He’s not a good keeper. At 7 he provides an extra flexibility to the batting line up and can shepherd the tail if needed. It’s a little unconventional with a specialist 7 bat and Williamson opening for a traditionalist , but no conventional team will beat India in India so horses for courses ..
I feel what you are saying about Starc from the perspective of an Indian mind. But your batting line up is imho too strong for anything but attrition , although he can be used in theory just to blast out the tail. Not sure if he has the capability (or enough of a chance to storm in a force a full collapse in India conditions / climate etc. I also feel like Starc has a habit of openly competing with his own team as well as the opponent which is pretty annoying by for the other players. And on a rank turner the spinners will clean up the tail for both teams. Not convinced by Karun over Latham (personally) (and I discounted Pakistan players based on the game being in India) ) though your comments are interesting and certainly debatable
I can see why you picked Benaud but IMO I don’t think you can pick any players who retired pre 1970/1980. India were basically glorified minnows, and very few players before that even have a chance of making an All Time India XI. As such, those players who retired before that, although may have great records against India, it’s not the same India and thus remain somewhat untested, especially as you said this would be against an All Time XI - so you’d be playing Sehwag, Sachin, Dravid, Laxman (Kohli) and co.
India was minnowish in 1950s however not so minnowish against quality spin. Benaud performed against Roy,Mankad,Contractor,Manjrekar,Borde and Umrigar which was pretty much our best batting line up in those initial years except for Hazare and Merchant. Not so much against picking Saqlain but 56 wickets at 18 is indeed remarkable. Benaud was a better batsman as well and this team would need batting at least till no.8. Murali is out of reckoning because apart from running through the line up once or twice, he was largely below par.
Your bias is quite funny and consistent. Australia are the attack for a reason, they are the bowlers proven in India. You are arguing with facts. If you want to give an opinion someone can do a better job that hasn’t had the chance to prove themselves yet that’s different. But those 4 bowlers have already performed better than the rest with a 3 games minimum (in India) minimum cut off. In that sense your post vexes me tbh.
Yea, I get your point, but it's quite a step up from Mankad, Contractor and co to Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and co. His average of 18 in 8 tests vs the former suggests so too. Not sure having Benaud in there is any help just because he did well vs players quite clearly not good enough to get into an all time India XI in 2019 (i.e. they were products of their time - good enough for then, but not for now), which is what he will be facing. The way the latter took apart Warne and Murali, generally considered the best spinners of all time, also confirms that they are quite a few levels above Mankad and co (not that it needed any confirmation...)
The other option is Stokes instead of Shakib and then Shah instead of Holder with Cummins and Rabada moving up.
In this case you'd bat Watling at 6 and Stokes at 7.
Bradman never had to bat against Marshall or McGrath or Murali etc. which is why he shouldn’t be picked in an all time world xi. He’s just a product of his time (good enough for then, not enough for now).
Ok but if u are going to be troll at least try to be humorous
A very polite way of saying "what a load of bollocks" there.
