World Class list

[Prince EWS]

Yep, because 4 years later we all totally remember the existence of the other debate. And meanings of threads totally never change over time

Yeah but it's definitely not the whole 11 pages worth of what Daemon mentioned. Most of thread took place in 2011 where people were largely having a cricketing argument as per the OP.

 

[Red]

So for Australia I reckon...


Chris Rogers- not quite, although I reckon he's very close. Plenty of teams would value him.
David Warner- yes, form opener in test cricket, would play in any nation's XI.
Alex Doolan- no, still unproven.
Michael Clarke- yes, would slot straight into every middle order
Steve Smith- yes, average in 13/14 was 50, class middle order bat.
Shane Watson- yes, there would be a spot for him (fully fit and capable of bowling) in every test team.
Brad Haddin- no (just). Very close, but might not displace Prior (Eng) Chandimal (SL) and ABDv (SA). Close to being par with them.
Mitchell Johnson- yes.
Ryan Harris- when fit, yes.
James Pattinson- no, probably wouldn't crack SA's side, and would have to vie for a spot in the English side.
Nathan Lyon- no, couple of spinners around who have him covered
Peter Siddle- no, fringe of Aus team atm

Watson would only make other teams, and should only make the Aust team, if he's capable of bowling. Rogers is bloody close, I actually think nearly every other team would play him...

 

[Hurricane]

So what's the definition here? A player who would make any other nation's team?

Yes

That is what the definition should be and all those who have disagreed in this thread should start using it as well IMHO.

 

[Flem274*]

Patto would make other teams not because he's particularly proven or anything (his claims to fame are beating up 2011 NZ on lawns and India away from home) but only his own side have both an established third seamer and spinner. SA and NZ would play him ahead of any spinner they have on merit and for the rest of the sides he would either open the bowling or bowl first change (or just open the bowling and jiggle around the three quicks depending on who he is playing for).

The only side he doesn't make is his own and that's because he got MJ'd and Australia have the best attack in the world since they are the only team to have three world class fast bowlers at their roles plus a good spinner.

 

[Flem274*]

That is what the definition should be and all those who have disagreed in this thread should start using it as well IMHO.

Hmm maybe. Getting a bowl for Australia would be pretty hard atm because while Siddle might not have the big name firepower Harris and Johnson have, he and Morkel are joint best in the world at the third seamer role. Are Jimmy Anderson, Vernon Philander or Tim Southee really going to do a better job than Siddle at being the donkey?

You could argue for putting MJ at first change since his bowling revolves around murder rather than swing or anything cultured I guess.

 

[Red]

Patto would make other teams not because he's particularly proven or anything (his claims to fame are beating up 2011 NZ on lawns and India away from home) but only his own side have both an established third seamer and spinner. SA and NZ would play him ahead of any spinner they have on merit and for the rest of the sides he would either open the bowling or bowl first change (or just open the bowling and jiggle around the three quicks depending on who he is playing for).

The only side he doesn't make is his own and that's because he got MJ'd and Australia have the best attack in the world since they are the only team to have three world class fast bowlers at their roles plus a good spinner.

Yeh, fair enough. I kind of just looked at the teams with three reasonably established quicks and thought he wouldn't make them. Although if you aren't consistently making your own nation's XI, you have to wonder if you belong in the conversation!

Within a few years, injuries permitting, Patto will consolidate his status as world class, I've no doubt.

 

[kyear2]

So what's the definition here? A player who would make any other nation's team?

Like this definition.

 

[NUFAN]

i think it's excellent that we all have different meanings for world class.

that is what the definition should be and all those who have disagreed in this thread should start using it as well imho.

 

[Hurricane]

@nufan

i don't agree that it is boring - but i do agree with your frustration hence my sarcastic post..

 

[Maximas]

Is "making every other side" an arbitrary requirement? Some really good fast bowlers just wouldn't crack Australia's team, but does that make them not world class? Or is that rule just a guide

 

[NZTailender]

Is "making every other side" an arbitrary requirement? Some really good fast bowlers just wouldn't crack Australia's team, but does that make them not world class? Or is that rule just a guide

I'd think a guide; I think making EVERY team is a bit of a stretch because theoretically (UIMM) there'd be only one world class wicket keeper.

In my mind, a World Class player is someone who is an automatic selection for their country based on merit and not necessity, and who has performed at the top level consistently against all comers with a <32 bowl average and 40+ bat average. I'd also make the distinction that 'world class' is a level (or even two) below 'great' status.

 

[kyear2]

Poor
Average
Good
Genuine Test level
World Class
Great
ATG
ATG World XI short list
ATG XI lock

 

[Maximas]

@kyear2

Poor - George Bailey
Average - Narsinge Deonarine
Good - Nathan Lyon
Genuine Test level - Morne Morkel
World Class - Rangana Herath
Great - Micheal Clarke
ATG - Kumar Sangakarra
ATG World XI short list - Murali
ATG XI lock - Bradman

Took me some time to try and work out who fell into those various categories and what the categories essentially meant - would you agree those players fit those categories for reference?

 

[Justo]

I'd say swap Michael Clarke for maybe Ian Bell (or similar) and you'd be about right. Clarke's definitely ATG IMO(barring a massive slump over the rest of his career).

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2

Poor - George Bailey
Average - Narsinge Deonarine
Good - Nathan Lyon
Genuine Test level - Morne Morkel
World Class - Rangana Herath
Great - Micheal Clarke
ATG - Kumar Sangakarra
ATG World XI short list - Murali
ATG XI lock - Bradman

Took me some time to try and work out who fell into those various categories and what the categories essentially meant - would you agree those players fit those categories for reference?

More or less, not sure where Michael Clarke quite fits in, might be ATG but quite sure. Similarly not sure about Herath either.

 

[Teja.]

Things like whether someone is test level or world class are terms I'd use to describe how good someone is at the current point of reference wheras calling someone an ATG is after considering their entire career.

 

[Maximas]

That's the thing, for example I'd say Mahela is probably a 'great', but on current form he isn't even world class

 

[Red]

@kyear2

Poor - George Bailey
Average - Narsinge Deonarine
Good - Nathan Lyon
Genuine Test level - Morne Morkel
World Class - Rangana Herath
Great - Micheal Clarke
ATG - Kumar Sangakarra
ATG World XI short list - Murali
ATG XI lock - Bradman

Took me some time to try and work out who fell into those various categories and what the categories essentially meant - would you agree those players fit those categories for reference?

Just thinking through this because it's a) raining like ****, and b) I have nothing else to do

Poor- Played tests but clearly not really test standard.

Average- Played tests and was ok, but really not highly influential to his team's performance.

Good- A solid contributor on a consistent basis to his team without dominating.

Genuine test level- A solid contributor on a consistent basis, producing match influencing performances at times.

Great- Likely to be the best in his team/one of the best in his era, would be strongly considered for a current world XI in peak form. Produces match defining performances regularly.

ATG- Best in his team/close to best in his era. Would make a current world XI. Would be strongly considered for his nation's all-time XI.

ATG World XI shortlist- Within the very top echelon of his particular discipline over the entire history of test match cricket. Would very likely be in his nation's ATG XI, (as well as being shortlisted for a World ATG XI).

ATG World XI lock- Definite to make the all time World XI. Realistically, only Bradman and Sobers are in this category.


Kind of fun to consider players over the years and where they fit. Perhaps the main issue is when we try to categorise players on the criteria of whether they'd make their nation's all time XI. As a comparison, Sangakkara would definitely make SL's all time XI, but Clarke would be unlikely to make Aus's (although not out of place imo). However, in my opinion, Sangakkara and Clarke would be pretty much on par as test cricketers.

 

[Red]

Considering Australians, some samples of where I think cricketers fit….

ATG World XI Lock- Don Bradman

ATG World XI Shortlist- Greg Chappell : Glenn McGrath : Shane Warne : Bill O'Reilly : Dennis Lillee : Adam Gilchrist

ATG- Ray Lindwall : Keith Miller : Allan Border : Neil Harvey : Clarrie Grimmett : Michael Clarke : Matthew Hayden : Arthur Morris : Victor Trumper : Allan Davidson : Steve Waugh

Great- Jeff Thomson : Ian Chappell : Stan McCabe : Richie Benaud : Mitchell Johnson : Bill Lawry : Bob Simpson : Jason Gillespie : Doug Walters : Craig McDermott : Mark Waugh : David Boon : Ryan Harris

Genuine test level Ashley Mallett : Ian Redpath : Graham Yallop : Merv Hughes : Terry Alderman : Dave Warner : Brad Haddin :Steve Smith

Good- Tim May :Shane Watson : Chris Rogers : Peter Siddle : Nathan Lyon


Not comprehensive, and I've tried to include most current Australian players. Not much point doing the two lower ones really, but you'd argue guys like Cam White fit into those categories. Which seems harsh, but it is what it is.

Interested in the thoughts of others. Obviously plenty of guys could move either up or down a category if you wanted to argue that, but is there anything glaringly obvious I'm getting wrong here in your opinion?

 

[Adders]

Reckon that nails it Monk.

Just on M Clarke though, for mine he doesn't cut it just yet as an ATG. He's been playing for 10 years and for most of that period he fits the "great" category" has only really been since he got the captaincy that he has stepped up to ATG levels of performance. I think he needs more than 3 years playing to this standard to sit comfortably in the ATG slot. At the moment he is somewhere in between the 2 IMO.