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

[The Sean]

I refuse to believe that Gilchrist can score faster than Richards, too far. Richards might not have done it, but he showed he could, for instance when he scored 100 of 54 balls, the fastest in history. He is a damn sight more reliable too.

It was actually 56 balls...

Yes. I'm a stats pedant.

 

[silentstriker]

No question that Gilly has redefined that role mate - the point is just that if you're assembling an all time top 6 that looks the way most of us envisage it to, it doesn't really matter if your keeper can bat or not. So for the same reason you pick the best bowlers (as opposed to the bowlers who can bat the best) there's an argument that you should just pick the best keeper, regardless of whether he can bat or not.

I still have no idea who I'd pick - Heals is the best pure gloveman I've seen in my time, and going back further I've heard everyone from Blackham to Evans to Tallon to Knott called the best ever.

But thats the thing, lets say you pick Knott. How much keeping are you gaining? Meaning, how many catches does Gilly drop anyway? And Gilly has shown himself to be able to keep against he best spinner ever, one of the fastest bowlers ever, and also one of the most accurate.

I don't see a massive difference, personally.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Hammond, Bradman, Richards and Sobers could all score as fast as anyone could have wanted, is is more than a second option.

 

[The Sean]

But thats the thing, lets say you pick Knott. How much keeping are you gaining? Meaning, how many catches does Gilly drop anyway? And Gilly has shown himself to be able to keep against he best spinner ever, one of the fastest bowlers ever, and also one of the most accurate.

I don't see a massive difference, personally.

No argument at all there mate - I don't think there'd be much difference really over the course of a series when you factored in the possible extra couple of dismissals a Knott might pull off, especially when compared to Gilly's runs (assuming he got a bat and every innings wasn't declared at 600-3 or something).

It's a hard juggle to make, so I think that's why most of us just pick the best cricketer for the role, and that's Adam Gilchrist.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yup, it would be close, but as Benaud said "No one hits the ball cleaner, and as often as Gilly, not even Richards."

As much as I respect and hold Benaud in great esteem, I beg to differ with that statement.

 

[silentstriker]

Hammond, Bradman, Richards and Sobers could all score as fast as anyone could have wanted, is is more than a second option.

In terms of pure destruction in that side, I would rate them as:

1. Gilchrist
2. Richards
3. Tendulkar
4. Sobers
5. Bradman

 

[silentstriker]

As much as I respect and hold Benaud in great esteem, I beg to differ with that statement.

Obviously, but its not as cut and dry as you may think regarding Richards and Gilly. Note: I am not claiming Gilly to be the better batsman.

 

[The Sean]

In terms of pure destruction in that side, I would rate them as:

1. Gilchrist
2. Richards
3. Tendulkar
4. Sobers
5. Bradman

Bradman 5th?? His scoring rate, even in his era of runfests, was phenomenal. Destruction is about more than hitting 6s.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Destruction isn't purely strike rate. When Gilchrist is going well, he is as good as anyone there ever was, but not the best. The problem was, is that he is nowhere as consistent as he should be, to be considered a great batsman.

 

[silentstriker]

No argument at all there mate - I don't think there'd be much difference really over the course of a series when you factored in the possible extra couple of dismissals a Knott might pull off, especially when compared to Gilly's runs (assuming he got a bat and every innings wasn't declared at 600-3 or something).

I would have to disagree with 'extra couple' of dismissals. Maybe one, or two at most. In any case, you can even put Gilly to open instead of Gavaskar if you need fast runs in the second innings. Also, assuming you are playing against other great teams (lets say you're playing all time second XI), you're not going to be 600-3 all the time or even all that often. Great batsmen aren't immortal.

So if you are facing:

• Hadlee
• Ambrose
• Imran
• Miller
• Trueman/Barnes
• Donald

(They would be the bowlers in my second XI)

You don't think having Gilly will help? Even our top six wouldn't be infallible against that type of lineup.

 

[silentstriker]

Bradman 5th?? His scoring rate, even in his era of runfests, was phenomenal. Destruction is about more than hitting 6s.

Grrr, I am not comparing the batsman's ability. I am comparing their ability to score 200 in 20 overs if you need to pile on the runs that quickly. Who would be likely to get that the fastest, thats my question.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Bradman scored 300 in a day for christs sake, what more do you want????

 

[silentstriker]

Bradman scored 300 in a day for christs sake, what more do you want????

*SIGH*, never mind. If you are going to present anecdotal evidence, then think what you want. Over their careers, Gilchrist has played that role far more often and has done it with more success than any of the others.

 

[The Sean]

Grrr, I am not comparing the batsman's ability. I am comparing their ability to score 200 in 20 overs if you need to pile on the runs that quickly. Who would be likely to get that the fastest, thats my question.

Mate, neither am I! I haven't mentioned quality of batsman, just destructiveness - and Bradman scored at an amazing rate, and he tore attacks to pieces habitually.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Please tell me you're joking. Please.

Bradman scored runs a gazillion times more consistently than Gilchrist.

 

[The Sean]

I would have to disagree with 'extra couple' of dismissals. Maybe one, or two at most. In any case, you can even put Gilly to open instead of Gavaskar if you need fast runs in the second innings. Also, assuming you are playing against other great teams (lets say you're playing all time second XI), you're not going to be 600-3 all the time or even all that often. Great batsmen aren't immortal.

So if you are facing:

• Hadlee
• Ambrose
• Imran
• Miller
• Trueman/Barnes
• Donald

(They would be the bowlers in my second XI)

You don't think having Gilly will help? Even our top six wouldn't be infallible against that type of lineup.

lol, well the 600-3 comment was purely tongue-in-cheek.

And I don't think there's much difference between "a couple" and "one or two".

 

[silentstriker]

Mate, neither am I! I haven't mentioned quality of batsman, just destructiveness - and Bradman scored at an amazing rate, and he tore attacks to pieces habitually.

Yes, he did. He was destructive - but so is everyone else in that line up.

 

[silentstriker]

lol, well the 600-3 comment was purely tongue-in-cheek.

And I don't think there's much difference between "a couple" and "one or two".

I was saying a maximum of one or two. Not one or two as a matter of course every series.

 

[PhoenixFire]

The thing is, I wouldn't rely on Gilchrist to score lots of runs very fast, you could with Bradman.

 

[silentstriker]

Again, if you are facing a lineup of:

• Hadlee
• Ambrose
• Imran
• Miller
• Trueman/Barnes
• Donald

which is my second XI, it would be ridiculous to think you can always expect great starts.