World Class list

[hendrix]

Tough for Watling to miss out.

 

[Teja.]

Using the 'Around the same level as the best in the world' criteria

Openers

Warner

Middle Order

Sangakkara
Clarke
Amla, de Villiers
Chanderpaul

Pujara is up there statistically over the last two years, tbh but would trust the above guys more. Mattews hasn't hit the same level but is doing excellently and might hit it in the future IMO.

Pacers

Steyn, Philander
Johnson
Southee
Broad (All-rounder)

Anderson hasn't really done anywhere as well as Steyn, Southee, Johnson and Philander have done over the last couple of years. Harris a step below too, IMO.

Spinners

Ajmal
Herath

Keepers

de Villiers

Must say, I'd prefer the term world class to be at least this exclusive.

 

[Flem274*]

Harris deserves to be listed with those bowlers imo

 

[ImpatientLime]

Ian Bell?

 

[Pothas]

Yeah Belll would make it into every side, not sure it is a great criteria really.

 

[Blocky]

I always look at this by making two World XIs - if you're not in those 22 positions, then you're not world class. I also only ever do it in test cricket, due to how fleeting short form cricket is.

#1
1. Dhawan
2. Warner
3. Amla
4. Sangakkara
5. Clarke (c)
6. Chanderpaul
7. De Villiers (k)
8. Philander
9. Johnson
10. Steyn
11. Ajmal

#2

1. Cook
2. Pujara (has opened the batting and done well)
3. Pietersen
4. Taylor
5. Kohli
6. Misbah (c)
7. Watling (k)
8. Broad
9. Shakib Al Hasan
10. Southee
11. Harris

Unlucky: Bell, Younus Khan, Jayawardene, Anderson.

 

[Blocky]

And to be honest, those two line ups would be quite an interesting and even battle - which tells you that Test Cricket is in pretty good shape at the moment.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

No way in hell Dhawan is world class. Would rather have latham opening.

 

[Flem274*]

Dhawan is world class in conditions that suit him, or once he gets himself in in conditions that don't.

That and there aren't many options below Warner and a badly out of form Cook.

 

[Teja.]

Yeah, the issue is not me overrating Dhawan as a batsman in general. It's that 'most everyone else is **** and every int'l side needs two openers.

 

[Athlai]

I always look at this by making two World XIs - if you're not in those 22 positions, then you're not world class. I also only ever do it in test cricket, due to how fleeting short form cricket is.

#1
1. Dhawan
2. Warner
3. Amla
4. Sangakkara
5. Clarke (c)
6. Chanderpaul
7. De Villiers (k)
8. Philander
9. Johnson
10. Steyn
11. Ajmal

#2

1. Cook
2. Pujara (has opened the batting and done well)
3. Pietersen
4. Taylor
5. Kohli
6. Misbah (c)
7. Watling (k)
8. Broad
9. Shakib Al Hasan
10. Southee
11. Harris

Unlucky: Bell, Younus Khan, Jayawardene, Anderson.

Why include Pietersen and why would you have Shakib bat lower than Broad?

 

[Flem274*]

Honestly, I think the number one test side question will be answered in the medium to long term not by any fast bowling trio but by David Warner or any world class opening combination that arises.

Almost everyone has world class bowlers, so while Steyn and his friends right at the top are still crucial to having a good team, a top three who can negate everyone elses world class fast bowlers will be the decider. There are very few easy runs in test cricket these days compared to when Steyn, Lee etc were the best in the world.

And no one has three good or established batsmen in the top three. If England move Bell to three and get Cook in form they might be the closest off the top of my head. India in their own conditions probably the best around too.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah, Shakib averages 38 in test cricket. You could probably just about make an argument for batting him at 7 in that side.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah Phlegm it doesn't work that way IMO. For that to be true they'd need to have a top 3 good enough to negotiate the world's new ball attacks, they can't just be the best around because they could still get rolled like anyone else.

I honestly don't see this as an era with particularly weak openers but rather a sign that the new ball attacks are stronger than they were 5 years ago.

 

[Flem274*]

they'd need to have a top 3 good enough to negotiate the world's new ball attacks..

That's what I said/meant.

And there's a big difference between getting rolled 3/90 or even 3/60 than some of the ridiculousness we've seen recently. Plus the longer you bat the more you take the shine off.

 

[Teja.]

Unlike the 00s, It's great to see that pretty much all the non-SC countries have very good new ball attacks with most conditions offering at least a hint of movement early on.

Exciting times for test cricket.

 

[Bahnz]

I honestly don't see this as an era with particularly weak openers but rather a sign that the new ball attacks are stronger than they were 5 years ago.

It is interesting that Graeme Smith, probably the best and most consistent opener of the past decade, went through something of a decline during the last few years of his career. He averages about 40 from the 2011 series v India onwards, compared to a career record of 48. Obviously more recently Cook has suffered from similar problems.

 

[Flem274*]

Tbf though Smith still played some ridiculous knocks against good attacks in that period.

 

[Blocky]

Why include Pietersen and why would you have Shakib bat lower than Broad?

Because Pietersen is still world class, even if his country doesn't select him anymore.

 

[Howsie]

That's debatable.