richie benaud's greatest 11

[smash84]

I will actually go a step further, and replace one batsman with a very good bowler who can bat a bit - Richard Hadlee. With Bradman, almost as good as 2 batsman, and Gilchrist, I will definitely push for 5 bowlers, specially when two of them can bat.

As for Warne's selection, even though I will take Murali, it's not really outrageous. Lillee over Marshall is a bigger oversight.

Ya ya, I know he chose an XI that he wanted to see but if we all just accepted that, what will be the fun

Your team might actually end up Richie's XI. And will easily beat the ESPN XI I suppose.

 

[zaremba]

It's a bloody good team, that. A bloody amazing team. You can argue the toss about some very close calls he'll have had to make, but it's basically a team brimful of awesomeness. Richards at 4 after Bradman (see Ginger Furball's point on this), and Gilchrist at 8. Sweet Jesus. And if anyone thinks that Lillee, Imran, Barnes, Sobers and Warne is somehow a deficient bowling line-up, they're wrong.

 

[smash84]

It's a bloody good team, that. A bloody amazing team. You can argue the toss about some very close calls he'll have had to make, but it's basically a team brimful of awesomeness. Richards at 4 after Bradman (see Ginger Furball's point on this), and Gilchrist at 8. Sweet Jesus. And if anyone thinks that Lillee, Imran, Barnes, Sobers and Warne is somehow a deficient bowling line-up, they're wrong.

Whoever said that????

 

[Teja.]

It's a bloody good team, that. A bloody amazing team. You can argue the toss about some very close calls he'll have had to make, but it's basically a team brimful of awesomeness. Richards at 4 after Bradman (see Ginger Furball's point on this), and Gilchrist at 8. Sweet Jesus. And if anyone thinks that Lillee, Imran, Barnes, Sobers and Warne is somehow a deficient bowling line-up, they're wrong.

I don't think it is a deficient bowling line up. Just that it completely defies logic to pick a fast bowler who is equal/negligibly better as a bowler over a bowling all-rounder.

 

[smash84]

I don't think it is a deficient bowling line up. Just that it completely defies logic to pick a fast bowler who is equal/negligibly better as a bowler over a bowling all-rounder.

Good Point

 

[zaremba]

Whoever said that????

I got to about the 2nd post in this thread and the bitching had already started about Murali v Warne. At which point I murdered 13 random passers-by in a deranged killing spree in South West London. You may see reports about it on the news tonight. If so, you'll know what drove me to it

 

[smash84]

I got to about the 2nd post in this thread and the bitching had already started about Murali v Warne. At which point I murdered 13 random passers-by in a deranged killing spree in South West London. You may see reports about it on the news tonight. If so, you'll know what drove me to it

LOL......ok

 

[Ikki]

I don't think it is a deficient bowling line up. Just that it completely defies logic to pick a fast bowler who is equal/negligibly better as a bowler over a bowling all-rounder.

That's an interesting point. But I disagree. There is logic in picking one bowling all-rounder but to simply pick all-rounders because their combined efforts may outweigh another specialist wears thin when your batting is already bolstered enough already. And also, if Hadlee is called upon to score runs, for example, he is much less likely to bowl as well as a specialist like Lillee/McGrath/Marshall (or himself) in the same match. They are humans after all.

 

[Howe_zat]

Personally I'd pick Hadlee on bowling alone, and lower-order runs are beside the point.

I really rate a bowler who can take wickets without support. After all, scoring off two great bowlers almost can't be done, but when you have one a good batsman can keep him out and try and score from the other end. Hadlee, however, basically was the New Zealand attack for the best part of 15 years.

 

[Teja.]

That's an interesting point. But I disagree. There is logic in picking one bowling all-rounder but to simply pick all-rounders because their combined efforts may outweigh another specialist wears thin when your batting is already bolstered enough already. And also, if Hadlee is called upon to score runs, for example, he is much less likely to bowl as well as a specialist like Lillee/McGrath/Marshall (or himself) in the same match. They are humans after all.

I disagree with the bolded part and will admit that I haven't considered the other point previously. Fair 'nuff.

 

[zaremba]

Personally I'd pick Hadlee on bowling alone, and lower-order runs are beside the point.

I really rate a bowler who can take wickets without support. After all, scoring off two great bowlers almost can't be done, but when you have one a good batsman can keep him out and try and score from the other end. Hadlee, however, basically was the New Zealand attack for the best part of 15 years.

Hadlee's bowling was flipping outstanding so I would agree that his bowling by itself would get him into consideration for the team - whether I'd pick him for the XI would depend on which side of bed I got out of - although his ability to carry an attack single-handedly wouldn't really be relevant in this kind of outfit. But in addition to that, lower-order runs are always valuable. If we were to assume that Lillee and Hadlee were equal bowlers - or even that Lillee was marginally better - it would be legitimate for Hadlee's batting to tip the balance in his favour, as it does for Teja.

 

[smash84]

Hadlee's bowling was flipping outstanding so I would agree that his bowling by itself would get him into consideration for the team - whether I'd pick him for the XI would depend on which side of bed I got out of - although his ability to carry an attack single-handedly wouldn't really be relevant in this kind of outfit. But in addition to that, lower-order runs are always valuable. If we were to assume that Lillee and Hadlee were equal bowlers - or even that Lillee was marginally better - it would be legitimate for Hadlee's batting to tip the balance in his favour, as it does for Teja.

I would tend to agree with that.

 

[bagapath]

That's an interesting point. But I disagree. There is logic in picking one bowling all-rounder but to simply pick all-rounders because their combined efforts may outweigh another specialist wears thin when your batting is already bolstered enough already. And also, if Hadlee is called upon to score runs, for example, he is much less likely to bowl as well as a specialist like Lillee/McGrath/Marshall (or himself) in the same match. They are humans after all.

AWTA. that is why ian chappell wanted knott in place of gilchrist for the cricinfo xi. when one department is as agood as it gets you better make sure the other one is also in the best shape possible.

 

[smash84]

That's an interesting point. But I disagree. There is logic in picking one bowling all-rounder but to simply pick all-rounders because their combined efforts may outweigh another specialist wears thin when your batting is already bolstered enough already. And also, if Hadlee is called upon to score runs, for example, he is much less likely to bowl as well as a specialist like Lillee/McGrath/Marshall (or himself) in the same match. They are humans after all.

AWTA. that is why ian chappell wanted knott in place of gilchrist for the cricinfo xi. when one department is as agood as it gets you better make sure the other one is also in the best shape possible.

Not really. As Ikki mentions if Hadlee is called upon to score runs in a vital situation you know that Hadlee (or Botham) has the ability to swing the match in your favor. A quick fire 30 or 40 can make a huge difference to the match without sapping too much of the all-rounders bowling ability. After all that's what champion all rounders are made of.

On the other hand if Lillee is called upon to score runs he will probably show up with an aluminium bat and end up back in the pavillion a few deliveries later. Pretty useless with the bat even when the team needs it.

A top-notch all rounder is inherently more valuable than a specialist. And they are a rare commodity. Just a handful in over a century.

 

[Burgey]

Quite.

 

[Flem274*]

Something tells me this is a spambot.

 

[Flem274*]

Haha, and there's a "poster" in this thread called uggboots. Forum invasion obvz.

 

[marc71178]

Something tells me this is a spambot.

CW moderators at their finest here!

 

[Spikey]

Something tells me this is a spambot.

"I call the big one Bitey"

 

[Howe_zat]

He had me at "Student Squirt Eating".