Your World XI 2001-2010

[weldone]

Dravid has been India's best batsman of the last 10 years, end of story.

Highly debatable, because last 10 years include last 3 years too, end of story.

 

[weldone]

Test match batting 2001-2010 Minimum qualification 2000 runs.

Kallis 9048 @ 62.0
Sanga 8070 @ 58.9
Lara 5883 @ 58.2
Yousuf 5794 @ 57.4
Jayawardane 7854 @ 56.5 are at the top

Yes, Kallis and Sanga are almost automatic picks, I feel. Kallis' inclusion is beyond arguments tbh, when you include his bowling.

Though Lara hasn't played all 10 years, he has played a good part of it and has been phenomenal, so I'd pick him too.

Yousuf and Jayawardene will have to miss out because they have been pretty poor in some countries.

Among others, Tendulkar, Ponting and Dravid have strong cases. Tendulkar averages more than the other two, but Ponting have been the best batsman in the world for a longer period than Tendulkar has, among these 10 years.

Among openers, Sehwag and Hayden stand out.

 

[kingkallis]

SRT too had forgettable 2003, 2005 and 2006

 

[weldone]

Among bowlers, McGrath, Muralitharan, Warne and Steyn clearly stand out.

Pollock's batting adds much to the team. Still, I can't drop one of the above 4 for him, Neither do I want to pick him as the fifth bowler in this case. Shane Bond and Shoaib Akhtar have been good, too; so worth mentioning their name in this context. But that's that.

2 pace bowlers might feel a little too less in this case, but Kallis compensates that to an extent.

 

[weldone]

SRT too had forgettable 2003, 2005 and 2006

Certainly he had, that's why I say that in the time period 2001-07 Dravid was clearly better.

But in the last 3 years Tendulkar (and Dravid) more than made up for that.

That's what I mean when I say that 'last 10 years include last 3 years too'.

 

[weldone]

Sanga @ 48.4 away vs non-minnows, Jayawardane 43.7 away vs non minnows.

Then how much Sehwag's runs have come in the sub continent?

Sanga and Jaya aren't competition for Sehwag for an opening slot, are they? This question might have been valid in that case.

 

[Furball]

Highly debatable, because last 10 years include last 3 years too, end of story.

1. Dravid hasn't been out of form for 3 years. He was woeful in 2008, he's been fine in 2009 and 2010.

2. It also includes the 3 or so years Tendulkar was woeful.

3. Dravid has been better than Tendulkar over the course of the decade.

 

[weldone]

The thread is asking people to pick based on 2001 to 2010 . I.e the last 10 years.

Do not know what is so tough to grasp here? And why people want to exclude 2010 and include 2000?

Maybe because they think the first decade was 0000-0009...(or because they think we start counting from zero, have 9 fingers, 1 eye, 1 ear, 0 mouth, 0 heart etc. etc. etc.)

 

[marc71178]

Maybe because a decade is commonly thought of as being where all 10 years start with the same number - you wouldn't call the 70s 1971-1980 would you?

 

[bagapath]

Maybe because a decade is commonly thought of as being where all 10 years start with the same number - you wouldn't call the 70s 1971-1980 would you?

Well. There was no year called 0. The first decade was from 1 to 10. The same way the 1970s started from 1971 and concluded with 1980.

Yes. The new millennium started with 2001 and not with 2000.

 

[Furball]

Well. There was no year called 0. The first decade was from 1 to 10. The same way the 1970s started from 1971 and concluded with 1980.

Yes. The new millennium started with 2001 and not with 2000.

Of course there's a year zero. A child isn't 1 year old when they were born are they?

 

[Prince EWS]

Of course there's a year zero. A child isn't 1 year old when they were born are they?

No, but they are in the first year of their lives the moment they are born; Year 1 if you will...

 

[vcs]

Maybe because they think the first decade was 0000-0009...(or because they think we start counting from zero, have 9 fingers, 1 eye, 1 ear, 0 mouth, 0 heart etc. etc. etc.)

Well, I prefer programming languages that use zero-based arrays...

 

[bagapath]

Of course there's a year zero. A child isn't 1 year old when they were born are they?

From the time a child is born it is in its first year until the first birthday when it becomes one year old and enters year 2. After 100 years it completes a century and enters the next from the 101st year onwards. After 2000 years it enters the third millennium from the year 2001. This thread title clearly states 2001- 2010. So there shouldn't be any confusion to anyone.

Happy new year to all of you guys. May this year bring you all great joy and success.

 

[Champ]

Sehwag
Hayden
Lara
Ponting (C)
Kallis
Laxman
Gilchrist (Wk)
Flintoff
Steyn
Muralitharan
Mcgrath

Didn't look at stats in selecting this team.Don't need 5 genuine bowlers when top notch match winners like Mcgrath,Steyn & Muralitharan are there.Flintoff is also capable of producing match winning spells.Kallis & Sehwag can play supporting roles.Laxman may not have great stats but plays well under pressure.

 

[Burgey]

Only CW can turn this onto a discussion about when the decade started, despite the thread title referring to a specific time frame

 

[Migara]

Sanga and Jaya aren't competition for Sehwag for an opening slot, are they? This question might have been valid in that case.

Sanga would be a better opener than Sehwag (and most of Lankans wanted him to be one, but management stuck him at #3). Most of his visits to the crease at #3 were early due to Jayasuriya falling cheaply. And is a better player of pace too.

If you just consider the numbers there's a case for Sanga at #3 over Ponting or Dravid. But 3-6 spots in batting aren't different hugely, so these players can bat anywhere. When a batsman stays in top 5 in the ICC rankings for half a decade, it tells it's own story. I don't think HTB's like Jayawardane, Pietersen or Hussey will be material of this discussion, but Sangakkara is. And he can bat anywhere in the middle order too, and can easily be picked over Laxman, who had the best of his career post 2001, compared to Sanga who started it in 2000, but still averages more than Laxman.

 

[vcs]

Sanga would be a better opener than Sehwag (and most of Lankans wanted him to be one, but management stuck him at #3). Most of his visits to the crease at #3 were early due to Jayasuriya falling cheaply. And is a better player of pace too.

If you just consider the numbers there's a case for Sanga at #3 over Ponting or Dravid. But 3-6 spots in batting aren't different hugely, so these players can bat anywhere. When a batsman stays in top 5 in the ICC rankings for half a decade, it tells it's own story. I don't think HTB's like Jayawardane, Pietersen or Hussey will be material of this discussion, but Sangakkara is. And he can bat anywhere in the middle order too, and can easily be picked over Laxman, who had the best of his career post 2001, compared to Sanga who started it in 2000, but still averages more than Laxman.

Sanga is a very good middle-order shout, but there is no way you can logically put him in contention for an opener slot based on what he could have done, rather than what he actually did.

 

[Bun]

Of course there's a year zero. A child isn't 1 year old when they were born are they?

The thread title refers to a certain period ffs. Stop being a bitterfurtroll.

 

[Migara]

Sanga is a very good middle-order shout, but there is no way you can logically put him in contention for an opener slot based on what he could have done, rather than what he actually did.

Yes, that is acknowledged. Further, it doesn't mean that he has to play at #3 in a AT XI just because he plays at #3 for SL. Anywhere 3 - 6 is acceptable if he's not keeping wickets.