• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Halfway - Combined XI

Molehill

Molehill

Cricketer Of The Year
GIMH said:
How in the blue hell are you possibly leaving Stuart Broad out?
Click to expand...
Was about to say that too. Way too much influence given to Headingley over the other 2. Broad has 16 wickets at 25. To put that in perspective, Cummins has 15 at 27. Starc's 13 at 23 should actually be of more consideration too.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Well, now the dust is settling on the series I'm having a bash at a combined XI:

1) Khawaja
2) Crawley
3) Stokes*
4) Root
5) Brook
6) Marsh
7) Bairstow +
8) Woakes
9) Starc
10) Broad
11) Lyon

Bit of a fiddle fitting Sir Ben in at 3, but he did play there and I couldn't in good conscience include Pope, Mo or Labuschagne.

Breaks my heart to leave out Woody too, but I can't leave out the series three highest wicket takers and I'm always loath to go into a test without a specialist twirler.

I'd have given you long odds if you'd have said I'd have had Crawley, Marsh or Woakes in the team of the series too, and even longer ones on not having Smith or Cummins in there.
 
Howe_zat

Howe_zat

Audio File
BoyBrumby said:
I'd have given you long odds if you'd have said I'd have had Crawley, Marsh or Woakes in the team of the series too, and even longer ones on not having Smith or Cummins in there.
Click to expand...
I think you'd get longer odds on YJB after the first two tests.

To fit in Wood you could reasonably argue Woakes was the top allrounder of the series given that Marsh didn't really contribute much with the ball. But having only 3 Australians of 11 doesn't tell the story very well.
 
Molehill

Molehill

Cricketer Of The Year
Cummins doesn't even make the team, let alone be skipper. Drop him and stick in Lyon/Murphy. No team won a match without a spinner and Australia were on a hiding at OT when they dropped theirs.
 
Adorable Asshole

Adorable Asshole

International Regular
Molehill said:
Cummins doesn't even make the team, let alone be skipper. Drop him and stick in Lyon/Murphy. No team won a match without a spinner and Australia were on a hiding at OT when they dropped theirs.
Click to expand...
Root and Smith are the spin options. Plus Cummins was the reason Aussies won the first test.
 
Last edited:
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
The seamers are three from Woakes, Starc, Broad and Wood, how is this even a debate
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
In Paddy's defence he was palpably cream crackered for the last couple of tests, which obviously affected his bowling. If we look at the series as a whole though one struggles to make a case for him.

Even if one finds a spot in the XI though he's an absolute hack of a captain; more of a ball follower than Root at his worst.
 
Molehill

Molehill

Cricketer Of The Year
BoyBrumby said:
In Paddy's defence he was palpably cream crackered for the last couple of tests, which obviously affected his bowling. If we look at the series as a whole though one struggles to make a case for him.

Even if one finds a spot in the XI though he's an absolute hack of a captain; more of a ball follower than Root at his worst.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Him and Broad were the two who effectively played 6 Tests and they were both at their best earlier in the series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top