otherwise. I just tell people they're posting crap when a)I think they are or b)I'm very bored.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

I don't have a horse, high or otherwise. I just tell people they're posting crap when a)I think they are or b)I'm very bored.

We could have a poll for this the next time you call people's posts crap:

a) Lillian Thomson actually thinks so

b) Lillian Thomson is very bored

c) Mrs. Margaret Gough was a technically better player than Don Bradman

 

[Lillian Thomson]

We could have a poll for this the next time you call people's posts crap:

a) Lillian Thomson actually thinks so

b) Lillian Thomson is very bored

c) Mrs. Margaret Gough was a technically better player than Don Bradman

Good idea. ~ The scary thing is it wouldn't be the most pointless poll on the forum.

 

[archie mac]

I only entered this debate because someone said Hobbs should be taken out of an all time XI to play in the SC and be replaced by Sehwag.

I simply said there was no need to replace Hobbs as he would score runs in the SC because of he efforts on much worst pitches. Stickies for instance.

Just to answer a question: Hobbs did not score any Test runs in the SC but did score two tons there. This is of interest as the ACS (is that right) said these two 100s should be included in Hobbs record which would give him 199 FC tons instead of the 197 as Wisden credits him with.

Hobbs thought the tons scored in the SC were against weak bowling and as both his and Sutcliffe's name were to be put on the pavillion wall at the end of the match for scoring tons he though it was a bit of a set up and they should not be counted in his record

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The fact that the ICC had Sehwag and Kapil Dev in their greatest ever eleven is so comical that the thread was doomed from the start.

 

[smash84]

kapil was a bit of a stretch.....you can still make a case for Sehwag if you want an opener who scores at a very brisk pace

 

[bagapath]

kapil was a bit of a stretch.....you can still make a case for Sehwag if you want an opener who scores at a very brisk pace

i agree with you. but sehwag is far far away from making it to my AT XI and kapil is not even an option. kapil might just sneak into an AT Asian XI (gavaskar, sehwag, dravid, tendulkar, miandad, sangakara (wk), imran (c), kapil, akram, murali, waqar) at the cost of superior bowlers like fazal, gupte and shoaib only because he was a useful lower order batsman. but there is no way he would come anywhere near the AT XI. viru has a shout only if the other opener is one of hobbs/hutton/gavaskar who could provide the solidity to compliment sehwag's attacking brand of batsmanship.

 

[GIMH]

I only entered this debate because someone said Hobbs should be taken out of an all time XI to play in the SC and be replaced by Sehwag.

Exactly! It's all well and good backtracking and saying they were picking an all-time Subcontinent XI (that is an XI based on performances there) but the discussion was clearly along lines of a team to play there. And on that basis, anyone who picked Sehwag over Hobbs has be questioned, severely.

What Teja & EWS said is fine and I agree. But that wasn't really how discussion was occurring.

 

[Cevno]

Exactly! It's all well and good backtracking and saying they were picking an all-time Subcontinent XI (that is an XI based on performances there) but the discussion was clearly along lines of a team to play there. And on that basis, anyone who picked Sehwag over Hobbs has be questioned, severely.

What Teja & EWS said is fine and I agree. But that wasn't really how discussion was occurring.

Disagree with that statement tbh.

Don't know why picking Sehwag who has performed in the SC at very high levels against different and strong teams and different variety ahead of either Hobbs or Gavaskar in either of the cases is something which is completely out of question.
Unless you are just putting in a blanket generalisation in your mind that players of that era were better clearly than this era in which in my mind is romanticising the past.

Would be interested to know in people's opinion what a current opener needs to do which in the SC to be picked ahead of Either Hobbs or Gavaskar?

Plus to add to that Sehwag offers a attacking brand of cricket which at the level of performance these guys are is almost a standout. And attacking openers are at a premium in subcontinent conditions generally. Though there can be differing conditions too obviously as Teja said.

 

[GIMH]

archie has already explained all the reasons why Hobbs would go better than Sehwag in the SC (or anywhere)

 

[Cevno]

I think the main problem is this thread has come from differing interpretations. Some people have decided that "Subcontinent XI" means a team based on performances in the subcontinent, and some have decided it means a team you'd pick to play a match in the subcontinent. Those are two very different questions and you'll come up with two vastly different answers depending on what you think you think you're answering.

In the first case Sehwag is a must pick almost for me, but even in the second case don't know why actual performances should ignored against varying attacks and picking Sehwag be considered Taboo or out of question.