# 5 for 1986-2006 World Test XI

[Perm]

Lara

 

[oz_fan]

Lara for me.

 

[Matt79]

Sir Viv for me - he's borderline in my all time XI at five, so have to have him here.

 

[Complicated]

Lara for 5, Waugh for 6.

Anyway you could almost classify Waugh an allrounder didn't he get like 100 test wickets? Granted he didn't bowl much in his later years.

 

[Mister Wright]

Lara for 5, Waugh for 6.

Anyway you could almost classify Waugh an allrounder didn't he get like 100 test wickets? Granted he didn't bowl much in his later years.

Was first picked as a bowling allrounder and batted at 8 for his debut IIRC.

 

[silentstriker]

this is why even though Tendulkar didn't bat @ at all 3 during his career i would have still put him in that spot intially, since he's so suited to it. Then one could have had Lara #4, Waugh 5 over richards since i'd say he accomplished more than Richards during the last 20 years..

But now you got to sacrifice one of Lara/Waugh which is wrong

This is exactly what I was arguing for back when the #3 votes happened, and people were obsessed with Ponting . Tendy at #3, Lara at #4, Waugh at #5.

 

[Mister Wright]

This is exactly what I was arguing for back when the #3 votes happened, and people were obsessed with Ponting . Tendy at #3, Lara at #4, Waugh at #5.

But, we were voting for the best #3 in the game between 1986-2006. Lara or Tendulkar can have no claims against Ponting for that position, since Ponting has spent over half his career there while both Lara & Tendulkar have batted at 4 for the majority of their careers. If Lara misses out, too bad IMO. As much as I love Lara and think he is one of the greatest batsman of all time, if he gets out voted by Tendulkar for the number 4 position than so be it. I don't think we should be making concessions just to get players in there.

 

[silentstriker]

But, we were voting for the best #3 in the game between 1986-2006. Lara or Tendulkar can have no claims against Ponting for that position, since Ponting has spent over half his career there while both Lara & Tendulkar have batted at 4 for the majority of their careers. If Lara misses out, too bad IMO. As much as I love Lara and think he is one of the greatest batsman of all time, if he gets out voted by Tendulkar for the number 4 position than so be it. I don't think we should be making concessions just to get players in there.

But the thing about #3, #4, #5 is that any great player can bat at any of those spots. Aside from the two openers, it shouldn't matter. Tendulkar, Lara, etc have the technique to survive anywhere, so their exact placement doesn't matter. Ideally, I'd have #3 Tendy, #4 Lara, #5 Waugh...but if you switch that around...its fine by me.

When you are dealing with players of a certain class, you do have to do whatever you can to get players in there. Their exact batting position (between #3 - #5) is unimportant. Openers should be openers....after that, any great batsman can survive anywhere in the middle order (thats why they are greats).

 

[Mister Wright]

But the thing about #3, #4, #5 is that any great player can bat at any of those spots. Aside from the two openers, it shouldn't matter. Tendulkar, Lara, etc have the technique to survive anywhere, so their exact placement doesn't matter. Ideally, I'd have #3 Tendy, #4 Lara, #5 Waugh...but if you switch that around...its fine by me.

When you are dealing with players of a certain class, you do have to do whatever you can to get players in there. Their exact batting position (between #3 - #5) is unimportant. Openers should be openers....after that, any great batsman can survive anywhere in the middle order (thats why they are greats).

But IMO that isn't the vibe of this thread. IMO if you're having a vote for every batting position than you're choosing the best player for that position and who has performed there the best, in our case during a certain time period. Are we selecting the best team by position? Or, are we selecting the best possible team from 1986-2006 and slotting whatever batsman we choose into any position?

 

[silentstriker]

But IMO that isn't the vibe of this thread. IMO if you're having a vote for every batting position than you're choosing the best player for that position and who has performed there the best, in our case during a certain time period. Are we selecting the best team by position? Or, are we selecting the best possible team from 1986-2006 and slotting whatever batsman we choose into any position?

The best team from 1986-2006 includes players like Sachin and Lara (and probably Waugh), regardless of their batting order. If it doesn't, then its not a best possible team from 1986-2006.

 

[Mister Wright]

The best team from 1986-2006 includes players like Sachin and Lara (and probably Waugh), regardless of their batting order. If it doesn't, then its not a best possible team from 1986-2006.

Then I don't see the need for a vote per position.

 

[aussie tragic]

But the thing about #3, #4, #5 is that any great player can bat at any of those spots. Aside from the two openers, it shouldn't matter. Tendulkar, Lara, etc have the technique to survive anywhere, so their exact placement doesn't matter. Ideally, I'd have #3 Tendy, #4 Lara, #5 Waugh...but if you switch that around...its fine by me.

When you are dealing with players of a certain class, you do have to do whatever you can to get players in there. Their exact batting position (between #3 - #5) is unimportant. Openers should be openers....after that, any great batsman can survive anywhere in the middle order (thats why they are greats).

I think you're missing the possibility that maybe CW rate Ponting higher than Lara (after all, he did beat him fairly in the # 3 Poll, as Tendulker did in the # 4 Poll) and Lara is maybe rated higher than Waugh, therefore one player has to miss out (not to mention Dravid who is such a great batsmen and he hasn't even come close to winning a spot).

Also, I'm a huge fan of Greg Chappell, but there is no way I'd pick him for # 3 as # 4 was his spot.....

I don't know why this is so hard, the Aussie team have kept great batsman out for years because there was no room for all the talent (e.g. M Waugh, Hussey & Lehman)..

 

[silentstriker]

Then I don't see the need for a vote per position.

Someone has to bat at each position . Its the simplest way to do it.

 

[silentstriker]

I think you're missing the possibility that maybe CW rate Ponting higher than Lara

I refuse to believe that the members of CW are that stupid, or have memories that short (its not ponting of 2006 vs. Lara of 2006).

 

[aussie tragic]

I refuse to believe that the members of CW are that stupid, or have memories that short (its not ponting of 2006 vs. Lara of 2006).

No, it's Ponting 1995-2006 vs Lara 1990-2006 =

Brian Lara (LHB): 128 tests, 227 Inn, 6 No, 11505 runs @ 52.05, SR 60.31, 32 centuries, 47 fifties
Ricky Ponting (RHB): 105 tests, 175 Inn, 24 No, 8792 runs @ 58.22, SR 58.86, 31 centuries, 34 fifties

Now back to the Poll at hand, as the three runner-ups will go up against allrounders in the # 6 position, I thought I'd look at the bowling figures of the potentials:

Steve Waugh (RM): 90 wkts @ 37.87, Econ 2.64, SR 85.9 (3/0)
Allan Border (SLA): 24 wkts @ 37.50, Econ 2.22, SR 101.0 (2/1)
Viv Richards (RS): 13 wkts @ 72.38, Econ 2.39, SR 181.3 (0/0)
Inzamam Ul-Haq (SLA): 0 wkts @ --.--, Econ 5.33, SR --.- (0/0)

 

[silentstriker]

No, it's Ponting 1995-2006 vs Lara 1990-2006 =

Brian Lara (LHB): 128 tests, 227 Inn, 6 No, 11505 runs @ 52.05, SR 60.31, 32 centuries, 47 fifties
Ricky Ponting (RHB): 105 tests, 175 Inn, 24 No, 8792 runs @ 58.22, SR 58.86, 31 centuries, 34 fifties

I would be interested in the averages of opposing bowlers during this time period. Just to compare the quality of bowling .

People are welcome to their opinions, but if you think Ponting > Lara...I am not going to spend time arguing because it is pointless.

 

[R_D]

No, it's Ponting 1995-2006 vs Lara 1990-2006 =

Brian Lara (LHB): 128 tests, 227 Inn, 6 No, 11505 runs @ 52.05, SR 60.31, 32 centuries, 47 fifties
Ricky Ponting (RHB): 105 tests, 175 Inn, 24 No, 8792 runs @ 58.22, SR 58.86, 31 centuries, 34 fifties

so should we go into the type of bowler's Lara faced in 90's compared to what Ponting's facing these days.
Sehwag apparently has it easy hence more people voting for Anwar despite both having similar records which is fair enough but i wonder why the same logic wasn't applied to Lara/ Ponting case.

 

[aussie tragic]

I would be interested in the averages of opposing bowlers during this time period. Just to compare the quality of bowling .

People are welcome to their opinions, but if you think Ponting > Lara...I am not going to spend time arguing because it is pointless.

Actually, I voted Ponting at # 3, Tendulker at # 4 and Lara at # 5....look familiar

 

[silentstriker]

so should we go into the type of bowler's Lara faced in 90's compared to what Ponting's facing these days.

Yes.

Sehwag apparently has it easy hence more people voting for Anwar despite both having similar records which is fair enough but i wonder why the same logic wasn't applied to Lara/ Ponting case.

Oh, absolutely. Sehwag has it much easier than Anwar. No doubt about it. I would have voted for Anwar, except the difference in averages was too high. If Ponting had averaged 65, I would have to vote for Ponting.

 

[aussie]

The best team from 1986-2006 includes players like Sachin and Lara (and probably Waugh), regardless of their batting order. If it doesn't, then its not a best possible team from 1986-2006.

exactly