# 4 for 1986-2006 (Final Vote)

[Lokhtar]

I've voted for Sachin because he's much better than any of the other poll options.

 

[aussie tragic]

I thought this would be a lot closer between Lara and Tendulker and I even "threw" my vote to Border to give Lara a better chance (I voted Sachin in the prelim)

I think Lara may now struggle against Steve Waugh, Border and Richards for # 5 given these current numbers....interesting

 

[adharcric]

I thought this would be a lot closer between Lara and Tendulker and I even "threw" my vote to Border to give Lara a better chance (I voted Sachin in the prelim)

I think Lara may now struggle against Steve Waugh, Border and Richards for # 5 given these current numbers....interesting

I don't know about Border and Richards. #5 should be a face-off between Lara and Waugh.

 

[Pothas]

Waugh for me would be an automatic for number 6 but i suppsoe there will proably be a genuine all rounder there.

 

[R_D]

Voted for Sachin again.

 

[andyc]

Read the first post again andyc, Lara has 7352 runs @ 50.70 at # 4.

Haha my bad, I got it mixed up with Dravid, and I'm assuming he's there from the number 3 debate. I'll just shut up from now on.

 

[SJS]

I too voted for Sachin but am amazed at the difference in the number of votes between him and Lara.

Thats not reflective of the true relative merits of these giants of the game.

Maybe it reflects the demographics of CW

 

[bagapath]

I too voted for Sachin but am amazed at the difference in the number of votes between him and Lara.

Thats not reflective of the true relative merits of these giants of the game.

Maybe it reflects the demographics of CW

i dont think so. had sachin been pitted against lara for number three he would probably have lost the race. i think most forum members consider sachin to be more of a natural at no 4. at no.3 lara would have had the upper hand. thats my guess.

waugh should be the leading contender at 5. but lets wait for now

 

[marc71178]

Waugh for me would be an automatic for number 6 but i suppsoe there will proably be a genuine all rounder there.

Isn't number 6 going to be voted for last of all, to make up the ideal team balance?

 

[Jason_M]

Lara should be at 3 and Tendulkar at 4, and Ponting out.

 

[aussie tragic]

Lara should be at 3 and Tendulkar at 4, and Ponting out.

The majority of CW Members obviously disagree with you

 

[silentstriker]

The majority of CW Members obviously disagree with you

The majority of the CW members are wrong.

I think Tendulkar should be at #3, Lara at #4...but I can see it the other way around too. Either way, they should make up #3 and #4.

 

[aussie tragic]

The majority of the CW members are wrong.

I think Tendulkar should be at #3, Lara at #4...but I can see it the other way around too. Either way, they should make up #3 and #4.

Why should Tendulker be considered as the best # 3 between 1986-2006 when he has never batted at # 3 in his test career

 

[silentstriker]

Why should Tendulker be considered as the best # 3 between 1986-2006 when he has never batted at # 3 in his test career

Because I think he would be suited to that role in this specific team. The best players (Dravid, Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar, etc) have the technique and the temperment to bat anywhere, so thats not an issue. A large part of Lara batting at #3 is because there is no one close to him in talent in that batting order, so he provides solidity there. But Lara is fantastic against spin, and he would be ideally suited at #4 when spinners are working or coming on.

 

[R_D]

Lara should be at 3 and Tendulkar at 4, and Ponting out.

Yes that should've been the ideal situation and now looks like Steve Waugh is going to miss out because no one wants to see a team of 1986-2006 without Lara.

 

[C_C]

I personally think that it is just dumb to pick anyone apart from openers on the basis of 'batting strength on position by position' basis on stats for that position.
If thats the case, Chanderpaul should walk into this team's #6 spot, having by far the best #6 record on planet for this period.
Which i think (though not a diss on Chanders, who i consider an excellent batsman) is a total traversity on batsmen of the callibre of Waugh, Tendy,Dravid,Lara, Border, Ponting,Inzy,Kallis,etc etc.

 

[Fusion]

I personally think that it is just dumb to pick anyone apart from openers on the basis of 'batting strength on position by position' basis on stats for that position.
If thats the case, Chanderpaul should walk into this team's #6 spot, having by far the best #6 record on planet for this period.
Which i think (though not a diss on Chanders, who i consider an excellent batsman) is a total traversity on batsmen of the callibre of Waugh, Tendy,Dravid,Lara, Border, Ponting,Inzy,Kallis,etc etc.

Yeah the concept of picking "position by position" does have its obvious flaws. But I think we have had enough "all time" XI's picked on the traditional methods. So I think this concept which is a bit different adds to the fun.

 

[SJS]

This is a team of last 20 years and not of last three years.

Things may change as we look back after, say another 10-15 years (though I doubt it) but I cant imagine any serious students of the game or a vast majority of those who have played it at the highest level putting Ponting above Lara and Tendulkar. This is not going to happen.

There is a tendency to be swayed by current form/ranking/whatever but if you make an all time team, both Lara and sachin will be considered before Ponting and thats a fact whether the majority at CW agrees or not.

Having said that, I realise that this is a selection based on 'choice by CW members' so I suppose one has to accept that, howsoever unfair it may appear.

Democracy rules - OK.