"World XI in 2008"

[open365]

That's my point, kinda. He got 40 of them in one test series alone. Shane is the new record holder and how does 2-3 wickets mislead?

Because he's acctualy taken less wickets per-game than Lillee did.

I know the award isn't for most wickets per game in a year, but I must admit to being a bit miffed when i found out he played more games than anyone else.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I thought having Emanul Haque Jnr infront for Warne and Murali was more daring.

The way i look at it, if someone asked you this two years ago then Lara and Tendulkar will be two of the first names in the side. But now Tendulkar will be no where near a World XI and Lara just makes it, but then you would probably have do drop either Kallis, Dravid or Ponting. These might be reaching their prime by then, or establishing themselves as one of the better players of their era.

Two years ago was 2004. Ponting averaged 100 for the season the year before that, and Dravid was already significantly more consistent than Tendulkar at the time. Lara probably would have made it, but then he wasn't young in 2004 either.

I can see why someone would pick a spinner other than Murali or Warne, because Warne may well be retired and Murali will be what, 35 or 36 then? Ponting, Kallis and Dravid have probably 5 years apiece left in them, if not more.

 

[Ikki]

Because he's acctualy taken less wickets per-game than Lillee did.

I know the award isn't for most wickets per game in a year, but I must admit to being a bit miffed when i found out he played more games than anyone else.

What are the strike rates?

 

[Ming]

Looks about right.

Ryder, Oram and McCullum to form the most lethal and attacking middle order in ODI cricket in 08.

 

[Blaze]

Ryder, Oram and McCullum to form the most lethal and attacking middle order in ODI cricket in 08.

It will be up there... although Ryder seems to have gone against his natural instincts lately. He isn't the dasher he once was for CD.

 

[Zinzan]

Ryder, Oram and McCullum to form the most lethal and attacking middle order in ODI cricket in 08.

Add Taylor to that lot

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Thats a little misleading, just like Warne's total wickets in a calender year is misleading. If you play a lot of tests, you will invariably score more runs. Assuming you play a minimum of like seven or eight tests a year, you have to go by averages.

I wouldn't have him on my world XI either.

Last 12 Tests against opposition other than Bangladesh/Zimbabwe:

Marcus Trescothick
1128 runs @ 47; 3x100, 4x50

Graeme Smith
871 runs @ 41.47, 3x100, 2x50

Virender Sehwag
1072 @ 53.6, 3x100, 3x50

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And for ODIs:

1. Chris Gayle
2. MS Dhoni
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Kevin Pietersen
5. Yuvraj Singh
6. Mohammed Ashraful
7. Mike Hussey
8. Daniel Vettori
9. Rana Naved-ul-hasan
10. Brett Lee
11. Shane Bond

Sarwan is a better ODI batsman than Gayle, but I don't expect he will ever get the acclaim for it.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That's my point, kinda. He got 40 of them in one test series alone. Shane is the new record holder and how does 2-3 wickets mislead?

Because 2-3 wickets short of a record is 2-3 wickets short of a record....?

 

[Jono]

Sarwan is a better ODI batsman than Gayle, but I don't expect he will ever get the acclaim for it.

Well there's two reasons for that. One is the false thought that a guy that belts everything from ball 1 is apparently always a very good ODI batsman, and is hence better than someone who plays more conventional shots... case in point Sehwag's selection in the Super Series World XI for ODIs.

Secondly is, particularly with picking a ODI World XI (or ROW XI), the middle order spots have some stiff competition. Pietersen, Yuvraj, Inzy, Dhoni, Flintoff, Dravid, Kallis, Gibbs, Sangakkara etc etc.

Whilst I rate Sarwan incredibly highly in ODIs, he barely popped in my mind when selecting the XI. I understand your point though, I do think he's better than Gayle, though Gayle too is very good.

 

[Ikki]

Because 2-3 wickets short of a record is 2-3 wickets short of a record....?

Originally, the discussion wasn't about him breaking the record, but of the year he had. So how is the year he had even without those 2-3 wickets mean the figures are misleading as silentstriker suggested. That's the point.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well there's two reasons for that. One is the false thought that a guy that belts everything from ball 1 is apparently always a very good ODI batsman, and is hence better than someone who plays more conventional shots... case in point Sehwag's selection in the Super Series World XI for ODIs.

There's also the false thought that Gayle belts everything from ball one in ODIs. I think he's done that more often in his big Test innings than his big ODI innings. Look at his SR.

 

[Jono]

There's also the false thought that Gayle belts everything from ball one in ODIs. I think he's done that more often in his big Test innings than his big ODI innings. Look at his SR.

Actually that's true. But it is a stereotype of Gayle I guess.

So I guess that the false thought that Gayle is a smash and basher results in the false thought that he is a better batsman that Sarwan?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally, the discussion wasn't about him breaking the record, but of the year he had. So how is the year he had even without those 2-3 wickets mean the figures are misleading as silentstriker suggested. That's the point.

No, the original point was that Trescothick had the 16th highest run total for a calendar year. Then it was suggested the amount of cricket contributed to him achieving that total. Then the statement was made that it's like Warne's wicket total. It was a direct reference to breaking the record. The fact is that no matter how well Warne bowled last year, he had the benefit of an extraordinary amount of cricket. It allowed him to break the record.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Actually that's true. But it is a stereotype of Gayle I guess.

So I guess that the false thought that Gayle is a smash and basher results in the false thought that he is a better batsman that Sarwan?

Pretty much. Many would call it blasphemy, but I think that Sarwan in his prime is as good an ODI player as Ponting. Two different styles, but both very effective.

 

[Ikki]

No, the original point was that Trescothick had the 16th highest run total for a calendar year. Then it was suggested the amount of cricket contributed to him achieving that total. Then the statement was made that it's like Warne's wicket total. It was a direct reference to breaking the record. The fact is that no matter how well Warne bowled last year, he had the benefit of an extraordinary amount of cricket. It allowed him to break the record.

It doesn't seem to be the right comparison. Taking away the games he played that lead him to break the record makes him fall a few wickets short of the record. Now how does falling a few wickets short constitute for an argument in that the figures are misleading. Ok, a couple of extra games helped him, but so much to use it as comparison? The benefit is being pretty exaggerated.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It doesn't seem to be the right comparison. Taking away the games he played that lead him to break the record makes him fall a few wickets short of the record. Now how does falling a few wickets short constitute for an argument in that the figures are misleading. Ok, a couple of extra games helped him, but so much to use it as comparison? The benefit is being pretty exaggerated.

The only "figures" that were being referenced in the initial comment were directly down to having broken a record. All that was being said was the fact that he had broken a record was misleading. Shane Warne the wicket-taker - fair enough. Shane Warne the record-breaking wicket-taker - slightly misleading.

 

[Ikki]

The only "figures" that were being referenced in the initial comment were directly down to having broken a record. All that was being said was the fact that he had broken a record was misleading. Shane Warne the wicket-taker - fair enough. Shane Warne the record-breaking wicket-taker - slightly misleading.

Well, it must be pretty damn slight.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Pretty much. Many would call it blasphemy, but I think that Sarwan in his prime is as good an ODI player as Ponting. Two different styles, but both very effective.

Sarwan is only young and might turn out to be as good as Ponting yet, but there's no way that at this point in time you could compare them. Ponting is probably the best ODI number 3 ever after Richards, and at his best he churns out huge, match-defining innings like it's nothing at all, and has incredible flexibility in his ability to dig his team out of a bad situation or smash a century in 70 balls.

While Sarwan had a couple of years where he was a model of consistency, he's never really made many big scores in ODIs, and relies a lot more on not outs to maintain his excellent average than other batsmen who bat as high in the order as he does. Two centuries (one against Bangladesh) and one 50 in 10 games against Australia says a bit, especially for someone who usually bats at 3 and 4..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Sarwan is only young and might turn out to be as good as Ponting yet, but there's no way that at this point in time you could compare them. Ponting is probably the best ODI number 3 ever after Richards, and at his best he churns out huge, match-defining innings like it's nothing at all, and has incredible flexibility in his ability to dig his team out of a bad situation or smash a century in 70 balls.

Sarwan at his best was the Hussey of ODI cricket. At his best he was as/more consistent than anyone in world cricket - Ponting included.

You can't really use the 'not out' argument against Sarwan, because he was scoring important runs and getting past 50 at a fair clip. You make it sound like he was scoring 30s and 20s unbeaten to maintain an average. Yes, he didn't have the hundreds, but he didn't have many chances to.

As I implied in my initial post, they're different players in their team roles, but in terms of effectiveness Sarwan at his best is as effective as Ponting. Once again, I'm referring to how effective each player is in his respective role.

Regarding you holding Sarwan's record against Australia - the best bowling attack in the world - against him, let's talk about Ponting's record against the West Indies. An average of 32.78. It "says a bit, especially for someone who usually bats at 3 and 4."