Would Stuart Broad make the world's strongest XI?

[Valer]

Broad was 7th before this match. Wouldn't put too much stock in rankings at any given point in time, especially given Clarke was top ranked a month and a half ago.

I don't I was pointing out the contradiction in using (the icc) rankings.

 

[marc71178]

Rankings or otherwise no matter which criteria people want to use it's Anderson, Broad and one of Steyn or Philander.

If you pick Philander then you are basing it on a small sample of recent games, and as such Steyn drops out. If you pick Steyn owing to his longevity and ability over time, then Philander drops out.

 

[Valer]

-

 

[CWB304]

Rankings or otherwise no matter which criteria people want to use it's Anderson, Broad and one of Steyn or Philander.

If you pick Philander then you are basing it on a small sample of recent games, and as such Steyn drops out. If you pick Steyn owing to his longevity and ability over time, then Philander drops out.

Can you please provide some support for that confident assertion? Steyn's average is 23; those of Broad and Anderson are around 30. I'm as big a fan of the England spearheads as anyone around, but consider what you have just written to be absolute fantasy of the worst kind. For goodness' sake the statistical gap between Steyn and Anderson is wider than that between Hadlee/Imran on the one hand and Kapil on the other. Yet you're not even saying it's close; you're saying it's Anderson and Broad as nailed on certs and then "one of Steyn or Philander". This manner of reasoning ought to be criminalised!

Your conclusion in the case of Anderson cannot be the result of any sort of objective reasoning process, because he is a direct contemporary and we have seen enough of his career to extrapolate where he will end up statistically - in the very good, but not great category. Broad I admit is a different story and with the way his average is dropping series by series I would not be surprised to see him averaging in the mid or even low 20s by the time he's finished.

To conclude, Anderson is an excellent bowler, but he doesn't have as much in his armoury as Steyn. Which is why there is a distinct statistical gap between the two contemporaries which should indicate to anyone who is judging without bias that the South African is better, and by a significant margin. Steyn is the best fast bowler in the world and has been so consistently and without interruption for the past five years. He is the very embodiment of an automatic choice; any world XI which does not include his name is a complete joke. To imply that he with a 23 average is fighting for a single place with Philander when your two first picks average 30 does not say much for your fair-mindedness. I would have Philander, Broad and Swann in the attack with him as Ajmal for me is not bowling within the required parameters.

 

[marc71178]

Can you not actually read what I've posted?

If you're talking about long term ability, then you cannot select someone with 7 Tests. If you're looking at someone with 7 Tests then you include the best performers in that timescale. Nowhere have I mentioned entire careers, only pointing out that people cannot have it both ways because either way the 2 Englishmen are ahead one of the South Africans.

 

[LegendaryProtea]

Why can't you have it both ways? When selecting their strongest XIs, people rarely select the entire team based on most recent form (say the last 7 Tests) and rarely do they select the entire team based on ability shown over a long period. It's usually a combination of the two. I'd argue that Steyn has been the best over the longest period and Philander has been the best in terms of recent form. So it's Steyn, Philander and one of Anderson or Broad.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Cricket isn't played in stasis; the vicissitudes of form play an important part in any team's selection.

Personally as of today I'd have Broad (height and bounce plus swing when pitched up) & Philander (seam movement and nagging accuracy) as the first two seamers on the World XI's sheet. Steyn and Anderson are both more similar in their MOs, swing bowlers who typically bowl a full length. The former's quicker, the latter moves it both ways through the air. Despite Jimmeh's undoubted improvement, Steyn's figures, both overall and more recent, are better. So I'd go with my namesake.

It's true Philander has only played seven tests, but he's taken 51 wickets at a tick over 14 each. Leaving him out would be "bloke who rejected The Beatles" stuff.

& I'd pick Swann as the spinner on the reasonable assumption that the Martians have a more rigorous application of the laws pertaining to chucking.

 

[four_or_six]

Thought it would be interesting given the discussion to see who would be in the world xi given averages over the last 12 months (min 5 matches, I have taken into account batting position, type of bowler etc)

Cook
Hafeez
Younus Khan
Chanderpaul
AB de Villiers
Ian Bell
Prior
Ajmal
Philander
Hilfenhaus (wtf?)
Pattinson

 

[four_or_six]

Thinking about picking a young gun - I reckon Pattinson is worth consideration against Philander for that spot. He's had not that much worse a start, maybe just that I've seen him more, but I reckon he looks good.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Cricket isn't played in stasis; the vicissitudes of form play an important part in any team's selection.

Personally as of today I'd have Broad (height and bounce plus swing when pitched up) & Philander (seam movement and nagging accuracy) as the first two seamers on the World XI's sheet. Steyn and Anderson are both more similar in their MOs, swing bowlers who typically bowl a full length. The former's quicker, the latter moves it both ways through the air. Despite Jimmeh's undoubted improvement, Steyn's figures, both overall and more recent, are better. So I'd go with my namesake.

It's true Philander has only played seven tests, but he's taken 51 wickets at a tick over 14 each. Leaving him out would be "bloke who rejected The Beatles" stuff.

& I'd pick Swann as the spinner on the reasonable assumption that the Martians have a more rigorous application of the laws pertaining to chucking.

Thankyou Brumby. Completely agree with this. I have been saying it for ages and yet I get stick for going with Broad, Steyn and Philander by quite a few English posters.

I disagree about the spinner though. Ajmal's deliveries look so much better.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Thought it would be interesting given the discussion to see who would be in the world xi given averages over the last 12 months (min 5 matches, I have taken into account batting position, type of bowler etc)

Cook
Hafeez
Younus Khan
Chanderpaul
AB de Villiers
Ian Bell
Prior
Ajmal
Philander
Hilfenhaus (wtf?)
Pattinson

I can understand Bell being there with him having good scores before Pakistan, but Hafeez.

 

[Uppercut]

Cricket isn't played in stasis; the vicissitudes of form play an important part in any team's selection.

Personally as of today I'd have Broad (height and bounce plus swing when pitched up) & Philander (seam movement and nagging accuracy) as the first two seamers on the World XI's sheet. Steyn and Anderson are both more similar in their MOs, swing bowlers who typically bowl a full length. The former's quicker, the latter moves it both ways through the air. Despite Jimmeh's undoubted improvement, Steyn's figures, both overall and more recent, are better. So I'd go with my namesake.

It's true Philander has only played seven tests, but he's taken 51 wickets at a tick over 14 each. Leaving him out would be "bloke who rejected The Beatles" stuff.

& I'd pick Swann as the spinner on the reasonable assumption that the Martians have a more rigorous application of the laws pertaining to chucking.

Yeah definitely agree with all of this. Except the last bit .

 

[Cricketismylife]

Ye I just dont see how it's possible to leave Philander out. I have never seen anyone begin their career like his has; 50 wickets at 14 is just out of this world and he has to make any current world 11. Sample size is small but not ridiculously small considering we are picking a current world 11.

Then Steyn has to be in it, because he is ranked number 1 bowler in the world, and has been gd in pretty much every series. I did think he was a bit off in the SL series and start of NZ series, but he's such a good bowler that he still found ways to pick up wickets.

My third seamer would be Broad ahead of Anderson. Anderson's bowling can't really be faulted but for whatever reason he just seems to pick up less wickets than he should. Not to say that he does badly, but always seems to bowl better than his figures.
Broad interestingly has been very consistent, but less consistent than Anderson in terms of length and accuracy, but has had better figures than Jimmy since the India series last summer.

My spinner would be Ajmal; destroyed the world number 1 team completely and has v good control as well as spinning the ball both ways.
My current world 11

Cook
Smith
Sangakkara
Kallis
Chanderpaul
De Villiers
Prior
Broad
Philander
Steyn
Ajmal

Clarke for Sanga is a possibility. Amla/Trott arent too far away. Shows how far India have fallen that no Indian would even contend for a place in a current world 11. Would have been unthinkable in recent times with the likes of Sehwag, Sachin, Dravid, VVS and Gambhir.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Thought it would be interesting given the discussion to see who would be in the world xi given averages over the last 12 months (min 5 matches, I have taken into account batting position, type of bowler etc)

Cook
Hafeez
Younus Khan
Chanderpaul
AB de Villiers
Ian Bell
Prior
Ajmal
Philander
Hilfenhaus (wtf?)
Pattinson

Hafeez is a completely nonsensical selection. Why is he so overrated? He's barely a test standard batsman never mind being put in a world 11 category.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hafeez is a completely nonsensical selection. Why is he so overrated? He's barely a test standard batsman never mind being put in a world 11 category.

If you read her post properly you'd see that she was basing that team entirely on averages over the last 12 months. That's not her side; it's a short-term statistically based side.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

If you read her post properly you'd see that she was basing that team entirely on averages over the last 12 months. That's not her side; it's a short-term statistically based side.

Not such a nonsensical selection looking at the rest of the side anyway seeing as he is probably the best part time spinner around at present.

Just to clarify, he is a decent opener in an era of ordinary openers, add in his spinning option and he may make some peoples sides.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not such a nonsensical selection looking at the rest of the side anyway seeing as he is probably the best part time spinner around at present.

Just to clarify, he is a decent opener in an era of ordinary openers, add in his spinning option and he may make some peoples sides.

Yeah; if his role was to see off the new ball and get a start (which he then invariably throws away) and act as the second spinner then it wouldn't be the worst selection ever. It really just goes to show how poor we are in opening resources right at the minute when it seems to be the place we want to chuck a bits-and-pieces player to 'do a job'.

 

[LegendaryProtea]

Hafeez is not THAT bad of a choice but I think it's pretty hard to argue with Cook and Smith being the openers in a current World XI.

 

[FBU]

HowSTAT/s World XI over the last two years

Smith
Cook
Trott
Kallis
Clarke
Hussey
Boucher
Broad
Steyn
Ajmal
Philander

Anderson has taken more wickets (played more Tests) than Broad, both at the same average, but Broad would get in for his batting.

 

[Valer]

Rehman has a better average than Ajmal over the last 12 months.

Also HH 2.0 being there isn't surprising hes been actually good since he came back...