Avada Kedavra
Banned
Let me make it easy for you mate:
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
ESPNcricinfo World XI
- Thread starter Ikki
- Start date
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Who made you or anyone else on CW the judge as to whether another persons post is nonsense or not?.
AFAIK another poster is always around who may agree with my POV in a specific thread. So i dont care if a certain elists majority on CW think different, since i dont come on cricket to change minds or change my mind. Just to state & discuss my POV, who agrees or disagree is of no consequence to me.
Flem274*
123/5
Because it's never a single post, and the posts are so full of arrogance and condescension that most of the time people feel compelled to cut him back down to size.
Basically.
Flem274*
123/5
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
I never post with arrogance to anyone. I respectfully debate with everyone. That is just the usual gross mischaracterisation of how the CW elist view the way i post in this new era of CW.
Flem274*
123/5
Sigged.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Well i should have fleshed it out more saying "change my mind with the majority current era of CW posters". Since when i first came of this site when people like Faaipdeoid, A Massive zebra, TEC (still around), Richard, C_C, Slove Love, SJS (not around as much as before), Swevy, Luckyeddie & a few others who names aren't coming to me ATM. It used to be as you read & had debates with folks of that ilk, you learnt a few things & your POVs can/could be changed on various cricket matters.
Here lies the problem I think.
Just to use 1 one example C_C was reason i started rating Tendy over Lara as a test batsman. With the current era of CWers, i expect just dull debates with nothing really to learn that would change my mind.
M0rphin3
International Debutant
bagapath
International Captain
a team made out of all those players left out of the first two teams still makes a bloody good unit
sehwag
sutcliffe
ponting
g.chappell
compton
miller
ames (wk)
hadlee
ambrose
mcgrath
grimmett
actually i love this team. it looks much much better than cricinfo's second XI. and, but for bradman this is not in any other way inferior to the first xi, either.
Last edited:
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
How about G. Pollock in place of Compton?
smash84
The Tiger King
Isn't Ponting a little out of place in that XI?
bagapath
International Captain
nah. pollock played just 23 tests; not enough to demand a place in an all time world xi when there are equally good/ better players with longer test careers available for selection. don't be fooled by his average of 60. compton, after the same 23 tests, averaged 66.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Not at all.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Actually there are more reasons to consider G. Pollock great than just his average. But fair enough. If you want to keep some min number of tests as criterion, there are 3Ws, Border, Barrington and Waugh that deserve consideration before Compton. But again, fair enough.
Avada Kedavra
Banned
A great side.Here is mine:
1.Sehwag
2.Hayden
3.Ponting
4.Kallis
5.Dravid
6.Sangakkara
7.Pollock
8.Hadlee
9.Kumble
10.Ambrose
11.McGrath
GotSpin
Hall of Fame Member
Is there a reason all these players have played in recent times
Last edited:
bagapath
International Captain
your current status as school boy/girl cricketer makes it appear as though you are 12 or something. but, i realize, you are not.Actually there are more reasons to consider G. Pollock great than just his average. But fair enough. If you want to keep some min number of tests as criterion, there are 3Ws, Border, Barrington and Waugh that deserve consideration before Compton. But again, fair enough.
yes, there are indeed more reasons to consider g pollock great than his average alone. but compton, for my money, had everything one needs to belong in this team. he was successful all around the world against various opponents for many many years - an important trait he shares with the great border, waugh and barrington you have mentioned. he played the game hard and with a will to win - unlike the dour barrington but more like waugh and border.
what sets him apart from all of them is that he had all the strokes in the book which he employed without inhibition; and he even added his own invention to the coaching manual - the falling sweep. border and waugh were limited in their stroke production - they preferred effectiveness to flair. barrington chose safety over crowd pleasing. they all could turn matches around with hard work, guts and zen like concentration. compton, OTOH, was the kind of cricketer who could take a game by its ears and shake it up within a session. his mercurial style was good enough to lift the sagging spirits of a war ravaged britain and give them hope to enjoy life, very similar to what bradman's batsmanship did for an australia under economic depression. in an all-time xi we need style, flair and innovation; because substance is a given at this level we are talking about. compton had it all in plenty.
