best Players

[TheGreatest]

Viv was impressive but could not get his spot because he used to bat at no. 3 where it is Ponting. Lilee's spot was taken by Mcgraw who proved the greatest aussie bowler of all times.

I'll never leave out Lillee, Viv & Marshall in my XI. Afterall u need players who will win matches for the team. Will prefer Victor Trumper over Gavasker.

 

[Daemon]

Do you think McGraw is the best fast bowler of all time?

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

Do you think McGraw is the best fast bowler of all time?

yes, Not the best fast bowler, the best bowler.
The four greatest are:
1 - Mcgrath
2 - Curtly Ambrose/Courtney Wash/Imran Khan

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

I'll never leave out Lillee, Viv & Marshall in my XI. Afterall u need players who will win matches for the team. Will prefer Victor Trumper over Gavasker.

In order to rely on a single player, we should better rely on the teamwork and conditions.

 

[Burgey]

I thought you may have included the late Sir Jack Hobbs in your team at opener, Dawood.

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

I thought you may have included the late Sir Jack Hobbs in your team at opener, Dawood.

I did not for the same reasons as Len Hutton.

 

[Red]

I love the idea of Bradman batting at #5. Just makes a lot of sense to me. He was a bit of a hack at #3 after all.

 

[smash84]

such an awesome thread

 

[Red]

I love the title especially. And the capitalisation of the SECOND word, and not the first. Dagwood is clearly non-conformist.

best Players

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

T Mac McIntosh stiff to miss out on this side imo. What's your opinion of the great man in the floppy hat Dawood?

Sorry i cant understand you

 

[harsh.ag]

Dawood (difficult to use your name without getting a chill, mate), consider having another full time bowler in your ODI XI. Having Kallis + Waugh + Tendulkar + Bevan + Sehwag bowl 20 overs could be a very costly affair when playing against an equally good side (2nd XI, say)

 

[harsh.ag]

I love the idea of Bradman batting at #5. Just makes a lot of sense to me. He was a bit of a hack at #3 after all.

It's brilliant. The bowling side would be so freaked at the idea of Bradman coming in next, they will be less motivated to get the third wicket out.

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

Dawood (difficult to use your name without getting a chill, mate), consider having another full time bowler in your ODI XI. Having Kallis + Waugh + Tendulkar + Bevan + Sehwag bowl 20 overs could be a very costly affair when playing against an equally good side (2nd XI, say)

If they are used with well captaincy they can perform well. Kallis can take wickets on the need and can break partnerships.
When we have Mcgraw, it is not difficult to break any partnership.

 

[harsh.ag]

Len hutton used to bat as an opener but I had already an opener of that level, Tendulker. I preffered Gavaskar in my team cuz he could carry the bat unlike len hutton who lost wicket at any time.
Also, Len Hutton was inconsistent, i already had an inconsistent batsman Brian Lara. Two inconsistent batsman have the potential to go very good but can lead to a collapse in batting by losing their wickets immediately.

Edit: Len Hutton also did not have an opener partner but Tendulker's suitable partner can be Gavaskar.

Dawood (chills again!), none of this makes sense. Do you have something to back up Hutton not-carrying-his-bat and being-inconsistent thinking. The last line is just incorrect. First, Hutton had Cyril Washbrook as a very good partner. And second, Gavaskar and Tendulkar being suitable opening partners is a massive assumption. You can make it, but trying to pass it off as completely logical requires massive balls. Good on you!

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

Dawood (chills again!), none of this makes sense. Do you have something to back up Hutton not-carrying-his-bat and being-inconsistent thinking. The last line is just incorrect. First, Hutton had Cyril Washbrook as a very good partner. And second, Gavaskar and Tendulkar being suitable opening partners is a massive assumption. You can make it, but trying to pass it off as completely logical requires massive balls. Good on you!

Inconsistent means not regular and constant. See how many 50s and 100s he scored together. i dont think he did.
Len hutton with his partner could not score even 1000 runs collectively. And i dont mean that indian openers were good pairs but they could be good pairs if they play together.

 

[harsh.ag]

Inconsistent means not regular and constant. See how many 50s and 100s he scored together. i dont think he did.
Len hutton with his partner could not score even 1000 runs collectively. And i dont mean that indian openers were good pairs but they could be good pairs if they play together.

Hutton and Washbrook had 53 innings together as batting partners, 51 being as openers. This yielded 2900 runs at an average of 58 with 8 100-partnerships and 13 50-partnerships. And if I were to name one batsman as king of defense, it would probably be one of Hutton or Sutcliffe, probably Hutton.

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

Some day i will post a thread named "the greatest cricketer - ricky ponting" with enormous details and i will update that on the arise of need.

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

Hutton and Washbrook had 53 innings together as batting partners, 51 being as openers. This yielded 2900 runs at an average of 58 with 8 100-partnerships and 13 50-partnerships. And if I were to name one batsman as king of defense, it would probably be one of Hutton or Sutcliffe, probably Hutton.

Any ways, Tendulker and Gavasker can be better openers than the two english cricketers. You would believe me if you well understand the phenomenon of opening batting. I'll soon post a thread with the topic.
Scuttliffe and Hutton could loose his wicket while defending but bradman could never do this in form.

 

[NUFAN]

So I still don't understand why you rate Hutton 4th best batsman if he is so inconsistent? I can't wait for your new thread ideas too, they sound wonderful.

 

[smash84]

I didn't know there were such big Sachin and Gavaskar fans in faisalabad