World Class list

[Spark]

I definitely prefer this definition with maybe Pujara, Matthews, Boult and Anderson thrown in, tbh. It just doesn't sit right with me that a term used as an adjective for high quality is attached to people who are merely decent/good at international level as opposed to excellent.

Yeah agreed. I'd say there are at most ten genuinely word class bats going around, and I wouldn't use that appellation based on form.

Also, where's Younis Khan in all these lists?

 

[Blocky]

Not much of a world class batsman then.

Bradman averaged 10 less in Ashes tests than his overall average. It's not uncommon except the era of the Waugh brothers, Warne and McGrath that Ashes contests deflate batting averages. Pietersen still averaged the most for England in the most recent Ashes series and that was apparently during a time where the dressing room was hostile and there was no team spirit.

You can argue whether or not he's world class, but the rate of runs he's scored since 2005 makes him world class. He took 10 years to score 8000 runs and 23 centuries. His recent performances aren't great reading, but then he played two of the better bowling attacks in the world. The reality is, he'd still make almost every side in the world if you removed the political crap - the only side that MAY say they've got better players is South Africa, ironically - but in the absence of Smith and Kallis, that's less so today than it was 18 months ago.

I think world class as a qualifier should be around 100 wickets, or 2000 runs. If you haven't met those totals, you can't be considered. There isn't enough data.

 

[Beamer]

For me 'World Class' equates as 'too good to be get much more out of the domestix other than match fitness', or people you'd persist with for quite some time in a strong team, even if they fell into a slump.

Middle Order Batsmen:
Clarke, Smith
Mominul
Bell, Root, Pietersen
Pujara, Kohli
Williamson, Taylor
Misbah, Younis
Amla, de Villiers, du Plessis
Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Mathews
Chanderpaul.

If Kane is on that list, Darren Bravo has to be. I know you rate Kane higher and he just played a great innings, but Darren averages 44 and is a class batsman with a better record.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, definite oversight on my behalf. Bravo is world class.

 

[Prince EWS]

I definitely prefer this definition with maybe Pujara, Matthews, Boult and Anderson thrown in, tbh. It just doesn't sit right with me that a term used as an adjective for high quality is attached to people who are merely decent/good at international level as opposed to excellent.

The problem I have with that definition is that it's not really a definition at all. I think the term "world class" just becomes entirely meaningless when it's just a synonym for "excellent" or whatever, but we already have enough completely arbitrary terms like that in the English language.

My idea, as discussed, is a lot kinder to batsmen than it is to (for example) wicket keepers though as there are so many batting slots in a team. Spinners and keepers cop a raw deal.

 

[hendrix]

I just imagine a standard at which players are able to compete consistently against each other without it looking like a mis-match. It's hard to think of non-arbitrary criteria for that though.

Steyn vs Fulton is a mis-match of massive proportions. Darren Sammy bowling to Ross Taylor is also a mis-match. It's very clear when watching those contests that one player is far superior to the other and that only one guy will win, all other factors being equal.

Obviously these criteria require some standards to begin with; we could watch Darren Sammy vs Peter Fulton and judge neither to be world class. But Steyn vs Pujara can at times be an even contest and in those cases we know both players are world class.

 

[Blocky]

I just imagine a standard at which players are able to compete consistently against each other without it looking like a mis-match. It's hard to think of non-arbitrary criteria for that though.

Steyn vs Fulton is a mis-match of massive proportions. Darren Sammy bowling to Ross Taylor is also a mis-match. It's very clear when watching those contests that one player is far superior to the other and that only one guy will win, all other factors being equal.

Obviously these criteria require some standards to begin with; we could watch Darren Sammy vs Peter Fulton and judge neither to be world class. But Steyn vs Pujara can at times be an even contest and in those cases we know both players are world class.

But isn't the whole entire idea of "world class" meant to represent that you are subjectively the best or amongst the best in your position? I mean take into account the NBA or MLB who have a pretty easy way of defining this - All Star. Are you one of the best in your position in your competition.

I prefer that as a definition - in which case you look to create two, maybe three teams and see who falls into those positions. "But that's unfair to spinners" - not necessarily, I don't think anyone would have complained at having Murali and Warne in the same side.

 

[Dan]

I've always considered 'world class' to align to "is good enough to be a Test cricketer in any hypothetical nation at any hypothetical point in time", rather than World XI-ness.

I mean, someone like James Anderson wouldn't make a World XI these days, but he'd be a useful (and Test quality) addition to almost any Test squad throughout history; he's good enough to play Test cricket.

I take 'world class' as 'good enough to deserve to be on the world stage'. So Peter Fulton is a no, Nathan Lyon is a maybe, Kane Williamson is a yes. Someone like Dale Steyn is way beyond world class.

I don't want a criteria in which a complete absence of any decent openers means Hamish Rutherford is 'world class' by virtue of being the least terrible, or a seamer averaging 20 but being about the 12th best in the world prevents him from being world class.

 

[hendrix]

But isn't the whole entire idea of "world class" meant to represent that you are subjectively the best or amongst the best in your position? I mean take into account the NBA or MLB who have a pretty easy way of defining this - All Star. Are you one of the best in your position in your competition.

I prefer that as a definition - in which case you look to create two, maybe three teams and see who falls into those positions. "But that's unfair to spinners" - not necessarily, I don't think anyone would have complained at having Murali and Warne in the same side.

Except we have plenty of good fast bowlers playing, but only 1 decent opener.

I see no reason to squeeze extra openers in as "world class" when currently only Warner satisfies my criteria. Similarly, Steyn, Philander, Johnson, Harris, Southee, Roach, Broad, Boult, Pattinson etc all represent excellent seam bowling options and I want to call them all "world class".

I don't think any of those bowlers would look out of place bowling to the best batsmen in the world.

 

[Spark]

I've always considered 'world class' to align to "is good enough to be a Test cricketer in any hypothetical nation at any hypothetical point in time", rather than World XI-ness.

I mean, someone like James Anderson wouldn't make a World XI these days, but he'd be a useful (and Test quality) addition to almost any Test squad throughout history; he's good enough to play Test cricket.

I take 'world class' as 'good enough to deserve to be on the world stage'. So Peter Fulton is a no, Nathan Lyon is a maybe, Kane Williamson is a yes. Someone like Dale Steyn is way beyond world class.

I don't want a criteria in which a complete absence of any decent openers means Hamish Rutherford is 'world class' by virtue of being the least terrible, or a seamer averaging 20 but being about the 12th best in the world prevents him from being world class.

Same here. Word class = established, dependable, consistent high output.

I see no reason to squeeze extra openers in as "world class" when currently only Warner satisfies my criteria.

Agree with this. EDIT: Actually, I don't agree with this as I briefly forgot that Cook existed. Never mind.

 

[hendrix]

Forgot about Cook too.

 

[Hurricane]

I think it's excellent that we all have different meanings for world class.

 

[Daemon]

This has got to be one of the most boring discussions on CW of all time.

11 pages of people stating their interpretation of a certain arbitrary label that they were never going to reach a consensus on, **** me.

 

[Hurricane]

This has got to be one of the most boring discussions on CW of all time.

11 pages of people stating their interpretation of a certain arbitrary label that they were never going to reach a consensus on, **** me.

I don't agree that it is boring - but I do agree with your frustration hence my sarcastic post. If we were to make an agreed to definition that would be helpful. Should make a binding poll with a vote.

 

[GIMH]

Tbf the thread was not designed as a discussion on what constitutes world class but rather which players meet the definition laid out in the OP

 

[Agent Nationaux]

ABCD is world class and potential ATG. The best all rounder in the world at the moment.

 

[Prince EWS]

Tbf the thread was not designed as a discussion on what constitutes world class but rather which players meet the definition laid out in the OP

Yeah exactly. We'd actually had the debate on what constitutes world class in another thread and I thought tooextracool's definition would make for an interesting actual cricket-based debate on who was good enough to meet it, whether people agreed with the definition or not.

 

[Dan]

Yep, because 4 years later we all totally remember the existence of the other debate. And meanings of threads totally never change over time

 

[Red]

So what's the definition here? A player who would make any other nation's team?

 

[GIMH]

So what's the definition here? A player who would make any other nation's team?

Yes