Would Stuart Broad make the world's strongest XI?

[Spark]

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.

My only - and this really is a very minor - concern with this attack makeup (which ftr is probably the same one I'd pick) is that in the pace department you're going to have a few issues with left-handed openers, of whom there are a somewhat ridiculous amount around at the moment (Cook, Strauss, Warner, Cowan, Gambhir, Smith, Rudolph etc etc) if Steyn and Broad are presumably your new-ball picks, since neither of them have stellar records against LHers. Anderson gives you an advantage in that regard.

On the other hand, there is the bizarre phenomenon that Anderson's best spells (visually) don't seem to take all that many wickets - which suggest a slight length problem, which Steyn most definitely doesn't have. I'd also say that while Anderson does actually have more weapons than Steyn if you define weapons in terms of wicket-taking variations, most significantly a well-disguised, controlled hooping inswinger, but there is no substitute for a full, attacking length, which is Steyn's MO. High pace on a just-short-of-driving-length with prodigous outswing is a very simple strategy, but then again so was McGrath's. Anderson sometimes overcomplicates things and ends up bowling a tad too short to catch the edge.

It's also why - lately - Broad is cleaning up. Look at the Hawkeye groupings on cricinfo for the WI first innings - the vast majority of Anderson's deliveries to right-handers are in the 6-8m length, ie. a good length or just short of. Broad's grouping is centred much more on the 6m length and more importantly has a much greater proportion <6m. Full length balls. A similar thing happens in the second innings - both pitch maps are much more spread than in the first dig, but Broad's is once again consistently fuller than Anderson's. Is it that much surprise who took the wickets, even accounting for complete donations?

 

[LegendaryProtea]

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.

Over the last 2 years, AB de Villiers averages 78, which is better than every single batsman in that XI. The only person even remotely close is Kallis, with an average of 77. The rest all average between 40 to 60 so how exactly does Michael Clarke with an average in the early 40s get in above de Villiers who averages nearly 80?

Also, over the last 2 years, Prior averages around 48 and Boucher is in the mid 20s so no idea how Boucher has got in there.

 

[Spark]

On ABdV (and Cribb just confirmed this), is it a bit strange that my overriding memory of his Test batting over the last year or so has been absolutely annihilating broken, tired attacks?

---

Cribb and I have basically come up with the same top seven at least.

Cook
<opener - Smith/Watson>
Sanga
Kallis
Chanderpaul
Clarke
Prior

 

[LegendaryProtea]

To be fair, that can be said about any batsman who has a high average over the last year or two. The only reason why Pietersen's average is near 50 over the last couple of years is because he feasted on the terrible Indian and Sri Lankan attacks. The only reason Clarke's average is early 40s is because he destroyed a completely broken and deflated Indian attack by scoring a triple hundred. Without that effort, he would be averaging in the mid 30s.

 

[Spark]

Yeah, frankly, I don't really give a toss about numbers over a period such as two years without considering form fluctuations and the like. When you're considering a world XI - not a career XI, but a current world XI, I make a judgement simply based on how I think people would fare given how they've been batting recently. I just don't think ABdV would be more likely to play a good innings against a proper attack than Clarke. Really quite simple.

 

[LegendaryProtea]

You could have just said that initially rather than try and downplay AB's achievements. You can think what you like but against a "proper" England attack in the last Ashes, Clarke struggled the entire series. The only teams he has really decimated are India and New Zealand, who both have poor attacks. So the facts don't support your judgements. I'd take AB every day of the week.

 

[Spark]

The only teams he has really decimated are India and New Zealand, who both have poor attacks. So the facts don't support your judgements.

Lol. OK.

 

[Prince EWS]

On ABdV (and Cribb just confirmed this), is it a bit strange that my overriding memory of his Test batting over the last year or so has been absolutely annihilating broken, tired attacks?

---

Cribb and I have basically come up with the same top seven at least.

Cook
<opener - Smith/Watson>
Sanga
Kallis
Chanderpaul
Clarke
Prior

Another example of me not even having to make posts here anymore without my opinions being tossed into the ring.

Agreed though. Unsurprisingly, I suppose.

 

[Spark]

Hey I was just seeking clarification

 

[BoyBrumby]

Even given his winter woes Bell still averages over ten more an innings than Clarke since 1st Jan 2011. Cricinfo.

Just sayin'.

 

[Spark]

Unfortunately Bell's dodgy run has happened to come more recently

Again, though, I'm not going on averages. The sample size is sufficiently small that you're much better off with going by the "eye metric".

 

[LegendaryProtea]

I know you don't value numbers over a short period like two years, but I just can't fathom how you can pick someone who averages 40 over someone averaging 80. On the basis that he can play against a "proper attack"? Where exactly has Clarke displayed this that AB hasn't? Can you give me some sort of proper reasoning for selecting Clarke that is even somewhat supported by recent evidence.

 

[Spark]

If you can't think of an example in the last six months then I think this discussion is going nowhere.

Really.

In the last year, all - not some, not most, all - of Clarke's significant innings have come when the side was in some trouble (ie. 3/80 or equivalent at best)

 

[LegendaryProtea]

Again, just avoiding the question. Where exactly has Clarke displayed this that AB hasn't?

 

[Spark]

If the question is "when in the last six months has Clarke played a proper innings against a good attack in difficult conditions and/or when the team was in trouble", then given that you support South Africa the answer should be so stunningly obvious that I'm alarmed that you can't think of it.

 

[LegendaryProtea]

Yeah, I thought you were referring to that knock but who knows, maybe you think India have a good bowling attack and his 329* was the finest innings of the modern era. It's not exactly easy to continue a discussion when one party doesn't give straightforward answers. It was an excellent knock in Cape Town, I saw it live and it was very impressive. Nevertheless, the question was where has Clarke played a great innings against a proper attack when AB has failed in a similar situation. AB can't play his own attack so it's difficult to really assess whether AB could have played a similar knock or bettered it.

 

[Spark]

But that's precisely the point. My abiding memory of ABdV for the last year or two - with some exceptions, granted - are innings like this, though perhaps not as extreme.

I mean, at this level, it's "who do I trust more coming in at 3/50?" and given their respective performances over the last year, it's an easy question for me to answer.

 

[Prince EWS]

I know you don't value numbers over a short period like two years, but I just can't fathom how you can pick someone who averages 40 over someone averaging 80.

Well, a couple of things.

Firstly, picking a World XI isn't just about picking based on performance in the last two years, one year or six months. The idea is to pick a team you think would work best as a unit against a team of similar quality - essentially, pretending the Test world is a domestic competition and pick your team from it to take on the next level up of cricket. As such, you don't have to be so rigid - it's not a "team of the 2010-2012 period"; it's a team selected to play now.

Obviously more recent performances will be more relevant, but that doesn't mean you should completely write off anything that happened before your random line in the sand - you should take everything into account at various degrees. To use an example, anyone picking Ian Bell (who I rate more than a lot here) over Sangakkara just before England's tour of the UAE was absolutely kidding themselves, and based on the two-year average metric there would've been plenty. What transpired afterwards of course showed exactly what a huge mistake that would have been, and there was plenty of evidence from beyond the magical two year point that indicated it, too.

Beyond that, you can look at what you value for different roles in the team and the batting lineup, and of course how you think certain players would go if they had to play a level up. There are players at Test level who would more than likely be the Ramprakashes, Dippenaars and Phil Hugheses of the next level above and while it's bloody hard to make guesses at who those will be, that's part of the fun.

More specifically on the Clarke/de Villiers point.. we're looking at someone to bat five or six here, which means their primary role will be performing when the top order doesn't. Ramming home an advantage has its place too but it certainly has less value than rescuing a side from a near-guaranteed losing total. On this front, Clarke has de Villers covered quite considerably IMO and his innings against your own mob is a perfect example. When you have a side like South Africa with a crackerjack batting lineup on paper but, even despite a lack of any evidence of decline in their big names, randomly collapses in a big heap on a semi-regular basis, it suggests everyone is scoring all their runs at the same time. This of course speaks poorly of what the batsmen at five and six are doing when the top order fails. On some level it can be an unfortunate coincidence when everyone fails at once but once it becomes a recurring trend then you have to really have a look at the rescuing qualities of your insurance batsmen down the order, and ask exactly how much they're contributing by turning 350 scores into 550 and doing little else. Neither of these blokes are going to average 80 at the next level up so whether it's 80 or 60 they've been averaging isn't really the point; it's how likely they'd be to transfer that to a higher playing field and how useful their contributions would be to the balance of the side.

 

[LegendaryProtea]

Those are the attacks he has come up against though. It seems silly to omit AB because he has caned some average attacks and include Clarke because he has played one innings of note against a top quality attack and failed to cane the rest to the degree that AB has. I'd accept your point if there was more than one great innings but there isn't. He struggled over 5 Tests against England. Despite his 150 in Cape Town, his other 3 innings during the South Africa tour were below 20. So you're essentially holding on to one innings over the last couple of years and using that as a sufficient basis to select a man averaging 40 over a man averaging 80. It might make sense to you but it doesn't to me.

 

[Spark]

Except it's not that simple. Otherwise we'd be picking Ian Bell, and, well

edit: hi gimh