Test XI of the year 2005

[honestbharani]

I will never understand why people would have Kallis ahead of Lara. Esp. if the rest of the middle order is gonna be Ponting and Inzy and Freddie. Lara is a better batter than Kallis and with Freddie already there, the all rounder option is covered. Plus, Lara is a left hander and would bring in variety to the middle order. Not that he needs that excuse to be in the side.

 

[marc71178]

One of inzi's big challenges is going to be getting Kallis to bowl more than a couple of overs otherwise flintoff and mcgrath are going to have a lot of work on their hands.

I guess it depends who the opposition are and what standard that they have.

 

[Prince EWS]

10. Franklin - 47 at 28.4

*cough cough cough*

 

[SJS]

My test XI for 2005 - NOT based on stats alone

1. Hayden
2. Smith
3. Kallis
4. Lara
5. Inzemaam
6. Flintoff
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Nel
10 Murali
11. McGrath

PS : I would love to have Hussey in there. How to fit him in ?

I think I might remove Flintoff and have Hussey. Yes thats right.

 

[SJS]

*cough cough cough*

Sorry for causing the throat infection

It should have been 27 not 47

 

[social]

You cant put Hayden in a world x1 for 2005.

Despite his figures, he under-achieved massively for the first 8 months of the year and was very, very fortunate to retain his place in the Aus line-up.

The fact that he scored so heavily at the end of the year simply reinforces the fact that he is one of the most efficient run-gatherers in history.

Tresco had a break-out year and deserves a place ahead of him.

 

[SJS]

You cant put Hayden in a world x1 for 2005.

Despite his figures, he under-achieved massively for the first 8 months of the year and was very, very fortunate to retain his place in the Aus line-up.

The fact that he scored so heavily at the end of the year simply reinforces the fact that he is one of the most efficient run-gatherers in history.

Tresco had a break-out year and deserves a place ahead of him.

I think you are right. One is influenced by the innings closer in time.

 

[Nate]

My test XI for 2005 - NOT based on stats alone

1. Hayden
2. Smith
3. Kallis
4. Lara
5. Inzemaam
6. Flintoff
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Nel
10 Murali
11. McGrath

PS : I would love to have Hussey in there. How to fit him in ?

I think I might remove Flintoff and have Hussey. Yes thats right.

...no Ponting? 1500+ runs not good enough SJS?

 

[Jono]

I will never understand why people would have Kallis ahead of Lara. Esp. if the rest of the middle order is gonna be Ponting and Inzy and Freddie. Lara is a better batter than Kallis and with Freddie already there, the all rounder option is covered. Plus, Lara is a left hander and would bring in variety to the middle order. Not that he needs that excuse to be in the side.

Yes Lara is better than Kallis and yes he is left-handed but you're missing the point of choosing an XI. This isn't based on overall talent, this is based on 2005. Whilst both have had very good years, Kallis has had the better one hasn't he? Being left-handed isn't really an issue, and could only be used as a tie-breaker aspect if both players had had very similar years. No one is arguing Kallis is the better batsman than Lara because that's not what this topic is about anyway.

 

[Jono]

I guess it depends who the opposition are and what standard that they have.

Kallis has been bowling plenty against Australia. I completely agree that Kallis is far from the bowler he was 5 years ago and isn't anywhere close to being the best allrounder in world cricket, but this ongoing criticism of Kallis that he only ever rolls his arm over when he's playing Bangladesh or Zimbabwe (and even the WI) but always has a niggle when he bowls to the better teams is a huge exaggeration IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes Lara is better than Kallis and yes he is left-handed but you're missing the point of choosing an XI. This isn't based on overall talent, this is based on 2005. Whilst both have had very good years, Kallis has had the better one hasn't he? Being left-handed isn't really an issue, and could only be used as a tie-breaker aspect if both players had had very similar years. No one is arguing Kallis is the better batsman than Lara because that's not what this topic is about anyway.

yeah, but even based on stats, I believe the stats against the better sides should be the one that should be taken into account. I would love to know what is Kallis' stats if we take out Bangladesh and Zim.


Edit: And if the stats of Lara and Kallis is comparable, I would still think one would pick Lara simply because we are picking a "Team" and it would add a bit of variety to the side, esp., as I said, if we already have Flintoff in there as the all rounder.

 

[blockbuster]

yeah, but even based on stats, I believe the stats against the better sides should be the one that should be taken into account. I would love to know what is Kallis' stats if we take out Bangladesh and Zim.
.

900 runs @ 75

Moreover, the idea (which seems to be prevalent in some quarters) that Kallis, during his career, averages massive amounts against the lesser sides (Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) and a pittance against the major Test playing nations, is not grounded in fact.

 

[Dasa]

yeah, but even based on stats, I believe the stats against the better sides should be the one that should be taken into account. I would love to know what is Kallis' stats if we take out Bangladesh and Zim.

If you take Zimbabwe (South Africa haven't played Bangladesh this year) out of Kallis' stats for the year, his average actually goes up from 72.21 to 74.92.
Although Lara has been brilliant this year, I think Kallis has been more consistent....Lara has 5 centuries but no fifties, and has done virtually nothing between centuries, whereas Kallis has made other 50+ knocks to go with his 100s. If you take Lara's non-100 scores, he averages about 19 and Kallis averages about 35...it's a lot more consistent, just not as 'brilliant'. Then again, Kallis has played a lot against the West Indies this year which skews the stats a bit.

 

[Dasa]

900 runs @ 75

Moreover, the idea (which seems to be prevalent in some quarters) that Kallis, during his career, averages massive amounts against the lesser sides (Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) and a pittance against the major Test playing nations, is not grounded in fact.

Actually it is, in part. If you take out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from Kallis' stats, his career average goes from 56.45 to 51.24....he's certainly cashed in against poorer sides, and hasn't done all that well against Australia, averaging only 33.33.

 

[honestbharani]

I think we can start to take out people's stats against the Windies as well, after 2001, that is. It is true that their attack is not as bad as zim and Bangladesh, but it is still well below the standards of some of the other sides.

 

[SJS]

...no Ponting? 1500+ runs not good enough SJS?

Oh it was the toughest of them all but what do you do ?

Inzemam had his best year ever averaging almost 100. Lara and Kallis got either side of a thousand each at 71 plus. Lara needs no support and Kallis's bowling should count for something in addition to the fact that he batted so consistently.

It really is a tough one. I did not think we would end the year with a sugested side that had no Sachin, no Dravid and now no Ponting in the middle order. But its been a great year for batsmen all round and how many can we have ?

I dont fancy putting Ponting in place of Flintoff and asking him to bat at number six too. Its a tough one that. But if someone had put him in the side, you couldnt argue too passionately against that too could you ? Thats how close it is.

 

[SJS]

Kallis has been bowling plenty against Australia. I completely agree that Kallis is far from the bowler he was 5 years ago and isn't anywhere close to being the best allrounder in world cricket, but this ongoing criticism of Kallis that he only ever rolls his arm over when he's playing Bangladesh or Zimbabwe (and even the WI) but always has a niggle when he bowls to the better teams is a huge exaggeration IMO.

Lets put Kallis's bowling in perspective.

He is a better bowler than the others competing for the middle order batsman's spot namely, Lara, Inzy, Ponting, Dravid, Laxman, Sachin and so on. Surely his bowling counts for something even though he isnt the bowler he was ?

He is a DAMN good batsman PLUS he can bowl for whatever its worth. He did get 19 wickets in the year, thats 19 more than Lara, Inzy, Dravid and Ponting put together, no ?
Thats 19 batsmen less for the team to get out of the way. It doesnt make him a better batsman than Lara but it doesnt make him a worse bowler ?

 

[marc71178]

...no Ponting? 1500+ runs not good enough SJS?

His captaincy means he actually scored a net total of 3 runs this year.

 

[marc71178]

Moreover, the idea (which seems to be prevalent in some quarters) that Kallis, during his career, averages massive amounts against the lesser sides (Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) and a pittance against the major Test playing nations, is not grounded in fact.

So how come his average drops to about 52 from 57 when you remove them then?

 

[marc71178]

He is a DAMN good batsman PLUS he can bowl for whatever its worth. He did get 19 wickets in the year, thats 19 more than Lara, Inzy, Dravid and Ponting put together, no ?

18 actually, and 11 of Kallis' 19 were Zimbabwean.