• 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.

Debuted 2000 onwards national XIs

Silver Silva

Silver Silva

International Regular
trundler said:
I wouldn't have Ajmal in there because of chucking but good job. That's pretty dead on.
Click to expand...
Yep then I'd go for Hasan Ali for lower order hitting ability which is way better than Junaid Khan or Mohammad Irfan plus he played leading role in 2017 Champions Trophy win for Pakistan
 
Silver Silva

Silver Silva

International Regular
Fuller Pilch said:
World XI

Watson
Amla/Rohit?
Kohli
Shakib
De Villiers
Hussey
Buttler (wk)
Starc
Malinga
Boult
Tahir
Click to expand...
Mine would be :

1.Rohit Sharma
2.Jonny Bairstow
3.Virat Kohli
4.AB De Villiers
5.Shakib Al Hasan
6.MS Dhoni (WK) (C)
7.Shane Watson
8.Mitchell Starc
9.Brett Lee
10.Shane Bond
11.Imran Tahir
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Prince EWS said:
Yeah Trott was nowhere near as good as Bell. He's getting picked on a combination of "#3 is a specialist position" (fair) and "it's better to not be good enough to be selected than to make the team and be mediocre" (dumb).

I'd probably pick all three openers before picking Trott. Strauss batted at #3 a bit.
Click to expand...
Not looking it up, but didn't Strauss just play at 3 against NZ, with Vaughan opening, and it was just weird and didn't really work. And then he went back to open and scored a career-saving century at OT and within a year he was captain?

Cook batted 3 the summer of 06 and was all set to at the 06-07 Ashes until Tresco went home. But that was a seniority thing I guess - he opens because he was the best of the three,
 
NZTailender

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
NZ Test XI (placed a cutoff of min 20 matches)

Richardson
Latham
Williamson
Taylor
McCullum
BJ Watling+
C de Grandhomme
Wagner
Southee
Boult
Martin
 
A

AndrewB

International Vice-Captain
GIMH said:
Not looking it up, but didn't Strauss just play at 3 against NZ, with Vaughan opening, and it was just weird and didn't really work. And then he went back to open and scored a career-saving century at OT and within a year he was captain?
Click to expand...
More or less, except that in Strauss's last* innings batting at 3 he scored 177 (his highest ever Test score), so the 106 at OT two matches later wasn't "career-saving" (especially as he'd scored a couple of 60s in between).

*Barring one innings in a run chase four years later.
 
morgieb

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bitmap said:
Mike Hussey surely walks into this side
Click to expand...
How the **** did I forget Hussey lmao

I'm not actually convinced Bracken is as much of a lock as people think though. Like yeah he'd probably be in the team, but I'm not sure as much separates him, Lee, Johnson and Hazlewood (Starc is clearly a level above IMO) as is commonly perceived. I guess he'd provide more variety than having 3 150kmph+ style bowlers (even if two of them are lefties as well).
 
Last edited:
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
NZTailender said:
I'd have Lou Vincent in that side. Had some great knocks, better than Marshall imho.
Click to expand...
Hamish did average 38 in Tests, and 49 when not opening. His record is actually awesome considering how very not-good he actually was. Deserves his spot there. McIntosh was a bit of a cult hero but I'd have Vincent for him instead.
 
NZTailender

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Prince EWS said:
Hamish did average 38 in Tests, and 49 when not opening. His record is actually awesome considering how very not-good he actually was. Deserves his spot there. McIntosh was a bit of a cult hero but I'd have Vincent for him instead.
Click to expand...
Vincent scored a century and a 50 vs Australia in Australia (Marshall at home), and a century vs India in India. It's kind of crazy how Vincent average a shade under 50 away from home then a measly 28 in NZ.

Both had their top scores vs Sri Lanka - 160 for Marshall and 224 for Lou. I'd say Marshall overachieved and Vincent under achieved tbh.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
NZTailender said:
Vincent scored a century and a 50 vs Australia in Australia (Marshall at home), and a century vs India in India. It's kind of crazy how Vincent average a shade under 50 away from home then a measly 28 in NZ.

Both had their top scores vs Sri Lanka - 160 for Marshall and 224 for Lou. I'd say Marshall overachieved and Vincent under achieved tbh.
Click to expand...
Yeah Vincent and Sinclair both quite significantly under-achieved in that era. Bad selection, being forced to open sometimes and lack of cricket when they were considered red ball specialists didn't help but they still should have done much better, and I think it would have helped Fleming a lot if he could have batted 4 below Sinclair or Vincent averaging ~40 like they should have at 3 too.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
AndrewB said:
More or less, except that in Strauss's last* innings batting at 3 he scored 177 (his highest ever Test score), so the 106 at OT two matches later wasn't "career-saving" (especially as he'd scored a couple of 60s in between).

*Barring one innings in a run chase four years later.
Click to expand...
Ah yeah I remember the 177 now. Think that was the one everyone said was career saving
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top