Not sure I follow
So who keeps in your World XI?
Gilly.
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant wicketkeeper/batsman, not plain wicketkeeper.
Yeah, then it would be true. See, if we are lining up two teams to play against each other, I am gonna have to compare this way, ain't I? Tell me this, Milenko. Assuming you feel Walcott could be equally good with the bat even with the impact of his keeping, will you still put Gilly ahead of him?
Likewise though, the return you get from picking a marginally better batsmen in a lineup of ATGs arguably diminishes even quicker.
I won't say so. Anytime you are picking these XIs, just picking a XI, you can either think you are playing another equal strength side or you can just pick as a "best of" exercise. In this case though, we are talking about an actual potential match up between two sides, and given that scenario, the extra batting will matter.
I'll address this. The whole idea of determining the better side based on a "player V player comparison" is fundamentally flawed. You could (hypothetically) have 1 team win 10 of the match ups but still not have the better side if the 1 other player is superior by enough, and it also depends on who you match up with who. Even ignoring the subjectivity of deciding who wins your match ups, and there's plenty of very debatable outcomes of that here, you could manipulate it by deciding who to match with who.
It's as close to an objective fact as you're going to get that Milenko's Aus/NZ side has superior batting overall than the WI/SL side, and unless you think Walcott is a significantly better keeper than Gilchrist then that's not really supporting your position either. If you're looking for a point of difference to try and bring them down you should have gone with the better 5th bowler that WI/SL have, or tried to claim something like better fielding or leadership. Problem was you got greedy and tried to argue that they were better in every way.
Well, I am not "going" for anything here, unlike you. I simply compared the two sides presented to me and mentioned which I felt was better. And when the discussion went into the details, we ended up doing player V player. I agree there are flaws to comparing these sides like this and a lot will depend on the conditions and the pitch etc. as it always does with any cricket game. I think most will agree that cricket is a game of many many more variables than constants and cricket stats are really only scratching the surface, in terms of actual player worth or value within their own sides. But even then, this is how I would look at a match up between the two sides. Its not bowling and batting alone as they do not exist in a vacuu, which is a point I have considered, and hence the Miller = Marshall point. I just feel as an overall side the Windies line up is better but as I said before, it ultimately boils down to how much weightage you give to Bradman. I will concede I don't expect many to follow my view on Walcott over Gilly but even then, I feel it is ultimately how you feel Bradman impacts the teams that will tell you whom you vote for. For me, as great as he is, the rest of the strengths of the Windies side makes me pick them in a close race as a clear winner, not by much but by enough to term it clear IMO.
He bowled 6 more overs a match than Sobers, and Sobers bowled more because he played for a worse side. Miller averaged 22.4 against England.
