Boycott, does he have something against windies players ?

[Richard]

Sangakkara has a near-irrefutable case for being included as a batsman. He's also arguably a better wicketkeeper than Gilchrist, so unless Gilchrist is one of the best six(\seven) batsmen (which he isn't, purely and simply) he doesn't play, for mine.

You pick your best six(\seven) batsmen, one of whom will keep wicket. If one of the best batsmen around (which Sangakkara is) can also keep wicket - big bonus.

Gilchrist from 2003/04 onwards was a very, very moderate batsman. Between 1999/2000 and 2003, on the other hand, he was one of the best batsmen around regardless of his wicketkeeping and would make any World XI from that period on the strength of his batting alone.

 

[haroon510]

There are two players that i don't pay attention to... no mater what they say.. and i sure don't give a damn about their all time or whatever XI they make.. one is Boycotte and the other one is Sunil gavasker..

 

[Flem274*]

Hayden
Smith
Ponting
Tendulkar
Kallis
Pietersen
(Yousuf)
(Lara)
Gilchrist
Flintoff
Warne
Murali
Mcgrath
Ntini
Problem 3rd Seamer (Gillespie/Lee)

Those in brackets were mentioned but didn't make it

"0h n0ez, ther r n0 NzERs thar, Boicot muSt b byasred agenst nz playerz!"

 

[krkode]

Sangakkara has a near-irrefutable case for being included as a batsman. He's also arguably a better wicketkeeper than Gilchrist, so unless Gilchrist is one of the best six(\seven) batsmen (which he isn't, purely and simply) he doesn't play, for mine.

You pick your best six(\seven) batsmen, one of whom will keep wicket. If one of the best batsmen around (which Sangakkara is) can also keep wicket - big bonus.

Gilchrist from 2003/04 onwards was a very, very moderate batsman. Between 1999/2000 and 2003, on the other hand, he was one of the best batsmen around regardless of his wicketkeeping and would make any World XI from that period on the strength of his batting alone.

I think Sanga is for sure the better batsman, but Gilchrist is a unique kind of player that every team would love to have. One of those players who can simply turn the game on a dime for you ala Sehwag albeit they do it from different positions in the batting order. Sanga is the better over all batsman, but there's plenty of other batsmen like him in the above team already.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Boycott has something against every cricketer apart from himself.

 

[Richard]

I think Sanga is for sure the better batsman, but Gilchrist is a unique kind of player that every team would love to have. One of those players who can simply turn the game on a dime for you ala Sehwag albeit they do it from different positions in the batting order. Sanga is the better over all batsman, but there's plenty of other batsmen like him in the above team already.

Much as Gilchrist retained the ability to change a game in a session right to the very end of his career, the reality is that for the last 4-and-a-half years of his career he didn't do it very often.

I always said Gilchrist remained worth a place in Australia's side despite the fact that from 2003/04 onwards Haddin was probably a better batsman than him, purely because Gilchrist had and always retained that ability to play the sort of innings virtually no other batsman can play (including Shahid Afridi - good bowlers will just about always stop him scoring anything much). However, there's no way he deserves to be in a World XI on the basis of being, perhaps, the 20th-best batsman in The World.