Summer cricket competition - takers?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Ian Botham? Close your eyes and swing??
no thanks

To you and FMF:

1) Impeccable logic, irrefutable facts and impeccable judgement will only get you so far in selecting a team like this.

2) Botham would be in for his bowling more than his batting.

3) We need a poster boy for the team, and Botham was better looking than Imran Khan.

4) Botham was a better politician than Imran Khan.

5) I was 13 in 1981.

6) If he was that good with his eyes shut, how much better will he be when I tell him to keep them open?

Botham stays, at the expense of my cricketing credibility.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Which further backs up my point that you have to determine if you are picking a player on his whole career or just the best bits of his career.

I think it must be a bit of both.

Long enough to demonstrate that the player was a 'great' (otherwise, you could end up picking Terry Alderman when he played in England in 1981).

But not choosing a great who, say, suffered a bad injury halfway through his career seems harsh too.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I considered Greenidge, but I think Hayden is one of those players who, for some reason, is consistently underated.

Ditto Kallis. I have seen many professional commentators choosing 'best' teams of this ilk not even consider him for a position in the side. One didn't even have him in the list of 'top 3' potential all-rounders!

And yet his test ...[text shortened]... . Yet Tendulkar is one everyone's list. OK, stats aren't everything, but even so......

Hayden was good , but when you play in a great world topping team then you have to be. He took his chance, had some luck and retained his spot.
He got enough adulation, I dont think he was underrated.

I mean I would like Mike Hussey as an opener (or even middle order), his stats there for a while were amazing, averaging 80 with the bat for quite a while. He started as an opener but has his spot changed for some reason.
He, like Waugh before, has ressurected many a forlorn Aussie innings, showing how to bat with the tail, and chasing down the runs for a win or a personal century more times than not.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
As promised, best test team from anyone who played test cricket after 1980:

1 Sunil Gavaskar
2 Matthew Hayden
3 Sachin Tendulkar
4 Vivien Richards
5 Brian Lara
6 Jacques Kallis
7 Ian Botham
8 Adam Gilchrist
9 Shane Warne
10 Dennis Lillee
11 Malcolm Marshall

12 Muttiah Muralitharan
(substitute for Ian Botham depending on amount of spin likely to be on offer)

I just realized you got only 2 pace bowlers and two all rounders.
I think you need another genuine strike bowler for a balanced side.
After all Kallis and Gilchrist hold their places as batsmen alone, which is still going to leave a long tail with Warne at 8. (Warne batted at 7 and 8 through most of his career)

As for who that strike bowler should be I would be happy with a number of different selections - I'm assuming this team is for all conditions and you dont have any particular pitches in mind.
Maybe Glenn McGrath , as you already have two tear-away , wicket taking quicks.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
To you and FMF:

1) Impeccable logic, irrefutable facts and impeccable judgement will only get you so far in selecting a team like this.

2) Botham would be in for his bowling more than his batting.

3) We need a poster boy for the team, and Botham was better looking than Imran Khan.

4) Botham was a better politician than Imran Khan.

5) I w ...[text shortened]... when I tell him to keep them open?

Botham stays, at the expense of my cricketing credibility.

I dont know about 3. I bet any team member that considered themselves a poster boy in Alan Borders team would have been slapped across the face by Border.

Again, with 4 you're just provoking uneccessary flirtations.

Maybe he is your token Englishman 🙂

All things said and done, Botham certainly had the nouse to be a great match winning player.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I think it must be a bit of both.

Long enough to demonstrate that the player was a 'great' (otherwise, you could end up picking Terry Alderman when he played in England in 1981).

But not choosing a great who, say, suffered a bad injury halfway through his career seems harsh too.

What abut the second best 11 ? Do you think they would be as good or better than the first - not having as much pressure on them.

I'll have a crack without using any of your selections.

1. Michael Slater
2. Gordon Greenwidge.
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Raul Dravid
5. Steve Waugh (vc)
6. Michael Hussey.
7.Rod Marsh (wk)
8.Imran Khan (c)
9.Waqar Younis
10.Muttiah Muralitharan
11.Glenn McGrath.
12th man. Jonty Rhodes. (He would be way better as 12th man, as the substitute only fields in this game 🙂 )

That was difficult without recourse to any of your players.
I tried to make a batting order that would throw the attack in terms of variety of style.
I reckon this batting order could rack up quite a few runs if they dont fall early.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I notice that your posts have all been given a thumbs down. Not by me, I assure you, so unless you are thumbing yourself (which is not healthy, believe me) we have a bit of a mystery.

There is a principle of UK law that defendents should know who their accusers are.

Come out of the shadows, please!

I agree. I bought it up at "Site Ideas". It seems people want to be able to thumb down and keep their anonymity.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Mathew Hayden?

Yes, Mathew Hayden.

103 tests, 8625 runs, top score 380, Average 50.73, Strike Rate 60.10, 30 hundreds, 29 fifties. How many openers post 1980 can touch these stats? Gavaskar is one, for sure, but Hayden generated his figures in an era when the ball was in the ascendancy. Pad up Matty!

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/5616.html

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I just realized you got only 2 pace bowlers and two all rounders.
I think you need another genuine strike bowler for a balanced side.
After all Kallis and Gilchrist hold their places as batsmen alone, which is still going to leave a long tail with Warne at 8. (Warne batted at 7 and 8 through most of his career)

As for who that strike bowler should tches in mind.
Maybe Glenn McGrath , as you already have two tear-away , wicket taking quicks.

There I stand by my selection of Botham. In his youth, he was a genuine strike bowler, and could swing and seam it both ways. He was also as quick as McGrath, possibly quicker.

Marshall would also adjust his bowling style for the conditions. If outright pace was not the order of the day then, like Holding, he was more than capable of slowing down and pitching the ball up.

So I have two outright quicks, two medium to medium fasts, and one spinner. I also have bowlers who can exploit hard, bouncy pitches, and also any swing and seam movement going. So I think this is a balanced attack.

I also watched McGrath at Lords live destroy England's top order in one of the best bowling displays I have even seen, so irrational prejudice kicks in once more.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I dont know about 3. I bet any team member that considered themselves a poster boy in Alan Borders team would have been slapped across the face by Border.

Again, with 4 you're just provoking uneccessary flirtations.

Maybe he is your token Englishman 🙂

All things said and done, Botham certainly had the nouse to be a great match winning player.

On days as we awaited the inevitable defeat, my friends and I used to play the 'Who is the fattest, ugliest, so-and-so (well, something like that) in the Aussie team with the dodgiest facial hair?' game.

With David Boon, Alan Border and Mervyn Hughes to choose from, it was a heated debate, I can tell you.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes, Mathew Hayden.

103 tests, 8625 runs, top score 380, Average 50.73, Strike Rate 60.10, 30 hundreds, 29 fifties. How many openers post 1980 can touch these stats? Gavaskar is one, for sure, but Hayden generated his figures in an era when the ball was in the ascendancy. Pad up Matty!

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/5616.html

Well he just doesn't seem to have that toughness that great players have. It's a breeze at the top of the order even if the rest of the team fail. It's only if the rest of the team do great and you fail as an opener that you have problems. Openers dont usually have to play match winning or match saving innings.
Open bat is the most cruzy positions for professional batsmen.

Then again he was pretty good I guess.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
On days as we awaited the inevitable defeat, my friends and I used to play the 'Who is the fattest, ugliest, so-and-so (well, something like that) in the Aussie team with the dodgiest facial hair?' game.

With David Boon, Alan Border and Mervyn Hughes to choose from, it was a heated debate, I can tell you.

Lol.

I've always liked the English commentators better, especially when Australia was over there , cleaning up while they were there just sucking up the Aussies and putting down their own.

So what's with the English team? They are playing like a real test playing nation who invented the sport 🙂
Can you see them putting together a few wins in a row and building a great team?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
There I stand by my selection of Botham. In his youth, he was a genuine strike bowler, and could swing and seam it both ways. He was also as quick as McGrath, possibly quicker.

Marshall would also adjust his bowling style for the conditions. If outright pace was not the order of the day then, like Holding, he was more than capable of slowing down ...[text shortened]... one of the best bowling displays I have even seen, so irrational prejudice kicks in once more.

Well sure, Botham when he was quick, although I cant remember that. And he was a wicket taker, but on a hot day with good batting conditions after the opening bowlers have failed to get a wicket who is going to be your first drop bowler, Botham? Kallis?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Well he just doesn't seem to have that toughness that great players have.

Hayden was as tough and gritty as they come, onfield at any rate.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Lol.

I've always liked the English commentators better, especially when Australia was over there , cleaning up while they were there just sucking up the Aussies and putting down their own.

So what's with the English team? They are playing like a real test playing nation who invented the sport 🙂
Can you see them putting together a few wins in a row and building a great team?

I fear for where the English side is heading. We have had our time in the sun and I think we may see ourselves slip down the rankings even further than we have done.

I never thought the present team (including Strauss, though he has gone now) had the makings of a truly great team, though it was the best England team I have ever seen all-round. To my mind, great is a much overused team and there have only been two teams that I have seen think match that description; the 80's Windies team and the 90's Aussie side.

Which was the best out of these two is anyone's guess, but I would give it to Aus '90s on the basis of the lack of a top class spinner in WI '80s.

But I have lived to see us reclaim the Ashes and take the No 1 test team spot for a while, so given how I felt in the 80's and 90's, I will count my blessings.