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

[shortpitched713]

Agree with Phoenix on this one. Pretty soon you'll have 20 people all voting for the same guy regardless of who they think is better, and that wouldn't be any fun.

 

[JBH001]

I concur, agreeing with everybody else does not make you and everybody else 'right'.

Otherwise, for example, we would not have Worrell at #5 in the 46 - 65 side and no Barrington and/or Compton. A complete and utter travesty.

 

[JBH001]

Backing ChappellG over Tendulkar? Controversial.

Not really - GS was arguably a better batsman than ST and/or BCL.

And I see little wrong in selecting a middle order of Richards - Chappell - Sobers.

In fact that would be a really good attacking middle order, allowing Miller at #6 or Imran at #6, or #7 if as expected Gilly is to go through as the wk/bat.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

9. Samuel Vines

Vimes. (or Sir Samuel.)

 

[JBH001]

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.

Maybe, but if we are taking this seriously then the bowling line-up the post WW2 side faces will be that of bowlers drawn from pre WW2. IMO the post WW2 bowlers have a considerable edge on the pre WW2 lot. A possible bowling attack from that era would be Gregory and Spofforth, followed by Barnes, and backed up by Rhodes and O'Reilly.

A batting order of Gavaskar, Hutton, Richards, Chappell, Sobers for example should be able to handle an attack on those lines and there would be little need of a swashbuckling Gilly at #6 or #7. The only problem would be if playing on an old fashioned 'sticky dog' in which case having Gilly would probably make little difference, and you would (as said by Phoenix?) rather have the greater keeper, namely Knotty.

IMO, this contest will come down to better batting line-up (pre WW2) vs better bowling line-up (post WW2).

 

[JBH001]

Vimes. (or Sir Samuel.)

I thought you did not like being called "Sir Samuel"?

 

[silentstriker]

Not really - GS was arguably a better batsman than ST and/or BCL.

Arguable, but the argument would be lost.

 

[andyc]

I would say the bowling attack overall in the 46 to 66 is slightly better and the depth in the batting line up covers any loss in the middle order. Don't believe so much in the hype of modern day players.

Waste of a 1,000,000th post IMO

 

[aussie tragic]

Okay, the forum has spoken and i'll concur that the champion selector idea is stupid.......

btw, I wouldn't have lasted past the next two selections anyway as I'm voting Chappell for # 4 and then Laker as the spinner

 

[silentstriker]

57 ball 100 by Gilly.

Most.Destructive.Ever. Great timing by him . Went from 450 to 500 in 17 balls.

17 balls!

 

[aussie tragic]

57 ball 100 by Gilly.

Most.Destructive.Ever. Great timing by him . Went from 450 to 500 in 17 balls.

17 balls!

Umm...wrong thread

 

[PhoenixFire]

I think he was talking about Gilchrist being more destructive than Bradman or not. I think that we view the word destructive in different ways.

 

[shortpitched713]

57 ball 100 by Gilly.

Most.Destructive.Ever.

Hmm... thats funny, I always thought 56 was a smaller number than 57.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Personaly, my interpretation of descructive isn't just hitting a 30 ball fifty, and then getting out. For me, destruction is scoring 1-2 boundarys an over for a consistent period, and grinding the opposition down, as well as getting the big overs.

 

[silentstriker]

Personaly, my interpretation of descructive isn't just hitting a 30 ball fifty, and then getting out. For me, destruction is scoring 1-2 boundarys an over for a consistent period, and grinding the opposition down, as well as getting the big overs.

Then you're more consistent, not necessarily more destructive.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I thought you did not like being called "Sir Samuel"?

It's tolerable. Beats "your grace".

 

[bagapath]

When Christopher Martin Jenkins selected a post 1953 England XI and a Rest of the world XI in 2002 he also presented a combined Post WWII XI. I thought we could take a look at it to see how close our team is to his.


CMJ's XI
gavaskar 51
hutton 56
richards 50
tendulkar 55
compton 50
sobers 57
gilchrist 48
marshall 18
warne 16
lillee 13
murali 12
426

Also, taking Richie Benaud's All time XI, I replaced Hobbs, Bradman and Barnes with corresponding post war players from his second XI.

Benaud's XI
hutton 56
gavaskar 51
richards 50
tendulkar 55
g.chappell 53
sobers 57
imran 37
gilchrist 48
hadlee 27
warne 16
lillee 13
463

A few years ago Miandad chose his team of "fighters". Since it involved players he had seen live it also contained only post war players.

Miandad's XI

b.richards 72
gavaskar 51
v.richards 50
abbas 44
i.chappell 42
sobers 57
imran 37
rod marsh 26
qadir 15
holding 13
lillee 13
420

 

[aussie tragic]

Sorry, I'm sure CW can come up with a better team then all of those

 

[silentstriker]

Sorry, I'm sure CW can come up with a better team then all of those

We already did, a while back.

 

[bagapath]

aussie tragic! I hope we are able to accept the tie in the spinner's poll and take both warne and murali in the team. if we do that right away wthe decision might influence the choice for no.6. and no. 5. people might want to select sobers at 5 and imran/botham/miller at 6 to accomodate the two spinners. i may want to select sobers at 6 and use him as third seamer though. what is your call on this?