ESPNcricinfo World XI

[Jarquis]

Why do aesthetics matter when deciding ATGs?

 

[Jarquis]

Hobbs - Yup
Hutton - Yup
Bradman - Yup
Tendulkar - Yup
Hammond - 2nd XI
Sobers - Yup
Gilchrist - Yup
Hadlee - No
Marshall - Yup
Barnes - 2nd XI
Murali - 2nd XI

Imran in for Hadlee potentially. (2nd XI)

Fair

 

[Ruckus]

Why do aesthetics matter when deciding ATGs?

Are you replying to me?

 

[Athlai]

Hobbs - Yep
Gavaskar - 2nd XI fair enough
Bradman - Yep
Tendulkar - Yep
Chappell - Nope
Sobers - Yep
Gilchrist - Yep
Hadlee - pffft stupid format that he got in neither team
Marshall - Yep
Waqar - No but all personal preference in this one
Mural - 2nd XIi

Chappell and Hadlee were robbed (from 2nd XI)

 

[Jarquis]

Are you replying to me?

Oui.

 

[NUFAN]

I got 7 out of 11 - Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Warne, Marshall.

Hutton and Richards made my second XI's and Akram and Lillee were both going to be in my third XI if I had one.

 

[Ruckus]

Oui.

Oh, well I don't think I said anything about aesthetics? If you are refering to "better technique" as indicating mere aesthetics, then I can only dispute that. Better technique=less likely to be be dismissed through flaws in you batting style. E.g. Sehwag has miminal movement at the crease, leaving him more open to swinging deliveries etc.

There is no debate imo, that Ponting has better overall technique for dealing with the full spectrum of deliveries.

 

[Ikki]

I got 8:

Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Viv, Sobers, Gilchrist, Warne and Lillee.

Only surprise was Wasim though.

 

[Jarquis]

Oh, well I don't think I said anything about aesthetics? If you are refering to "better technique" as indicating mere aesthetics, then I can only dispute that. Better technique=less likely to be be dismissed through flaws in you batting style. E.g. Sehwag has miminal movement at the crease, leaving him more open to swinging deliveries etc.

There is no debate imo, that Ponting has better overall technique for dealing with the full spectrum of deliveries.

But if you can maintain a comparable batting record despite an inferior technique, it's not ludicrous to suggest that you're more talented/able than the batsman with the perfect technique? Essentially the batsman with the perfect technique has optimised his run scoring ability, while the technically deficient batsman is hampering himself yet still performing equally well?

I'm not suggesting that having a bad technique is a positive, by any stretch. Just to suggest it's a negative it equally ridiculous. It's not how, it's how many. So if two batsmen are scoring similar amounts of runs at a similar average, using technique to split them is stupid.

 

[Ruckus]

But if you can maintain a comparable batting record despite an inferior technique, it's not ludicrous to suggest that you're more talented/able than the batsman with the perfect technique? Essentially the batsman with the perfect technique has optimised his run scoring ability, while the technically deficient batsman is hampering himself yet still performing equally well?

I'm not suggesting that having a bad technique is a positive, by any stretch. Just to suggest it's a negative it equally ridiculous. It's not how, it's how many. So if two batsmen are scoring similar amounts of runs at a similar average, using technique to split them is stupid.

But you can't. If a player is maintaining an excellent batting record across the full range of surfaces and against all types of deliveries etc. then that precise achievement would be defined as good technique to me. Good technique to me, is whatever allows you to be a versatile batsman with success. At the moment, and I really doubt it will change, Sehwag simply isn't as good as Ponting in terms of versatility.

 

[weldone]

Leonard Hutton (1st XI)
Jack Hobbs (1st XI)
Donald Bradman (1st XI)
Sachin Tendulkar (1st XI)
Wally Hammond (2nd XI)
Garry Sobers (1st XI)
Adam Gilchrist (1st XI)
Malcolm Marshall (1st XI)
Richard Hadlee (Omitted )
Sydney Barnes (2nd XI )
Muttiah Muralitharan (2nd XI)

 

[honestbharani]

Aussie will probably self-combust.

Or find a way for it not to count.

Obviously the latter.

 

[Jarquis]

But you can't. If a player is maintaining an excellent batting record across the full range of surfaces and against all types of deliveries etc. then that precise achievement would be defined as good technique to me. Good technique to me, is whatever allows you to be a versatile batsman with success. At the moment, and I really doubt it will change, Sehwag simply isn't as good as Ponting in terms of versatility.

Well you can, because you've criticised Sehwag's ability to play the swinging ball because of his lack of movement. Yet despite this, in the last 2 years Sehwag has averaged 58 and Ponting has averaged 42.
If Sehwag goes to South Africa this winter and scores buckets of runs, it won't be because he suddenly started moving his feet against the swinging ball or what have you.

You could say he would be scoring runs despite his technique, not because of it.

 

[smash84]

Leonard Hutton (1st XI)
Jack Hobbs (1st XI)
Donald Bradman (1st XI)
Sachin Tendulkar (1st XI)
Wally Hammond (2nd XI)
Garry Sobers (1st XI)
Adam Gilchrist (1st XI)
Malcolm Marshall (1st XI)
Richard Hadlee (Omitted )
Sydney Barnes (2nd XI )
Muttiah Muralitharan (2nd XI)

This is Richie Benaud's XI

• Jack Hobbs
• Sunil Gavaskar
• Don Bradman (Captain)
• Sachin Tendulkar
• Viv Richards
• Gary Sobers
• Imran Khan
• Adam Gilchrist
• Shane Warne
• Sydney Barnes
• Dennis Lillee

and the ESPN XI

The World XI: Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton, Don Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Malcolm Marshall, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram, Dennis Lillee

Not too much difference I should say. One bowling option short for my taste in both.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Reckon that the 2nd XIs team is well short of batting though, the sacrifices made for the extra bowling is too much in my mind.

 

[Teja.]

I'm close to infuriated with the XI.

Okay, I'll just ask. Everyone will agree that Imran, Hadlee, Akram and Lillee are of the same quality or negligibly worse/better as bowlers. Hadlee and Imran are much better batsmen. Shouldn't that be an auto-pick?

I'd actually say the same of Miller and Pollock too, but that would be a bit too 'radical' to expect of cricinfo anyway.

Oh, Got 9/11 right. Haha, 9/11.

 

[ankitj]

All I can say about Ambrose is that I dream of a cricketer like him. Take all the Tendulkars and Pontings and Kallises away and give me one Ambrose. Raw, aggressive, full of pride and one who "talk to no man". "Unspoiled" by excess professionalism and correctness. I might sound poetic when saying this but seeing Ambrose laugh is like seeing a kid laugh. See this:

YouTube - Ambrose's Slower ball to healy

 

[Teja.]

I agree with vcs that Ambrose is a bit overrated in these parts.

 

[Ruckus]

Well you can, because you've criticised Sehwag's ability to play the swinging ball because of his lack of movement. Yet despite this, in the last 2 years Sehwag has averaged 58 and Ponting has averaged 42.
If Sehwag goes to South Africa this winter and scores buckets of runs, it won't be because he suddenly started moving his feet against the swinging ball or what have you.

You could say he would be scoring runs despite his technique, not because of it.

No, thats just wrong on so many levels. Firstly, in the last 2 years Sehwag has played the vast majority of his games on the subcontinent, where swing is far less of an issue. Secondly, what has Sehwag averaging 58 and Ponting averaging 42 in that time period got to do with anything? Sehwag is on a peak, Ponting is on a trough... Why don't you compare Ponting in the years he was averaging 60-100 with Sehwag's peak? We are talking about ranking these players overall, not just the last two years. Thirdly, IF (and its a big IF) Sehwag does score many runs in SA wth his current technique, that will only be a step further to suggesting that Sehwag's technique IS actually sound for him and conducive to versatility (i.e. refer to my last post).

 

[mohammad16]

I am SURE everyone would agree with me here:

The notion that Tendulkar should bat at no 4 in an all time test XI is with enourmous batting talent is ********, secondly putting him down to no 4 puts him in direct competition with Lara in which you have to pick either one of the two, this is also beyond ********.

Tendulkar should open in the Test XI with Lara being included at no 4.

Warne, although my fav bowler of all times since I am an aspiring leg spinner myself should not be included over Murali.

The World XI CORRECTED : Jack Hobbs, Tendulkar, Don Bradman, Lara, Viv Richards, Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Malcolm Marshall, Murali, Wasim Akram, Dennis Lillee

Wasims place is also debatable, but certainly I think most would not be up in arms about his inclusion.