i never said that he had a **** supporting attack, just that they weren't genuine wicket taking options (ie, they wouldn't run through batting line ups regularly). McGrath also had the advantage of not having to face his own batting line up.The guy saying Hadlee was better because of "lone spearhead still low SR" is overlooking that Hadlee didn't have a complete **** supporting attack, and he played on pitches which were far more helpful to pace bowling than McG did in general.
If this line of reasoning is considered credible, then by the same logic, Sobers can also be discredited as an automatic pick because with JK's retirement, Sobers is not unique/peerless anymore. Hobb's as a unique specimen will then become the second automatic pick.Clever post!
I liked the following paragraph most;If this line of reasoning is considered credible, then by the same logic, Sobers can also be discredited as an automatic pick because with JK's retirement, Sobers is not unique/peerless anymore. Hobb's as a unique specimen will then become the second automatic pick.
If Imran is batting at No.8 then I see little need to have Gilchrist sandwiched between him and Sobers at No.6. You may as well select Alan Knott, and go for the best wicket-keeper. Not that he was a mug with the bat anyway. Knott was actually very good.While Gilchrist's batting sure does entertain, his claim to being the preeminent wk of the ages is doubtful. Besides, I would rather balance my team choosing the wicket keeper last and so choose a wicket keeper based on whether the team needed more batting re-enforcement or not i.e., choose a specialist wk or batting wk.
I can't claim credit for the idea. It's an opinion that I have seen in many CW threads from various posters.I liked the following paragraph most;
If Imran is batting at No.8 then I see little need to have Gilchrist sandwiched between him and Sobers at No.6. You may as well select Alan Knott, and go for the best wicket-keeper. Not that he was a mug with the bat anyway. Knott was actually very good.
However, if Marshall or Warne are batting at No.8, then sure, Gilchrist is a more obvious choice.
Nah Gilchrist is still perfect for that side. Imagine getting out the top and middle order and thinking you've done the hard part and all you have to do is get one wicket to get into the tail. Nd then Gilchrist walks in and smashes 70 in 50. So demoralising.I liked the following paragraph most;
If Imran is batting at No.8 then I see little need to have Gilchrist sandwiched between him and Sobers at No.6. You may as well select Alan Knott, and go for the best wicket-keeper. Not that he was a mug with the bat anyway. Knott was actually very good.
However, if Marshall or Warne are batting at No.8, then sure, Gilchrist is a more obvious choice.
OK, even by my standards, that's a bit weird.Yep all the same I'd pick Gilchrist and if you had him I'd kidnap him.
Alan Knott was anything but stodgy;Nah Gilchrist is still perfect for that side. Imagine getting out the top and middle order and thinking you've done the hard part and all you have to do is get one wicket to get into the tail. Nd then Gilchrist walks in and smashes 70 in 50. So demoralising.
Imran would be the perfect foil for Gilchrist as well. If you say you don't need Gilchrist because Sobers and Imran are enough, well, I say I don't need another stodgy, solid lower order bat like Knott when I already have Imran. Would rather have Gilchrist's brutality
I dunno, I just feel in a side like a fantasy ATG XI, there's no such thing for me as too much batting. Even with a ridiculously powerful batting lineup, just look at how many times Gilchrist came in and made a huge difference. Several times when the team was in trouble too.
I think there a couple of reasons why they leave him out. Firstly, because the way they do their selections is to select an allrounder - and they consider him part of the group of allrounders, despite his actual figures matching up with anyone's. And then there's the team composition values of picking a left hander like Wasim which also counts against him.
I know I’m late to the discussion, but the above is exactly right. The overwhelming reason for Imran’s exclusion from All-Time XI’s is the “one all-rounder” rule. This could be an actual written rule to compose the side (as in the case of the Cricinfo XI), or it could just be a mental preference of the individual to have one all-rounder to balance the side. Since Sobers and Imran are slotted as AR’s, the voters invariably (and rightly) pick Sobers, leaving out Imran. I bet Imran would make a lot more XI’s if he wasn’t immediately thought of as an “all-rounder”, but rather a strike bowler who was also handy with the bat.Back to the topic, the reasons for Imran not figuring in all these lists is simple: most of the pundits restrict themselves to 1 all-rounder only, thus limiting themselves only to Sobers. And Imran's fame as a captain and all-rounder have in the past taken away much of the emphasis on his bowling abilities to him being considered as a bowler alone.