Who is the worst player of all time that would be selected in every XI in history?

[ataraxia]

It's a specialist bat, right? ARs too dependent on specific circumstances - like, Shakib's really really good but there's some green pitch test where Aus might go for the guy who averages 5 more with bat.

 

[Shady Slim]

It's a specialist bat, right? ARs too dependent on specific circumstances - like, Shakib's really really good but there's some green pitch test where Aus might go for the guy who averages 5 more with at.

that's what i mean about the top six with martyn posted earlier on in the thread - no way you'd have shakib over marytn for a test in australia in that context

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Kallis

 

[andruid]

Kallis

Jadeja

 

[ataraxia]

Just re-read this thread. I love it for how varied the opinions were: "Player X would make 00s Aus easily" – "Why is Player X being considered; he wouldn't even make <insert most average side in test history>". Such a gun concept in general as well.

The best part is when Shady suddenly opines that Jadeja, bowling, batting, fielding, and all, wouldn't be selected ahead of Dilruwan ****ing Perera.

 

[morgieb]

Missed this thread initially. For once a very interesting and unique idea.

My guess would be Stokes. He's not that great with bat or ball but he definitely offers a different dimension for bowling and the way he plays fits #6 well. Add his on-field captaincy and I think most sides would find space for him.

Inevitably I think it's an all-rounder though. Especially given that the peak West Indies sides are already packing 4 ATG/ATVG quicks.

 

[mr_mister]

Missed this thread initially. For once a very interesting and unique idea.

My guess would be Stokes. He's not that great with bat or ball but he definitely offers a different dimension for bowling and the way he plays fits #6 well. Add his on-field captaincy and I think most sides would find space for him.

Inevitably I think it's an all-rounder though. Especially given that the peak West Indies sides are already packing 4 ATG/ATVG quicks.

Stokes a great answer. He's like a more measured, red ball Maxi with the bat. Horn drill in Pokemon

His averages mean we almost have to say he's the worst for this exercise but his ceiling means he's really needed in any side when fit. Hel single handedly win you game often enough to justify it despite patches of contributing nothing

 

[TheJediBrah]

Stokes a great answer. He's like a more measured, red ball Maxi with the bat. Horn drill in Pokemon

His averages mean we almost have to say he's the worst for this exercise but his ceiling means he's really needed in any side when fit. Hel single handedly win you game often enough to justify it despite patches of contributing nothing

Can't speak for every side but Stokes doesn't make Australian sides of 00s or 48

Might get in post 2005 Ashes purely because of the weird obsession they had with finding an all-rounder, but he would have made the team worse

 

[Chin Music]

Can't speak for every side but Stokes doesn't make Australian sides of 00s or 48

Might get in post 2005 Ashes purely because of the weird obsession they had with finding an all-rounder, but he would have made the team worse

Post 2005, that team was pretty horrible from #6 down because you had Flintoff and Jones, G who really didn't perform at all with the bat. He would have been upgrade on both with the bat. However, you are right in that he would have unbalanced the bowling attack more given it would have meant the overbowling of all the other seamers, including Flintoff.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Post 2005, that team was pretty horrible from #6 down because you had Flintoff and Jones, G who really didn't perform at all with the bat. He would have been upgrade on both with the bat. However, you are right in that he would have unbalanced the bowling attack more given it would have meant the overbowling of all the other seamers, including Flintoff.

I meant the Australian side post-2005 Ashes, but you make a good point

 

[Chin Music]

I meant the Australian side post-2005 Ashes, but you make a good point

My bad. That said you guys had Andrew Symonds around which seemed a little crazy. In fairness, he did a job with the bat, but I remember him consistently being given not out by Steve Bucknor either through missed nicks behind or plum lbws not being given.

 

[morgieb]

Can't speak for every side but Stokes doesn't make Australian sides of 00s or 48

Invincibles had Sam Loxton of all people playing Tests. And while he was the only primary spinner, Ian Johnson was a clear no-rounder. I'd say he'd be better than both.

As for the 2000's Australia, I reckon he'd appeal as an all-rounder especially as it would allow them to pack MacGill more often than not.

 

[GIMH]

My bad. That said you guys had Andrew Symonds around which seemed a little crazy. In fairness, he did a job with the bat, but I remember him consistently being given not out by Steve Bucknor either through missed nicks behind or plum lbws not being given.

Yeah I mean Stokes clearly gets in ahead of Symonds, and Watson when at 6

 

[Howe_zat]

I think calling this as Stokes is closer how a lot of selectors actually think as well. Players with higher ceilings get selected for what they might do rather than what they typically do all the time. And it makes it easier to be picked for the strongest sides since they can 'afford' an inconsistent but high-ceiling player more.

Also it gets us much closer to Athers starting this thread by suggesting Chris Cairns, though Cairns was much more low variance than Stokes so the argument doesn't especially apply to him.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah I mean Stokes clearly gets in ahead of Symonds, and Watson when at 6

We had exactly this discussion earlier in the thread, but Watson wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) have gotten into the Aus team pre-2005 either. Neither Watson or Stokes make that side stronger.

I still think the answer is a 40s-averaging batsman like a Mark Waugh or Martyn, or anyone of a similar standard

 

[GIMH]

We had exactly this discussion earlier in the thread, but Watson wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) have gotten into the Aus team pre-2005 either. Neither Watson or Stokes make that side stronger.

I still think the answer is a 40s-averaging batsman like a Mark Waugh or Martyn, or anyone of a similar standard

Sorry, I was talking post-05

 

[TheJediBrah]

Sorry, I was talking post-05

Post-05 I think Stokes is probably battling with Watson for a spot. On output Stokes clearly has more match-winning ability but I wonder if he potentially misses out with selectors preferring Watson, based on white-ball dominance and first-class record. He probably should be in ahead of Watson though

 

[Bolo.]

Stokes gets into every team. He's a slightly better player than the worst ATVG bat who also gets into every team IMO, so while he's very close to the right answer, there are more correct ones.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think Stokes gets into 2000s Australia in place of Martyn. Yeah, Martyn was a better batsman but I think Stokes offers enough as a 5th ball that you would like him more; especially considering you also have Gilly. That's a packed batting line-up. In the invincibles, Stokes gets in for Ian Johnson and in 2010s India for anyone practically to bat at 6. In 80s WI, Stokes is a better option than Gomes or Logie at 6; in 60s WI, they often played with only 3 main bowlers and Sobers as 4th (practically main) alongside Worrell, so they improves with Stokes; 2000s India could have him by pushing Ganguly to open (only place to keep his spot); 90s and early 2000s SA had a few weird batting calls so Stokes gets in; and 70s SA could just replace Ali Bacher with Stokes. 50s England pushed Trevor Bailey more than Jim Laker, so I think Stokes is a genuinely good addition and the 20s English side struggled with quality paces, so Stokes gets a go. Other player I can think of for whom everything aforementioned applies are similar all rounders in Frank Woolley, Tony Greig, a more versatile batting option in Trevor Goddard, and a spin variant in Shakib Al Hasan.

 

[Howe_zat]

Were Katich, Hussey and early Clarke definitely better than Martyn anyway? I feel like this thread is kinda harsh on Martyn.