Your 3rd XI

[Goughy]

Here are my 4ths and 5ths.

As posted earlier there are a lot of Internationals excluded and there are few young players.

For a Test tomorrow Id take the experienced guys with a strong record. The 5ths would have to argue over batting positions.

Rashid may feel hard done by as Yorkshire teammate, Bresnan, is prefered to him in the allrounders role for the 4ths. However, the selection of Swann in the 4th Team means I dont really want 2 spinners and need a 3rd seamer.

Goughys England 4ths
1.Wagh
2.Carberry
3.Sayers
4. Hick
5. C. Adams
6. Toughton
7. Bresnan
8. Read
9. Swann
10. Silverwood
11. Gough

Goughys England 5ths
1. Hilditch
2. Batty
3. Ed Smith
4. McGrath
5. Maddy
6. C. White
7. Rashid
8. G. Jones
9. Kabir Ali
10. Chapple
11. Kirby

 

[Jamee999]

'Cuz I'm awesome:

1st XI:

Trescothick
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Jones
Panesar

2nd XI:

Strauss
Key
Bell
Joyce
Ramprakash
Shah
Read
Tremlett
Plunkett
Hoggard
Anderson

3rd XI:

Denly
Carberry
Wagh
Sales
Bopara
Hick
Pothas
Rashid
Shreck
Onions
Harmison

4th XI:

Butcher
Smith
Hildreth
Prior
Trott
Yardy
Foster+
Swann
Richardson
Kabir Ali
Kirby

 

[Goughy]

I think its clear I have not seen enough of Shreck or Onions. Do we rate them?

 

[sideshowtim]

1st XI:
Jaques
Hayden
Ponting
Clarke
M. Hussey
Symonds
Haddin
Lee
Johnson
Clark
MacGill

2nd XI:
Rogers
Hughes
Hodge
Katich
D. Hussey
Watson
Ronchi
Noffke
Bollinger
Tait (he'll be back soon)
McGain

3rd XI:
Voges
Birt
D. Marsh
Pomersbach
White
G. Bailey
Paine
Siddle
Hilfenhaus
Bracken
Cullen

4th XI:
S. Marsh
Jewell
Cosgrove
North
Thornley
McDonald
Hartley
Casson
Geeves
Magoffin
Harris

 

[Richard]

Cripes, I'd struggle to name a Second XI never mind a Third with the (negligable) amount of domestic cricket I watched last summer. Will give it a vague go, at least in the batting department, and on a Tests-only (no ODIs) premise. Refuse to even countenance the idea of Plunkett, Shreck, Onions et al playing England-representative cricket, and I guess there'd be no choice. Even the well of Chapple, Cork, Caddick, Gough doesn't stretch deep enough.

First:
Cook
Key
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Ambrose
(Flintoff would bat at eight if fit in my side)

Second:
Butcher
Strauss
Ramprakash
Shah
Joyce
Trott
Pothas

Third:
Denly
Carberry
Ed Smith
Yardy
Sales
Loye
Foster

This is also ignoring Stuart Law, though quite why I should ignore Law and pick Ramprakash I don't know. As I say - please also bear in mind I didn't follow domestic cricket as I should've last season. If one of the players in my Third XI had an average of 17 last season, tell me and I'll change it.

FWIW, I'd also say I think it's fairly pointless to consider a Fourth and further down XI. Just too much guessing there.

 

[ret]

I m wondering whats the point in discussing a 4th or 5th 11? .... i guess, one could make quite a few 11s by looking at the players from domestic cricket, U 19 players, along with players who have played international cricket

i could just go on and say xyz 11

- SRK, Aamir, Salman
- Anil, Sanjay, Akshay, Saif
- Abheshiek, Hritik, Fardeen, Sunil

and i guess, it would only make sense to those who know what those names mean

i guess, 2nd 11 makes sense as it gives an idea abt the bench strength but so many 11s appear pointless to me

 

[Goughy]

The idea of looking at 3rds and below is twofold. Firstly it looks at the depth of a certain nation. This can be good ie lots of good players or bad like England which produces a massive amount of decent but not exceptional cricketers.

2ndly it forces a priority list. Too often someone says "you know what, give so and so a chance" without considering where they would rank on their own pecking order. I cant see how its possible to pick high teams without having a 'big board' of how you value the players. This is how bad selections get made and people are picked without people genuinely thinking who is better than that player.

 

[ret]

The idea of looking at 3rds and below is twofold. Firstly it looks at the depth of a certain nation. This can be good ie lots of good players or bad like England which produces a massive amount of decent but not exceptional cricketers.

2ndly it forces a priority list. Too often someone says "you know what, give so and so a chance" without considering where they would rank on their own pecking order. I cant see how its possible to pick high teams without having a 'big board' of how you value the players. This is how bad selections get made and people are picked without people genuinely thinking who is better than that player.

yeah but to someone like me a 4th 11 of Eng players probably looks like

- Kane, HHH, Stonecold
- Rock, Batista, Undertaker, Michels
- Sting, Big show, Diesel, latino heat

as I hv never seen them in action from a cricketing perspective .... and reading names of some of the players is like reading arabic or chinese,i.e. rings no bell what so ever .... and some of them may never play for Eng, so there is no point in even knowing their names

we can go on and on making such 11s as cricketers are in abundance, but whats lacking is quality .... i think top 20-25 players from a country give a good idea abt bench-strength and that would make a more meaningful topic

 

[Goughy]

yeah but to someone like me a 4th 11 of Eng players probably looks like

- Kane, HHH, Stonecold
- Rock, Batista, Undertaker, Michels
- Sting, Big show, Diesel, latino heat

as I hv never seen them in action from a cricketing perspective .... and reading names of some of the players is like reading arabic or chinese,i.e. rings no bell what so ever .... and some of them may never play for Eng, so there is no point in even knowing their names

we can go on and on making such 11s as cricketers are in abundance, but whats lacking is quality .... i think top 20-25 players from a country give a good idea abt bench-strength and that would make a more meaningful topic

15 of the 22 in the 4ths and 5ths have already played for England and as I said there are 27 England Internationals that debuted in the last 8 years that didnt even make my top 5 teams.

It isnt my fault you are in a topic, responding to posts, you are lacking in knowledge about. Tbh, I dont really care if you know the names or not.

The idea is to prioritise selection. To do that properly you cant just have a small group of players and assume that everything below that is a big pool of equal talent.

Countries go to this well of talent below the top group of players and I seriously think they have not evaluated and ranked the players and it causes a lot of bad selections. eg Would a player get selected if he was ranked as the 12th best middle order batsman on the selectors 'big board'? Very doubtful. However, if the selector didnt rank outside the top 6 then he could easily pick a player that offers less value than another as proper consideration hasnt been made.

As for it just being unkown names, the 5th XI I posted would give the current team a run for their money. Illustrating this plateau of talent (or should I say plt ) is another reason for this exercise. Also to see whether other Countries have a more pyramid system of talent.

I find the quoted post as one of the most ignorant Ive seen. Basically you are saying if something is outside your area of knowledge and you dont know about it then it isnt worth discussing. Thank God we dont keep to such a narrow topic base.

 

[ret]

15 of the 22 in the 4ths and 5ths have already played for England and as I said there are 27 England Internationals that debuted in the last 8 years that didnt even make my top 5 teams.

It isnt my fault you are in a topic, responding to posts, you are lacking in knowledge about. Tbh, I dont really care if you know the names or not.

The idea is to prioritise selection. To do that properly you cant just have a small group of players and assume that everything below that is a big pool of equal talent.

Countries go to this well of talent below the top group of players and I seriously think they have not evaluated and ranked the players and it causes a lot of bad selections. eg Would a player get selected if he was ranked as the 12th best middle order batsman on the selectors 'big board'? Very doubtful. However, if the selector didnt rank outside the top 6 then he could easily pick a player that offers less value than another as proper consideration hasnt been made.

As for it just being unkown names, the 5th XI I posted would give the current team a run for their money. Illustrating this plateau of talent (or should I say plt ) is another reason for this exercise. Also to see whether other Countries have a more pyramid system of talent.

I find the quoted post as one of the most ignorant Ive seen. Basically you are saying if something is outside your area of knowledge and you dont know about it then it isnt worth discussing. Thank God we dont keep to such a narrow topic base.

what i m saying is that this is more like a domestic cricket topic to me .... don't know if we hv a domestic cricket section at the forum, if so then this topic should be moved there

let's take for e.g. Pinkland's 4th X1 .... the names below are not real, along with the country's

- Don Corelone
- Royal King
- Backstreet Boy
- Dodge Caravan
- Cold Hottie
- Sticky Gum
- Johny Yespapa
- Bullet Train
- Scud Missile
- Tokyo Drift
- Good Morning

to a Pinkland fan, it could make some sense but to the rest it would mean little .... even if those guys are ranked 8th, 88th or whatever coz hardly anyone follows the domestic cricket of Pinkland and it's really tough to comment on how the bench strength of Pinkland is based on that

 

[pasag]

ret, there is no domestic cricket sub-forum.

As for discussing this topic, you've been here what, a month, and you're telling us what we should and shouldn't discuss? This is a very high calibre cricket forum, perhaps the highest there is and in-depth analysis into a countries cricket talent will take place. If you don't like it or are not interested, don't visit the thread. Just because you have little idea about the players being talked about, doesn't mean others also don't and don't wish to discuss these things.

 

[Jamee999]

Yeah, if we have a thread about (say) Indian domestic cricket, you don't see English posters running about shouting "I haven't heard of some of these players, so cease mentioning them!".

 

[Jamee999]

Kev, do you really think that

1. Hilditch
2. Batty
3. Ed Smith
4. McGrath
5. Maddy
6. C. White
7. Rashid
8. G. Jones
9. Kabir Ali
10. Chapple
11. Kirby

Would challenge the 11 playing in the test?

 

[Goughy]

Kev, do you really think that

Would challenge the 11 playing in the test?

I dont think they would fold and its full of good solid pros that know how to do their job.

They would have a chance of winning (even if quite small) but I think it would be at the least toughly contested and a competetive game.

These are not bad players. They just probably lack that bit of specialness to produce the extreme and rare performance. They would probably come up short most of the time if they palyed 10 games but they would always be in touching distance.

 

[Richard]

Illustrating this plateau of talent (or should I say plt )

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Bangladesh 3rd XI, maybe 4ths and 5ths, coming sometime later tonight...

 

[Richard]

Haha, saw George had posted, thought "this'll be interesting". So disappointed.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Oh, you won't be... I'll make a start after typing up this English Lit essay, but it might be a bit of a tough task - the Bangladeshi XIs, I mean, The Tempest is a piece of cake in comparison to your Mohammads, Iqbals and Islams of the world.

 

[Richard]

Indeed. Fine play.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Indeed. Fine play.

Nah, terrible play, relatively speaking. Shakespeare for 10-year-olds, pretty much. I bet it's on the syllabus at Pickup's establishment. Easy to comment on though, so not too bad.