Would you play Keith Miller in your Australia ATG XI?

[stephen]

Geez, not only did you leave Miller out of the first XI you have him batting #8 below Healy in the 2nd XI...

He'd be playing mostly as a bowler. I guess he should probably bat 7 and Healy 8 though.

 

[kyear2]

Then I would argue Gooch should be in the XI based on peak.

Becuse you refuse to read or understand.

This isn't hard, you select a player as you normally do. But the player is at his peak.

 

[kyear2]

Well this is embarrassing for some. Keith Miller was just voted the 3rd best allrounder ever in the CW allrounder poll, but some people here don't even have him making the Australian XI

How is that embarrassing?

If he was 2nd does that mean he makes the AT World XI as well?

No doubted his talent, it's the fit that doesn't make sense.

 

[subshakerz]

Becuse you refuse to read or understand.

This isn't hard, you select a player as you normally do. But the player is at his peak.

Yeah but you haven't given a reason why. The player should be playing as if it reflects career output

 

[shortpitched713]

Obviously I'd play Keith Miller, without any hesitation. Triply so if the team was playing a no Bradman format.

 

[sayon basak]

This isn't hard, you select a player as you normally do. But the player is at his peak.

This is what I go with as well. I pick the player based on their overall career, but consider that the peak version of the player is gonna play for the team.

 

[subshakerz]

This is what I go with as well. I pick the player based on their overall career, but consider that the peak version of the player is gonna play for the team.

In that case Pakistan has easily the best pace attack ever.

Also a bit unfair since if you have Bond in NZ you are getting a worldclass bowler with hardly any career sample.

 

[sayon basak]

In that case Pakistan has easily the best pace attack ever.

Also a bit unfair since if you have Bond in NZ you are getting a worldclass bowler with hardly any career sample.

Read again what I said.

I said we get to choose the players based on their overall record, but the peak version of the chosen players are gonna play for my team.

Bond is eliminated by the 1st premise.

 

[subshakerz]

Read again what I said.

I said we get to choose the players based on their overall record, but the peak version of the chosen players are gonna play for my team.

Bond is eliminated by the 1st premise.

Ok but Pakistan have the best pace attack then.

Peak Imran, peak Waqar and peak Wasim trumps any attack.

And suddenly we see peak Botham even though that was 1/4th of his career.

 

[sayon basak]

Ok but Pakistan have the best pace attack then.

Peak Imran, peak Waqar and peak Wasim trumps any attack.

Waqar's peak is a bit overrated. Was involved in a lot of minnow bashing (his average in peak drops to 25 excluding minnows iirc). And Wasim achieved sub 20 average in a calendar year twice, one of them includes him basically playing NZ and SL (1994). Imran had a great peak.
So, not really imo; the WI attack is definitely better.

And even if PAK had the best bowling lineup ever, I'd have no problem with that.

 

[capt_Luffy]

This is what I go with as well. I pick the player based on their overall career, but consider that the peak version of the player is gonna play for the team.

That's really dumb. So you basically are telling me that among Keith Miller and Ian Botham you will pick Miller based on his career, but Botham will be the better player you get as he had the better prime...... So you actively is taking the worse player here!!! Are you a part of the Bangladesh selection panel???

 

[sayon basak]

That's really dumb. So you basically are telling me that among Keith Miller and Ian Botham you will pick Miller based on his career, but Botham will be the better player you get as he had the better prime...... So you actively is taking the worse player here!!!

Yeah I change my mind. I was thinking the same after making the post (and I never said I'm not dumb)

Are you a part of the Bangladesh selection panel???

Guess you found out

 

[subshakerz]

Waqar's peak is a bit overrated. Was involved in a lot of minnow bashing (his average in peak drops to 25 excluding minnows iirc). And Wasim achieved sub 20 average in a calendar year twice, one of them includes him basically playing NZ and SL (1994). Imran had a great peak.
So, not really imo; the WI attack is definitely better.

And even if PAK had the best bowling lineup ever, I'd have no problem with that.

Um Waqar even with the minnow bashing (only played one series against Zimbabwe in his peak) was still winning games against WI and Aus and taking well upwards of 5WPM at an insane SR. Still one of the top 5 bowling peaks ever with Imran at no.1.

Peak Wasim 90 to 97 took 240 wickets in 48 tests@20.

I would definitely take that over Marshall, Ambrose and Holding.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah I change my mind. I was thinking the same after making the post (and I never said I'm not dumb)

Guess you found out

I am sorry..... The selections are all top notch!! Ofcourse not taking Saifuddin in the last WC for instance was a hidden genius move no one else understood!

 

[sayon basak]

Um Waqar even with the minnow bashing was still winning games against WI and Aus and taking well upwards of 5WPM at an insane SR. Still one of the top 5 bowling peaks ever with Imran at no.1.

Peak Wasim 90 to 97 took 240 wickets in 48 tests@20.

I would definitely take that over Marshall, Ambrose and Holding.

Malcolm Marshall (1981-1989):-
295 wickets @19.25; 5.36 WPM
Curtly Ambrose (1990-1998):-
309 wickets @18.61; 4.68 WPM
Joel Garner (1978-1987):-
234 wickets @20.28; 4.42 WPM
Michael Holding (1976-1986):-
220 wickets @22.4; 4.4 WPM

Prefer this over PAK attack. And just to clarify, I've changed my mind on the "peak version is gonna play" opinion.

 

[sayon basak]

Ofcourse not taking Saifuddin in the last WC for instance was a hidden genius move no one else understood!

It indeed was.

 

[subshakerz]

Malcolm Marshall (1981-1989):-
295 wickets @19.25; 5.36 WPM
Curtly Ambrose (1990-1998):-
309 wickets @18.61; 4.68 WPM
Joel Garner (1978-1987):-
234 wickets @20.28; 4.42 WPM
Michael Holding (1976-1986):-
220 wickets @22.4; 4.4 WPM

Except for Marshall those aren't really peak. Ambrose you got even after his shoulder operation whereas Garner and Holding are pretty normal for their career. Whereas the Pakistani pacers each have high WPM and low averages.

Could select Shoaib and make it even more peak friendly for Pakistan.

And just to clarify, I've changed my mind on the "peak version is gonna play" opinion.

Great. It creates issues and as usual was a bad idea by @kyear2

 

[sayon basak]

Great. It creates issues and as usual was a bad idea by @kyear2

After I made the post, I was thinking the exact thing that @capt_Luffy mentioned, and also the fact that how long should we consider to be a peak. If two players have the same peak but one's peak lasted longer, then the method fails to account for that, and makes the whole thing unjust.

 

[sayon basak]

Except for Marshall those aren't really peak.

Yep. It varies from person to person how one defines peak, thus making the process invalid (tbh Marshall's whole career could be counted as a peak and still he would end up with a great peak stats)

 

[subshakerz]

Yep. It varies from person to person how one defines peak, thus making the process invalid (tbh Marshall's whole career could be counted as a peak and still he would end up with a great peak stats)

Marshalls peak is pretty clear from 83 to 89 when he stopped being a regular new ball bowler.

Ambrose debut to 94 when he had his shoulder operation.

Wasim 90 to 97 after which he had diabetes.

Waqar 90 to 94 after which he had back trouble.

Imran 80 to 88 (which had a mini super peak in the middle) after which he lost his pace by his own admission.

Holding and Garner from early career to end, both relatively shorter careers.