Real time draft- tonight, here.

[Red]

Well done gents! Post your teams up in batting order and add a bit of text if you are that way inclined. I'll put a poll thread up tomorrow morning.

Right now though....


...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[watson]

Spikey
01. Alastair Cook *
02. Victor Trumper
03. Rahul Dravid
04. Sir Clyde Walcott
05. Shivnarine Chanderpaul
06. Keith Miller
07. Alan Knott +
08. Chris Cairns
09. Vernon Philander
10. Waqar Younis
11. Clarrie Grimmett

Andy
01. Stewie Dempster
02. Herbert Sutcliffe
03. Donald Bradman*
04. Javed Miandad
05. Stan McCabe
06. Vijay Hazare
07. John Waite+
08. Mike Procter
09. Jim Laker
10. Michael Holding
11. Allan Donald

Cabinet
01. Len Hutton
02. Hanif Mohammad
03. Ken Barrington
04. Wally Hammond
05. Frank Worrell*
06. Dudley Nourse
07. Farokh Engineer +
08. Richard Hadlee
09. Shane Warne
10. Dale Steyn
11. Glenn McGrath

Coronis
01. Jack Hobbs
02. Sunil Gavaskar*
03. Younis Khan
04. Graeme Pollock
05. Neil Harvey
06. Garry Sobers
07. Les Ames+
08. Kapil Dev
09. Ray Lindwall
10. Shane Bond
11. Derek Underwood

Ankitj
01. Vijay Merchant
02. Gordon Greenidge
03. Ricky Ponting
04. Jacques Kallis
05. Rohan Kanhai
06. Allan Border
07. Andy Flower +
08. Imran Khan *
09. Fred Trueman
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
11. Courtney Walsh

Watson
01. Bruce Mitchell
02. Matthew Hayden
03. George Headley
04. Greg Chappell *
05. Sachin Tendulkar
06. Martin Crowe
07. Ian Botham
08. Malcolm Marshall
09. Hedley Verity
10. Wasim Bari +
11. Joel Garner

Johnners
01. Barry Richards
02. Bob Simpson*
03. Everton Weekes
04. Inzamam ul Haq
05. Mohammad Azharuddin
06. Tony Greig
07. Adam Gilchrist +
08. Richie Benaud
09. Alan Davidson
10. Jack Cowie
11. Sydney Barnes

Mighty Mariner
01. Grame Smith
02. Denis Compton
03. Kumar Sangakkara
04. BrianLara
05. Steve Waugh
06.Clive Lloyd *
07. Wasim Akram
08. Godfrey Evans +
09. Anil Kumble
10. Frank Tyson
11. James Anderson

Monk
01. Geoff Boycott
02. Arthur Morris
03. Viv Richards *
04. Mohammed Yousuf
05. Bill Ponsford
06. Mahela Jayawardene
07. Shaun Pollock
08. Syed Kirmani +
09. Dennis Lillee
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Bill O'Reilly

 

[Howe_zat]

I am limited to only 10 images

look at this newb

 

[Daemon]

Cabinet's bowling is immense

 

[ankitj]

Let's start the poll.

 

[SJS]

Naturally there are some awesome sides here but there are some glaring omissions as well.

Grace, Kanhai, Ponting quickly come to mind from the batsmen. But even more shocking are the absence of Imran, Kallis and Murali !!

Amongst the fast bowlers, Larwood, Andy Roberts, Walsh, Trueman, Tyson are the one's I noticed first and Bedser and Tate amongst the slightly lower pace ones.

Some groups are completely given the miss. All the great old specialist keepers starting from Blackham, onto Oldfield and Duckworth and the Evans, Taylor, Healy etc are ignored. The four great Indian spinners who came before Kumble are all not to be seen nor are the legendary bowlers of the first quarter century of the game viz Spofforth, Lohmann, Turner etc.

If I have to choose the side that looks the best in this lot I would go for Coronis's

01. Jack Hobbs
02. Sunil Gavaskar*
03. Younis Khan
04. Graeme Pollock
05. Neil Harvey
06. Garry Sobers
07. Les Ames+
08. Kapil Dev
09. Ray Lindwall
10. Shane Bond
11. Derek Underwood

In Hobbs and Gavaskar they have probably the best opening pair and while there are many better one down batsmen than Younis in this pool there are not many in the middle order (4 to 6) than Pollock Harvey and Sobers. Even in the lower middle order (7 and 8) they have, in Les Ames and Kapil Dev a very strong pair with the bat. So batting wise I do not see any side that is better than them.

Its a bit of a tougher competition for the bowling attacks but in Lindwall, Kapil and Bond they have both speed, movement and control with Sobers providing the left arm seam up as variety.

In the spin department they could use Underwood for the finger spin and Sobers for the wrist spin although a genuine leg spinner would have made it even better.

I really like Monk's attack of Lillee, Ambrose, Pollock and O'Reilly but they are the only team with just four bowlers, wonder why?

I think Cabinet's side has a superb attack (McGrath, Hadlee, Steyn, Hammond, Warne) probably the classiest and they also have a very good batting sde. The second best opening pair and arguably the second best middle order (Hammond, Worrell, Nourse). In Engineer and Hadlee they have a uperb lower middle order as well. I am tempted to rate them the second best side after Coronis's selection. Here ir is

Cabinet
01. Len Hutton
02. Hanif Mohammad
03. Ken Barrington
04. Wally Hammond
05. Frank Worrell*
06. Dudley Nourse
07. Farokh Engineer +
08. Richard Hadlee
09. Shane Warne
10. Dale Steyn
11. Glenn McGrath

 

[benchmark00]

SJS has Ankitj on ignore tbf.

 

[ankitj]

My team is awesome too, I think

Would've been even better if I did not miss out on Steyn and Nourse (who could have come in place of Walsh and Kanhai)

 

[ankitj]

SJS has Ankitj on ignore tbf.

You mean to compliment my side there?

EDIT: Haha, I see SJS has listed half my side as omission

 

[SJS]

You mean to compliment my side there?

EDIT: Haha, I see SJS has listed half my side as omission

Oh oh ! I just saw the post of Watson - this one - and thought those nine were the only teams

 

[Cabinet96]

Ankitj's is there though

 

[SJS]

The mystery of the missing cricket team

Ankitj's is there though

Aha ! Here is what hppened. in order to compare the different components of the sides, I cut and pasted each of them on an excel spread sheet. I just missed one of them in doing so

Old age is my general excuse for all such stupidities . . . it will have to do here as well I guess

 

[SJS]

By the way, thats a very good side (Ankit's) certainly the bowling attack is one of the best.

 

[cricmahanty]

If there's a batting line-up that I personally like the most, it's Cabinet's. Very stodgy and one you could go to a battle with. In Hutton, Hanif, Barrington, Hammond, Worrell and Nourse, his top 6 has a strong opening pair followed by a solid middle-order core. And you could count on each 6 of them to rather have themselves dead than giving their respective wickets away.

Engineer at 7 and Hadlee at 8 rounds off a batting line-up that, in my opinion, will unfailingly deliver.

The bowling attack in Hadlee, Warne, Steyn and McGrath is a very versatile one too. You've swing, pace, accuracy and spin; and that's about all weapons you need to take your 20 wickets.

Ankit's team rates the next best in my eyes. The batting unit is a blend of past and present. In Greenidge and Kanhai, you have the flair that almost all WI batsmen from the times gone-by are attached with. Merchant, Ponting, Kallis and Border provide you solidity. I'm actually surprised and at the same time, happy to see Andy Flower's name in there. One of the most under-rated test batsmen ever in my book. Imran, Trueman and Walsh being the wicket-takers that they were, they were also blessed with the quality of being workhorses. They could run in and run in and bowl fast relentlessly. And in Muralitharan, the team has a spinner who could turn it on glass.

Coronis has a good team too. In Hobbs and Gavaskar, he has probably the best opening pair of all the teams. Younis Khan at #3 rather looks a misfit in that line-up consisting of some very big names but to his credit, he's a solid batsman and ideal for the position he's been slotted in. Pollock, Harvey and Sobers is about as good a middle order as you could have. And with Ames and Dev in at #7 and #8, it becomes a fairly long and solid batting line-up. Dev, Lindwall and Bond in the bowling department would be very ably assisted by Underwood and Sobers.

It was really hard to separate the teams from each other, and in particular, these three teams from each other but after analysing all that I could, that's the order I have arrived at.

 

[Himannv]

Cabinet
01. Len Hutton
02. Hanif Mohammad
03. Ken Barrington
04. Wally Hammond
05. Frank Worrell*
06. Dudley Nourse
07. Farokh Engineer +
08. Richard Hadlee
09. Shane Warne
10. Dale Steyn
11. Glenn McGrath

Sensational

 

[kyear2]

Am I the only person not impressed by the slowest scoring top 3 in cricket history. Esppecially with Hammond and Worrell in the lineup.

 

[SJS]

Am I the only person not impressed by the slowest scoring top 3 in cricket history. Esppecially with Hammond and Worrell in the lineup.

You are right about the slow top three. But I am not sure what is the point about Hammond and Worrell. Hammond was arguably the best number three in the world EVER and but for Bradman being a contemporary and taking the sheen off an exceptionally glittering career, would have been talked of, even today, as possibly the greatest batsman the world has ever seen. That's how good he was. And he was not stodgy. He was an exceptionally gifted stroke player. In fact, barring Bradman and Sobers, it is difficult to quickly think of another stroke player in the history of the game who it is difficult to slot as a backfoot or front foot player - so superb was his stroke play paying back or forward - I must stress that in backfoot play I am not just talking of the cutting and pulling but the drives of the backfoot on either side of the wicket which make a complete mockery even of good length bowling.

In fact I would put only Sobers as his equal in driving off both feet with Bradman favouring the pull much more.

Worrell too is so easily under-rated by latter day generations. He was technically the soundest of the three W's, had all the strokes in the book and played them with great elan but without the ferocity that one associates with West Indians. He was one of the truly great timers of the cricket ball and actually stroked the ball away than appear to hammer it.

He played much less cricket than he would have normally due to his pursuit of academics and other intellectual pursuits - in latter years he was also not in great health.

We remember him as a great captain, which he was, but there are many I can name, contemporaries and those who had played the game before him who considered him the best batsman amongst the three W's.

So the apparent stodginess of this side comes from the top three. I think the openers are fine but the choice of the one down batsman is dicey and I am being very diplomatic in the choice of that word. He is a completely wrong choice for that spot.

At number three you want a batsman who has the technique as good as the openers so that, in the event of a very early fall of a wicket, he can come in and steady the ship - Barrington is not that player. His stodginess should not be taken as a sign of great technique.

Then at number three you need a player who can play the strokes freely and build quickly on a great start which is why people like Bradman, Hammond, Richards, Ponting (to name a few) make such great choices for that spot. Barrington could undo that by his stodginess. He is a misfit again in that spot. In fact, the reason why so many people felt, ealier than mid way through sachin's career that he should be batting at the number three spot. That he didn't was because he personally felt comfortable at number four not because the team did not need him at three or that he would not have made a great number three. Sachin's persistence with number four is like Inzy's refusal to bat higher. Both were wrong.

But I digress.

Move Hammond to three in that lot, Barrington to four (since you have him in the 11) and Worrell to five (number five is the spot where you need another player with solid technique and the ability to play the lateral movement of the new ball because the second new ball quite often comes to them.

I know there are no hard and fast rules on this which is why captains do move people based on what happens in a particular innings but the batting order has to be a reflection of what skills are needed on the ground and not a descending order of batting averages once we are done with openers.

 

[kyear2]

You are basically agreeing with me. No way Barring should be batting at three when Hammond and Worrell are in the team and both were better no. 3 batsmen than him and better batsmen period.
As an aside I think that Walcott was the best of the 3W's especialy againts pace.
But back to the topic, Hammond was probably the third best All Time of the full time #3's and top 10 bat all time, can't bat him or Worrell behind Barrington, who is probably the most over rated batsman on CW.

 

[ankitj]

Need more real time drafts. Any idea for a format? I can run it for next 4-5 hours.

 

[Cabinet96]

On the Barrington and Hammond issue; I'm more than happy for them to be the other way around. I just had the impression Hammond was more of a number 4 for some reason. A closer look indicates both batted more regularly at 4, while being more successful at 3. I'm sure SJS knows much more on who would be better suited to number 3 than me, so if he thinks Hammond should be at 3, then that's fine.