Playing selector: Lets pick the best test XI of different eras

[oz_fan]

This doesn't necessarily mean that he's better in the second team; it just means that he's good enough to be in both teams. That's why I suggested having a poll if this issue does arise which asks whether (for example) people want Botham for Team A and Imran for Team B or Imran for Team A and Waugh for Team B. This would ensure that on the whole, the guys who deserve a place the most get one and no one hogs the limelight.

Completely agree.

 

[Matt79]

This doesn't necessarily mean that he's better in the second team; it just means that he's good enough to be in both teams. That's why I suggested having a poll if this issue does arise which asks whether (for example) people want Botham for Team A and Imran for Team B or Imran for Team A and Waugh for Team B. This would ensure that on the whole, the guys who deserve a place the most get one and no one hogs the limelight.

Problem with that is that we picked Imran as the #6 in the 85-present team before we selected the last bowler slot - which went to Murali as one of two spinners. If we sub Waugh in for Imran, it leaves the team with only two quicks, and Steve as first change bowler, not ideal for a 'best of' team. If Waugh had got up at #6 over Imran, I imagine we would have gone for a quick for team balance.

 

[adharcric]

Right, but when you're voting for Botham & Imran vs Imran & Waugh, you'll take that into consideration and go for Botham & Imran because you know the latter will weaken the two teams overall.

 

[Matt79]

So why not just eliminate Imran now on the basis that he's been selected for a team already?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Imran isn't good enough at batting to be a number 6 in a test team that is 198? to Present. Considering you're probably going to have Gilchrist coming in at number 7, you would have to have a specialist batsman in at no6.

 

[aussie tragic]

Imran isn't good enough at batting to be a number 6 in a test team that is 198? to Present. Considering you're probably going to have Gilchrist coming in at number 7, you would have to have a specialist batsman in at no6.

Actually, Imran averaged around 50 post 1986, which is why he got into the # 6 position for the 1986-2005 team (higher than Gilly's 48).

His problem is that he only averages 31 between 1966-85 period, which IMO is not good enough for # 6 (remember Knott at # 7 averages 32). For this reason I think Botham should beat him into the # 6 for this latest team and Hadlee should beat him in final bowler given previous poll results. I realise that this is a cop out though and he might sneak through, as will Sobers in 1946-65 team, so I propose the following:

(1) Pick the best players of the era's regardless whether they're in another team already (so at least we know who we rate the best).

(2) If a player gets into two teams, have a poll for members to decide which era he is better in (e.g. for Imran, you might have 1990 # 6 allrounder version vs 1980 first change bowler version)

(3) For the losing era, pick a replacement player from the Era 2nd XI (which are all the players who received the most runner-up votes)

(4) As we can only unbalance a team if it includes two spinners, in this case we would also redo the final bowler poll after changing the # 6 in that team.

....... however as I've said before, I don't think it will be an issue in the case of Imran (or I'm suffering from wishful thinking)

 

[bagapath]

looks like the only way out. totally agree with you.

 

[Matt79]

Imran isn't good enough at batting to be a number 6 in a test team that is 198? to Present. Considering you're probably going to have Gilchrist coming in at number 7, you would have to have a specialist batsman in at no6.

Why does having a keeper who averages 48 at 7 necessitate a specialist batsman at 6?

 

[aussie tragic]

The # 6 Poll looks like another close one (currently between Botham & Miandad) and once that's finished the following will be in the final bowler poll:

Pace
Joel Garner
Richard Hadlee
Michael Holding
Imran Khan
Jeff Thomson

Spin
Bishan Bedi
Bhagwat Chandrasekhar
Abdul Qadir

Then I'll run a Captain poll, which currently includes Gavaskar, Richards, Chappell and Sobers as the nominees (Miandad and Imran are only other candidates if selected).

The 1966-85 World Test XI so far:

1. Sunil Gavaskar
2. Gordon Greenidge
3. Viv Richards
4. Greg Chappell
5. Gary Sobers
6. --------------- (Botham / Miandad)
7. Alan Knott
8. ---------------
9. Malcom Marshall
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Derek Underwood

 

[nightprowler10]

What's the criteria for captains?

 

[aussie tragic]

What's the criteria for captains?

I was just going with any player that has captained their country during the period, but I excluded Botham to save him the embarassment (12 tests, 0 wins).

How about any player that has captained their country to a victory within the period?

 

[nightprowler10]

I was just going with any player that has captained their country during the period, but I excluded Botham to save him the embarassment (12 tests, 0 wins).

How about any player that has captained their country to a victory within the period?

Fair enough.

 

[JBH001]

Yer, Captaincy and Botham did not agree.

His figures as captain are woeful - they are even more so when you realise he was captain in his 12 tests during his euber period of 1977 - 1982.
IIRC 8 of those tests were against the WI too, which did not help his overall figures against the WI at all.

Anyway, here are his stats as captain.

Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St

12 276 57 13.14 0 1 35 4/77 33.08 0 9 0

(Figures not as captain from 1977 - 1982)

46 2953 208 44.74 11 12 227 8/34 23.20 20 55 0

Pretty impressive, huh!

/Edit

Just realised, Botham played 5 tests, not 8, against the WI as captain in the period.
I think the other 7 were against Australia - not sure though.

 

[aussie tragic]

Baga, I'm looking forward to see all the work that you've done on the 1946-65 team as there are some real legends in this period.

We could also tweak the poll process so that they're only 4-days as most votes seem to be in by 3-days, except yours of course I think we can also run the polls in the following order to ensure it's completed in the shortest time:

# 3 & Opening batsmen
# 4 & WK
# 5 & Opening Bowler
# 6 & Spinner
Final Bowler

Finally, we may need to adjust the 20 test criteria down as while 20 tests can be completed in less than 2-years now, it probably took 5-6 years back then (I know Bradman only played 52 tests in 15 years of playing)

btw, I'm happy for you to run the polls if you like, just let me know.

 

[aussie tragic]

Here are some Aussie and NZ players for consideration in the 1946-65 XI :

Batsmen: Harvey, Hassett, Booth, Bradman, Barnes, Burge --- Sutcliffe (NZ)

Allrounders: Miller, Mackay, Benaud, Davidson --- Reid (NZ)

Wicketkeepers: Grout, Tallon --- Mooney (NZ)

Pace Bowlers: Lindwall, Davidson, Miller, McKenzie --- Motz, Cameron, MacGibbon (NZ)

Spinners: Benaud, Johnson, Johnston

Edit: players in blue may not meet selection criteria

 

[silentstriker]

If Bradman does not meet the selection criteria, its the criteria that needs changing. Considering he averaged 100 in the post war period. And I still don't understand why a player can't be in the two XIs.

 

[adharcric]

If Bradman does not meet the selection criteria, its the criteria that needs changing. Considering he averaged 100 in the post war period. And I still don't understand why a player can't be in the two XIs.

The comparisons become rather boring if the same guy is found in two teams, IMO.

 

[marc71178]

If Bradman does not meet the selection criteria, its the criteria that needs changing. Considering he averaged 100 in the post war period. And I still don't understand why a player can't be in the two XIs.

To be fair, the player in question's record doesn't warrant selection in all honesty.

 

[Perm]

I hope that Richard Hadlee makes it in as the 4th bowler because he really deserves it and it would give New Zealand some representation which we might not get if Sutcliffe doesn't get into the next XI.

 

[aussie tragic]

If Bradman does not meet the selection criteria, its the criteria that needs changing. Considering he averaged 100 in the post war period

We have always used 20 test matches within a period as the basic criteria, while we have then tweaked minor things like SR and averages through the different decades so that common sense prevails.

Also, I'm sure you remember we discussed whether the 1966-85 South Africa players could be let in with less than 20 tests and it was decided not to as players would have then been decided on "what they may have acheived". With Bradman in 1946-65, he'd be selected on his name and reputation alone even if he had played only 1 test during the period.

btw, I had already posted earlier that we may need to lower the 20 test criteria as we go further further back in time as when I did the Sobers purple patch stats, I noticed it took him 5-years to play 23 tests in the 1960's, whereas that can be done in 2-years now (and I assume it would take 6-8 years in the 1950's).