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

[bagapath]

So you are saying Giles and Lewis were/are more batsmen than bowlers as they fulfil the batting criteria but not the bowling?

Also not too many consider Lindwall as a true allrounder. Miller certainly was but not Lindwall. Also Benaud was similar to Illingworth (but of a higher standard) in that they were better bowlers than batsmen.

Just a sidenote, you know neither Lindwall or Benaud played in the last 20 years dont you

LOL. Enjoyed not just this post but your comparison of Pollock and Cairns as well. You ARE good with numbers.

Anyways, Giles and Lewis or anyone else for that matter wont be considered for their batting ability alone if they average under 40. That is our benchmark to select batsmen. But if we can find cricketers who can score 20 + and also grab a few wickets at under 35 they could be useful late order all-rounders for us. Thats all. Since Giles and Lewis do not fulfill the criteria they are not even in the frey. Ravi Shastri was a good batsman - good enough to score two centuries each in windies and pak - even he wont make the cut.

Once you put together all these players who meet the minimum cut-off then it is up to us to use only the cream for the poll. In this era we are discussing you will end up having Vaas and Akram in the pool. Vaas is not a genuine all-rounder but Akram might have his supporters. So it is not a very bad idea after all.

 

[bagapath]

goughie. one quick note though. if you are picking all-time XIs I would go for those all-rounders who meet the following criteria.

1) batting average > bowling average
2) at least 2000 runs at > 30
3) at least 100 wickets < 35
4) at least 3 centuries
4) at least 3 five wicket hauls

I am sure you are fine with these numbers. Since we are looking at the era which was the fag end of the big 4 we have deliberately kept it lenient. We will still find a good solid all-rounder I am sure.

 

[marc71178]

Do you even watch cricket? What kind of question is that?

Pollock batting average 31.95, Cairns 33.53
Pollock bowling average 23.42, Cairns 29.40

 

[Goughy]

Pollock batting average 31.95, Cairns 33.53
Pollock bowling average 23.42, Cairns 29.40

and what does that show apart from the fact that Pollock is a hell of a bowler. Did you even read the previous post. Cairns is by far the more superior batsman and has shown it throughout his career.

Are you really incapable of holding up your hand and admitting you are wrong?

 

[Goughy]

goughie. one quick note though. if you are picking all-time XIs I would go for those all-rounders who meet the following criteria.

1) batting average > bowling average
2) at least 2000 runs at > 30
3) at least 100 wickets < 35
4) at least 3 centuries
4) at least 3 five wicket hauls

I am sure you are fine with these numbers. Since we are looking at the era which was the fag end of the big 4 we have deliberately kept it lenient. We will still find a good solid all-rounder I am sure.

Ive no problem with the list at all, in fact it may even be a little harder than I would have made it myself But that is how it should be if a 'Superstar' team is being selected.

Edit- I like the criteria. Guys like S. Waugh, S. Pollock, Jayasuriya just miss out. So it does isolate the true allrounders rather than include guys that are selected for one skill but are handy and can help out in another.

Any idea of how many people meet the above criteria? Im interested to see who does

 

[bagapath]

"Any idea of how many people meet the above criteria? Im interested to see who does"

from memory i am making the following the list.

botham
cairns
imran
greig
kallis
kapil
miller
sobers

there may be more. but as far as i know, this is it!

faulkner would also have made it if he had played a few more tests. mankad misses out by a whisker.

 

[Matteh]

Pretty sure the NZ contingent would quite like to see Hadlee in there.

 

[Goughy]

He does not meet the allrounder criteria. Batting average is not high enough and only 2 tons.
Which is fair enough as he was not really an allrounder.

Ive no doubt given his performances in the bowling threads that he will make it in the team as a specialist bowler

 

[marc71178]

and what does that show apart from the fact that Pollock is a hell of a bowler. Did you even read the previous post. Cairns is by far the more superior batsman and has shown it throughout his career.

By averaging 1 and a bit more per innings.

Where would he have batted had he been in the SA side that Pollock was in, I'll wager round about the same spot.

 

[aussie tragic]

The #1 opener poll is closing in 2-days and I need to set up the poll for the # 2 Opener.

On current votes, Hayden (LHB) will be selected as #1 Opener and my question for the #2 Opener Poll is should we:

(1) Just have players that recieved votes in the 1st Poll included in the 2nd Poll (currently 10 players), however this will result in 7 LHB and 4 RHB. Note: Bagapath has allowed Richardson (LHB) into the 2nd vote on a wild card as he was omitted from the first vote.

(2) Include another 3 RHB to even out the choice as 7 each? If so, we would need to choose 3 RHB from Gibbs, Vaughan, Haynes and Sidhu, who didn't receive any votes in the first Poll

(3) Just include everyone again as some of the Hayden votes may go to players that received no-votes in the first round?

Preferences anyone.

 

[aussie tragic]

I have done the stats for the # 3 batsmen and I've come up with the following lists based on them having the 20 tests, > 40.00 average since 1986, plus having a minimum of 20 innings in the # 3 position.

# 3 Batsman

David Boon
Rahul Dravid
David Gower
Dean Jones
Andrew Jones
Jacques Kallis
Younis Khan
Brian Lara
VVS Laxman
Ricky Ponting
Richie Richardson
Kumar Sangakkara

EDIT: For the #4 position, I propose the next 5 highest vote getters from # 3, plus the following which have also had > 40.00 ave plus > 20 innings in the #4 position:

# 4 Batsman

Allan Border
Martin Crowe
Daryll Cullinan
Aravinda de Silva
Mahela Jayawardene
Saleem Malik
Damien Martyn
Javed Miandad
Sachin Tendulkar
Graham Thorpe
Inzamam Ul-Haq
Dilip Vengsarker
Mark Waugh
Mohammad Yousuf

For the #5 position, I propose the next 10 highest vote getters from # 4, plus the following which have also had > 40.00 ave plus > 20 innings in the #5 and/or #6 position:

# 5 Batsman

Mohammad Azharuddin
Shivnarine Chanderpaul
Andy Flower
Sourav Ganguly
Viv Richards
Steve Waugh

Did I miss anyone? EDIT: Andrew Jones added to #3

 

[bagapath]

i thought vengsarkar, mark waugh and de silva might be there thoguh they spent most of their careers at no.4!

 

[aussie tragic]

i thought vengsarkar, mark waugh and de silva might be there thoguh they spent most of their careers at no.4!

At #3 position, Vengsarker never batted there, Mark Waugh had one innings & De Silva had only 5 innings, therefore they were not included.

Please also note that Armanath and Gilchrist were not included in any position as Armanath only had 16 tests (836 runs @ 38.00) since 1986, while Gilchrist has not batted 20 Innings at # 3-6.

 

[bagapath]

super job aussie tragic. your rules about choosing 3,4 and 5 sound good too! lets do it that way.

now, for the second opener i suggest we go for the third option you've listed out - unless other members have a different opinion. i think it is all encompassing and fair as an option in this kind of a selectoral process

 

[silentstriker]

Gavaskar for the other opener. Lara @ #3, Sachin @ #4, Sir Viv @ #5.

Even though, ideally I'd have Lara batting slightly after Sachin as Lara is more destructive on his day while Sachin is a more classical type batsman.

Sachin and Lara both do well against any type of bowling, but Sachins' better classical technique will make him slightly better at #3 against faster bowlers whereas Lara is accepted to be a better player of spin so a bit lower for him there.

But its a minor quibble, and I have no problems with that lineup.

Viv was the most destructive of the three, so viv @ 5 is fine.

 

[bagapath]

before we choose No. 3. I thought we could read this for fun! thanks to the authors for hours of research and analysis.

http://caribbeancricket.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1827

http://caribbeancricket.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1832

 

[aussie tragic]

Gavaskar for the other opener. Lara @ #3, Sachin @ #4, Sir Viv @ #5.

Nice Line-up, however I'm going for Ponting, Dravid and Sir Viv

I think Ponting & Dravid have been more consistant than Lara and Sachin and therefore deserve # 3 & #4, while the #5 will be a close vote between Sir Viv, Border, Waugh, Lara and Sachin.

 

[silentstriker]

Nice Line-up, however I'm going for Ponting, Dravid and Sir Viv

I think Ponting & Dravid have been more consistant than Lara and Sachin and therefore deserve # 3 & #4, while the #5 will be a close vote between Sir Viv, Border, Waugh, Lara and Sachin.

I so completely disagree with your #3 and #4, that I don't even know where to begin. Yes, neither Lara nor Sachin have been very consistent in the past three-four years. But look at the 1990s....they were both magnificent. You have to look at their entire career, not just recent. Dravid and Ponting are both 'hot' right now, and thus they are the flavor of the month type of thing. But Tendulkar and Lara were simply out of this world...both of them are in many peoples all time XIs, let alone last twenty years.


When Dravid and Ponting play for a couple more years, the inconsistency will creep in, just as it did with Viv richards. Its just a part of aging and having played international cricket for 15 years...

But you can't judge them on just that -- look at their careers, and especially their primes.

You cannot tell me that you would have Dravid and Ponting in their primes vs. Lara and Tendulkar in their primes. And by the way, bowling was so much better in the 1990s, and they were giants even then. Tendulkar and Lara have ended bowling careers. Dravid has only ended peoples' insomnia.


By the way, thats a joke. I don't find Dravid boring in any way, shape or form. I rate him as the 2nd best batsman in cricket right now (after Ponting) and the the most important player in the Indian side.

 

[aussie tragic]

I so completely disagree with your #3 and #4, that I don't even know where to begin. Yes, neither Lara nor Sachin have been very consistent in the past three-four years. But look at the 1990s....they were both magnificent. You have to look at their entire career, not just recent. Dravid and Ponting are both 'hot' right now, and thus they are the flavor of the month type of thing. But Tendulkar and Lara were simply out of this world...both of them are in many peoples all time XIs, let alone last twenty years.

Stats since 1986:

Dravid: 104 tests, 9048 runs @ 58.75, 23 centuries, 46 fifties
Ponting: 105 tests, 8792 runs @ 58.22, 31 centuries, 34 fifties
Tendulker: 132 tests, 10469 runs @ 55.39, 35 centuries, 41 fifties
Lara: 128 tests, 11505 runs @ 52.05, 32 centuries, 47 fifties

 

[silentstriker]

Stats since 1986:

Dravid: 104 tests, 9048 runs @ 58.75, 23 centuries, 46 fifties
Ponting: 105 tests, 8792 runs @ 58.22, 31 centuries, 34 fifties
Tendulker: 132 tests, 10469 runs @ 55.39, 35 centuries, 41 fifties
Lara: 128 tests, 11505 runs @ 52.05, 32 centuries, 47 fifties

I realize that. But just like with Ian Botham, the stats do not tell the full story. There was a period that Lara and Sachin were so dominant, it is almost indescribable. Plus bowling was better in the 90s (Donald, W & W, Ambrose/Walsh, etc).

Going by just the stats, Ian Botham was pretty ordinary. I doubt that either England or Australia would call him that.