# 3 for 1986-2006 World XI (Final Selection)

[FaaipDeOiad]

whether he has played in that position enough or not, lara is far and away the best batsman in that list....ponting and dravid doesn't come close....

I'd disagree with that. I'm a big fan of Lara and I think it's fair to say that he's marginally the best in that list, but it's certainly not "far and away". Ponting and Dravid would be greats in any era.

Anyway, I'll vote for Lara further down the list somewhere. He's not a number 3.

 

[silentstriker]

The only person who is coming off as an idiot is you.

Fine. I want you to create a poll with all those people, and lets see how many votes they get? I will guarantee that it will be a runaway victory.

 

[Jerk]

Hey its Younis Khan Building like a missile which will blast in australia

 

[aussie tragic]

Okay, it's begging time, so here goes....

Please vote Ponting at # 3 so that:

(a) we can find out once and for all who is the better # 4 (Lara or Tendulker)
(b) us right-handers finally get a player selected in the World XI
(c) we have our first captain option
(d) we get our first batsman that can bowl a bit (I'm getting desperate now)

Oh and if that doesn't work, how about because he's the best # 3 since Bradman.......

 

[Beleg]

Fine. I want you to create a poll with all those people, and lets see how many votes they get? I will guarantee that it will be a runaway victory.

That's neither here nor there. You might think Steve Waugh blah blah etc etc are superior players but there's absolutely no need to call someone an idiot if he disagrees.

 

[silentstriker]

That's neither here nor there. You might think Steve Waugh blah blah etc etc are superior players but there's absolutely no need to call someone an idiot if he disagrees.

Why? There are about four-six top batsman in this era that are clearly at the top. If you believe that Younis or THorpe is better than any one of Lara, Waugh,etc....then you are either hopelessly biased, or unbelievably ignorant about the game. Hence, having a vote that includes those players is ludicrous.

 

[Mister Wright]

Staying with Ponting.

And just leave the guy alone, let him run his thread the way he wants. If you don't like it, don't be involved.

 

[Beleg]

No one would vote for Younis, Mark Waugh, Gower, Thorpse, Inzy, etc. over Sir Viv, Steve Waugh, Lara for #5 test position.

If they do, their votes shouldn't be counted as they are idiots.

An arrogant, presumptive and trollish statement.
I would vote Inzy over Lara and post-86 Richards for the fifth slot in a heart-beat. There's even an arguement to be made about Steve Waugh... and Gower, Mark Waugh and and Thorpe were brilliant batsmen, they aren't that far below Waugh etc in terms of batting quality.

 

[silentstriker]

An arrogant, presumptive and trollish statement.
I would vote Inzy over Lara and post-86 Richards for the fifth slot in a heart-beat. There's even an arguement to be made about Steve Waugh... and Gower, Mark Waugh and and Thorpe were brilliant batsmen, they aren't that far below Waugh etc in terms of batting quality.

You would vote for Inzy over Waugh, Lara, Richards, Tendulkar (if he drops down), Ponting (if he drops down), etc?

Well, good for you then. I still maintain that the number of votes they'd get is so miniscule that it is irrelevent to put them. You play to win, and if a choice has no chance of winning, then you don't put him up there.

 

[Perry Mason]

You would vote for Inzy over Waugh, Lara, Richards, Tendulkar (if he drops down), Ponting (if he drops down), etc?

Well, good for you then. I still maintain that the number of votes they'd get is so miniscule that it is irrelevent to put them. You play to win, and if a choice has no chance of winning, then you don't put him up there.

No, I'll take playing at that level, and being humiliated by Warne, than not playing at all .

Contradiction in principles ?

 

[silentstriker]

Contradiction in principles ?

How so? I wouldn't be playing against Warne, I would be his teammate in that scenario.

 

[Perry Mason]

How so? I wouldn't be playing against Warne, I would be his teammate in that scenario.

As Warne's teammate you would still be bowling to World Class batsmen.

 

[silentstriker]

As Warne's teammate you would still be bowling to World Class batsmen.

Assuming I got to the national level, I'd at least have some ability, and if I was part of Australian team, I'd win.

 

[Perry Mason]

Assuming I got to the national level, I'd at least have some ability, and if I was part of Australian team, I'd win.

And knowing batsmen like Thorpe and Younis made it past criterea that Tendulkar, Lara had to go past, they'd deserve being there.

You still haven't addressed the inconsistency. The fact that you mention humiliation at the hands of Warne suggests a wider gap between you and Warne in that situation than the one between Ponting and say, Thorpe. Yet you are in favour of grouping together in the former case, and not in the latter.

 

[silentstriker]

And knowing batsmen like Thorpe and Younis made it past criterea that Tendulkar, Lara had to go past, they'd deserve being there.

So did about 150 other batsman who made it to the national level. So they all deserve to be in the poll? The poll isn't "Vote for one of these 150 batsman, its vote for the best batsman at this position", so the criteria is different.

You still haven't addressed the inconsistency. The fact that you mention humiliation at the hands of Warne suggests a wider gap between you and Warne in that situation than the one between Ponting and say, Thorpe. Yet you are in favour of grouping together in the former case, and not in the latter.

I don't really understand this statement. I never said I was in the same league as Warne as a bowler. If I am dropped after two tests, it simply proves that point. Your term 'grouping together' is quite vague, what do you mean by that?

Grouping one was: Batsman at this position who are best in the last twenty years. I said the batsman who do not have chance to win, should not compete in this poll because its confusing and pointless to have 20 choices, 15 of whom get 0 votes.

Grouping two is: ???

 

[Perry Mason]

I don't really understand this statement. I never said I was in the same league as Warne as a bowler. If I am dropped after two tests, it simply proves that point. Your term 'grouping together' is quite vague, what do you mean by that?

There you are.
So whats your big problem with Thorpe, Younis etc dropping out after one round of polling ? You're willing to give yourself the chance to be grouped together with Warne for two tests despite being nowhere near as good, but have a problem with Thorpe and co existing on the same poll as Ponting for one lousy round ?

Grouping one was: Batsman at this position who are best in the last twenty years. I said the batsman who do not have chance to win, should not compete in this poll because its confusing and pointless to have 20 choices, 15 of whom get 0 votes.

Grouping two is: ???

Grouping two is the presence of Warne and you in the same team. You say Thorpe and co have no chance to compete and win against Ponting and co, and hence shouldn't be on the same page as them. Similarly you have no chance of competing with and beating Warne, but reject the idea that a bowler of your calibre shouldn't rub shoulders with him ? Thats a contradiction.

 

[silentstriker]

There you are.
So whats your big problem with Thorpe, Younis etc dropping out after one round of polling ? You're willing to give yourself the chance to be grouped together with Warne for two tests despite being nowhere near as good, but have a problem with Thorpe and co existing on the same poll as Ponting for one lousy round ?

Yea, I wouldn't be grouped together with Warne on a list of all time leg spinners. I never said Thorpe isn't good enough to be Pontings teammate, I said when compiling the list of greats, Thorpe doesn't come close to Ponting or Lara.

Grouping two is the presence of Warne and you in the same team. You say Thorpe and co have no chance to compete and win against Ponting and co, and hence shouldn't be on the same page as them. Similarly you have no chance of competing with and beating Warne, but reject the idea that a bowler of your calibre shouldn't rub shoulders with him ? Thats a contradiction.

Um, I wasn't aware that there would have been a voting process where people would have to choose who the better spinner is. If such a contest was in the design phase, I'd withdraw because there is no point.


I still don't understand what your issue is. You say Thorpe deserves to be on the list, right? OK, so where do you draw the line? Does Ahzaruddin deserve to be in there? What about Vaughn, Pieterson? Where do you draw the line? Why not put 150 names on that list?

You have to draw the line somewhere - and all I'm saying is that line should be drawn at the point where people have no chance of winning the poll.

 

[aussie tragic]

You say Thorpe deserves to be on the list, right? OK, so where do you draw the line? Does Ahzaruddin deserve to be in there? What about Vaughn, Pieterson? Where do you draw the line? Why not put 150 names on that list?

You have to draw the line somewhere - and all I'm saying is that line should be drawn at the point where people have no chance of winning the poll.

Sorry, the line has already been drawn ages ago in the main 1986-2006 World XI thread.

To be allowed into the poll, between 1986-2006 a player must have:

Minimum tests: 20
Batsmen: Batting ave: > 40 (and >25 Innings in the nominated position)
Keeper's batting ave: > 25 and averaging at least 3 dismissal per test
Allrounder: batting ave > 20 and bowling ave < 35
Fast bowler: bowling ave < 30 and strike rate of < 60.0
Spinners: bowling ave < 35 and strike rate of < 75.0

Which means: Ahzaruddin is in the # 5 Poll (4004 runs @ 48.24), Vaughan was in the Opener Poll and Pieterson doesn't have 25 innings in any of the positions.

 

[Perry Mason]

Yea, I wouldn't be grouped together with Warne on a list of all time leg spinners. I never said Thorpe isn't good enough to be Pontings teammate, I said when compiling the list of greats, Thorpe doesn't come close to Ponting or Lara.


Um, I wasn't aware that there would have been a voting process where people would have to choose who the better spinner is. If such a contest was in the design phase, I'd withdraw because there is no point.

You're trying to split up the two situations as if they were wholly different cases. They aren't. They're both hypotheticals which involve deciding whether two unequals can share a space. They're amazingly analogous situations where you have set contradictory benchmarks. You either accept that you can be on the same team as Warne and Thorpe can be on the same poll as Ponting. Or you state that Thorpe doesn't deserve being on the same poll as Ponting, and along the same lines, you would be better off not playing alongside Warne at all. If you're going to argue as vehemently in favour of a stance you have done on one issue (the poll one), it is then incumbent upon you to make sure you apply that principle consistently to other situations like the Warne-yourself one too. If you are to take the liberty of applying contradictory principles to similar issues, then taking a rigid stance and belittling those in disagreement, as you have done on the poll issue, is hardly the done thing.

I still don't understand what your issue is. You say Thorpe deserves to be on the list, right? OK, so where do you draw the line? Does Ahzaruddin deserve to be in there? What about Vaughn, Pieterson? Where do you draw the line? Why not put 150 names on that list?

You have to draw the line somewhere - and all I'm saying is that line should be drawn at the point where people have no chance of winning the poll.

You've already drawn the line, two of them in fact. A relaxed one where you have no problem occupying the same space with Warne as a no-hoper, and another rigid one where two batsman who are more comparable than you and Warne apparently can't even share a poll. And since you claim you'd draw the line where people have no chance of winning on the poll, consistency demands that you accept that you have a popsicle's chance in hell of occupying a space with Warne and thus no claims to playing alongside him. You seem to want it both ways. Its upto you to decide wheres the line, and stay consistent on it.

 

[silentstriker]

You're trying to split up the two situations as if they were wholly different cases. They aren't. They're both hypotheticals which involve deciding whether two unequals can share a space.

Yes, Ponting and Thorpe can share the same room.

You've already drawn the line, two of them in fact. A relaxed one where you have no problem occupying the same space with Warne as a no-hoper, and another rigid one where two batsman who are more comparable than you and Warne apparently can't even share a poll.

My reasoning behind Thorpe and Ponting not sharing a poll is that having too many options is confusing and ineffective, thus you need to narrow the field down to those who have a chance of winning.

If cricket teams only had five allowable players, then someone who currently is 'grouped' with Warne would be left out, wouldn't they?