Imran Khan vs Shane Warne (as bowlers)

[subshakerz]

I think Benaud left those blokes out because he hated the lack of a spinner during their reign as the top side and saw the relentlessness as pretty boring tbh, rather than any Anglo bias on his part. That doesn't excuse the mistake in omitting certain of them though. I mean, he used to crack the ****s when Aus played four quicks when out spin options were Murray Bennett, Peter Sleep, Ray Bright and Mo.

Ah thanks for that context.

 

[Burgey]

Ah thanks for that context.

Just to reiterate, it's still a chronically bad omission on his part. To not have any of them even shortlisted is junk. The odd thing is he wasn't particularly vociferous in his criticism about it when they were on top of the world. If you listened to his commentary he was effusive in his praise of those sides. I suppose that's to his credit as a commentator.

 

[subshakerz]

Just to reiterate, it's still a chronically bad omission on his part. To not have any of them even shortlisted is junk. The odd thing is he wasn't particularly vociferous in his criticism about it when they were on top of the world. If you listened to his commentary he was effusive in his praise of those sides. I suppose that's to his credit as a commentator.

The worst omission was Alan Knott from his wicketkeeping shortlist.

It was Gilchrist, Healy and Marsh. That's criminal.

 

[Burgey]

Well, I would think not having a Marshall or an Ambrose in a fast bowling shortlist is probably worse given there's only one keeper in any given team. But yeah, can see your point.

Also, on the question in the OP, if you've got an AT quick against an AT spinner in a comparison, the quick is always a better option imo because spin bowling is effete and inferior. That applies moreso to finger spin, which literally anyone who's not an incomplete quad or worse can do, than wrist spin. But the point still stands.

 

[subshakerz]

Also, on the question in the OP, if you've got an AT quick against an AT spinner in a comparison, the quick is always a better option imo because spin bowling is effete and inferior. That applies moreso to finger spin, which literally anyone who's not an incomplete quad or worse can do, than wrist spin. But the point still stands.

Yes my point exactly. I raise the concern of reduced effectiveness of spinners on the all-important 1st day, which applies to both Murali/Warne.

 

[The Sean]

The worst omission was Alan Knott from his wicketkeeping shortlist.

It was Gilchrist, Healy and Marsh. That's criminal.

That certainly rivals the lack of Windies quicks as a glaring omission. Others that leapt out:

- The third spinner on his shortlist was Abdul Qadir, ahead of Murali, Grimmett and Laker. Even allowing for the fact that he preferred leggies to offies, that was a baffling selection
- He shortlisted six opening batsmen, and none of them were Herbert Sutcliffe

 

[Coronis]

The worst omission was Alan Knott from his wicketkeeping shortlist.

It was Gilchrist, Healy and Marsh. That's criminal.

tbf, keeping/fielding are probably the most subjective of all the main cricketing skills.

Obviously thanks to Gilly all teams want a great keeper who can also bat but thanks to the focus on batting the general level of keeper skill has decreased since then.

I don’t really have an objection to anyone picking a keeper based on their own preference tbh (though personally Knott is likely my second choice). Their skills are the most likely to transfer to the modern day too imo - can you imagine blokes like Blackham, Oldfield, Ames, Tallon et. all with today’s keeping gloves? (which off topic are just ridiculous imo - I hate the catching flap between the thumb and forefinger)

 

[subshakerz]

That certainly rivals the lack of Windies quicks as a glaring omission. Others that leapt out:

- The third spinner on his shortlist was Abdul Qadir, ahead of Murali, Grimmett and Laker. Even allowing for the fact that he preferred leggies to offies, that was a baffling selection
- He shortlisted six opening batsmen, and none of them were Herbert Sutcliffe

I remember thinking his final XI was so well-balanced but when I watched the full video of his shortlisting, I lost some respect for him. But to be fair, I think this was the player selections of a team he would want to see.

 

[trundler]

Tallon looks pretty amateur from footage tbh. Cowdrey's catching doesn't look that great either. It's hard for me to imagine any of those keepers being as good as Healy or Knott with the gloves.

 

[kyear2]

Well, I would think not having a Marshall or an Ambrose in a fast bowling shortlist is probably worse given there's only one keeper in any given team. But yeah, can see your point.

Also, on the question in the OP, if you've got an AT quick against an AT spinner in a comparison, the quick is always a better option imo because spin bowling is effete and inferior. That applies moreso to finger spin, which literally anyone who's not an incomplete quad or worse can do, than wrist spin. But the point still stands.

Knott and Marshall made no sense but Murali's was criminal, but all 3 were malicious in intent.

Back to the poll, if it was ranking as a spinner vs ranking as a fast bowler I could possibly understand but the question was better bowler. An elite fast bowler vs an elite spinner, yes but at this level pacers have more utility and versatility. Warne has those holes vs India and Lara in the WI. Warne was indeed more unique, but that wasn't the question put forward.

 

[Burgey]

I think he probably thought Murali chucked. I’m sure that’s why a lot of people leave him out of their XI.

 

[Coronis]

Knott and Marshall made no sense but Murali's was criminal, but all 3 were malicious in intent.

Back to the poll, if it was ranking as a spinner vs ranking as a fast bowler I could possibly understand but the question was better bowler. An elite fast bowler vs an elite spinner, yes but at this level pacers have more utility and versatility. Warne has those holes vs India and Lara in the WI. Warne was indeed more unique, but that wasn't the question put forward.

lol

 

[BazBall21]

I think he probably thought Murali chucked. I’m sure that’s why a lot of people leave him out of their XI.

Yeah he did.

 

[Burgey]

That certainly rivals the lack of Windies quicks as a glaring omission. Others that leapt out:

- The third spinner on his shortlist was Abdul Qadir, ahead of Murali, Grimmett and Laker. Even allowing for the fact that he preferred leggies to offies, that was a baffling selection
- He shortlisted six opening batsmen, and none of them were Herbert Sutcliffe

Might have had the shits with Laker getting decks tailor made for him in the 50s.

As has been noted, I think the team was one he would want to see play or be entertained by rather than necessarily the best. As I said earlier though the omission of the likes of Marshall and Ambrose was curious tstl

 

[shortpitched713]

****ing A, let's just say it. Casual racism, or at the very least casual prejudice was (can still be) a very common thing in those days. It doesn't make Benaud a "bad" man. It just makes him a product of his time.

 

[OverratedSanity]

****ing A, let's just say it. Casual racism, or at the very least casual prejudice was (can still be) a very common thing in those days. It doesn't make Benaud a "bad" man. It just makes him a product of his time.

I dunno, the guy picked Worrell to captain his side. He may just not have liked the lack of focus on spin in their teams.

 

[smash84]

This is getting ridiculous. IIRC Richie mentioned that the side that he was picking may not necessarily be the best but one that he would like to watch play and that was reflected in his short lists as well. As good as the WI of the 80s were, their bowlers bowling fast and short at the body, over after over could get tiring to watch and this continued for a long time. I'd much rather watch swinging fast and full deliveries than to watch short pitched bowling tucking the batsman up all day. I am sure some would love to watch short and fast bowling all day long. We all have our preference. It's ridiculous to call his omissions as one of malicious intent or casual racism without looking at his whole body of work (which is far from casual racism or malicious intent).

 

[Prince EWS]

This is getting ridiculous. IIRC Richie mentioned that the side that he was picking may not necessarily be the best but one that he would like to watch play and that was reflected in his short lists as well. As good as the WI of the 80s were, their bowlers bowling fast and short at the body, over after over could get tiring to watch and this continued for a long time. I'd much rather watch swinging fast and full deliveries than to watch short pitched bowling tucking the batsman up all day. I am sure some would love to watch short and fast bowling all day long. We all have our preference. It's ridiculous to call his omissions as one of malicious intent or casual racism without looking at his whole body of work (which is far from casual racism or malicious intent).

Yeah I'm mostly on board with this but it is interesting how close his 'best team to watch' actually was to something that looked like the best team, with a couple of notable exceptions. It blurs the lines a bit. Ian Bell would be in mine. Maybe Benaud just preferred to watch better players almost all the time, but it makes it a bit confusing.

 

[smash84]

Yeah I'm mostly on board with this but it is interesting how close his 'best team to watch' actually was to something that looked like the best team, with a couple of notable exceptions. It blurs the lines a bit. Ian Bell would be in mine. Maybe Benaud just preferred to watch better players almost all the time, but it makes it a bit confusing.

It isn't that difficult if you've been watching cricket so closely for 50 years.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

This is getting ridiculous. IIRC Richie mentioned that the side that he was picking may not necessarily be the best but one that he would like to watch play and that was reflected in his short lists as well. As good as the WI of the 80s were, their bowlers bowling fast and short at the body, over after over could get tiring to watch and this continued for a long time. I'd much rather watch swinging fast and full deliveries than to watch short pitched bowling tucking the batsman up all day. I am sure some would love to watch short and fast bowling all day long. We all have our preference. It's ridiculous to call his omissions as one of malicious intent or casual racism without looking at his whole body of work (which is far from casual racism or malicious intent).

Agreed with all expect this. Howncam you not like batsmen being bombarded with quick bouncers as long as you are not the batsman or a spinner who feels insecure that he can't ever do that.