Geoffrey Boycott: ICC's Dream XI is a joke - it has no credibility

[marc71178]

Agree with weeman, although I'd add Sobers to the definite picks.

 

[Cevno]

I'm expecting to be berated a bit for this, but I don't see why Tendulkar should be an automatic pick.

I'm not saying Boycott is right or wrong not to pick him, I'm just saying that, in my view, it's perfectly acceptable for people not to pick him.

Other than Bradman, I don't think anybody is far enough ahead of their peers that it merits calling someone wrong for not putting that player in their team.

But it works both ways then.

You can't exactly call someone picking a player you won't have there a joke then ,with regards to the ICC voted 11.
Going by the same logic even if i won't pick them personally, it should be acceptable for people to pick Sehwag and Kapil Dev too when they have been nominated in illustrious company.

 

[GotSpin]

I'm expecting to be berated a bit for this, but I don't see why Tendulkar should be an automatic pick.

I'm not saying Boycott is right or wrong not to pick him, I'm just saying that, in my view, it's perfectly acceptable for people not to pick him.

Other than Bradman, I don't think anybody is far enough ahead of their peers that it merits calling someone wrong for not putting that player in their team.

Indeed.

 

[Bun]

I'm expecting to be berated a bit for this, but I don't see why Tendulkar should be an automatic pick.

I'm not saying Boycott is right or wrong not to pick him, I'm just saying that, in my view, it's perfectly acceptable for people not to pick him.

Other than Bradman, I don't think anybody is far enough ahead of their peers that it merits calling someone wrong for not putting that player in their team.

Tendulkar's an autopick in very XI.. avg 57 after a ****ing 180 tests

 

[weeman27bob]

sobers.

Agree with weeman, although I'd add Sobers to the definite picks.

Assuming that the team isn't based of the ICC's one allrounder criterion, then definitely.

There was some debate over Imran though in the ICC-XI thread, so perhaps not in that case.

Whilst I thought I might put Sobers down too, I erred on the side of caution.

 

[Cevno]

Sobers isn't a auto pick for me at all. Prefer personally to have a better bowler as the 5th bowling option.

 

[Ikki]

I'm expecting to be berated a bit for this, but I don't see why Tendulkar should be an automatic pick.

I'm not saying Boycott is right or wrong not to pick him, I'm just saying that, in my view, it's perfectly acceptable for people not to pick him.

Other than Bradman, I don't think anybody is far enough ahead of their peers that it merits calling someone wrong for not putting that player in their team.

Agreed. I rate Tendulkar higher than before (pre 2007) but he still doesn't get in my XI. It's Bradman, Richards, Chappell and Sobers before I consider any others.

 

[weeman27bob]

But it works both ways then.

You can't exactly call someone picking a player you won't have there a joke then ,with regards to the ICC voted 11.
Going by the same logic even if i won't pick them personally, it should be acceptable for people to pick Sehwag and Kapil Dev too when they have been nominated in illustrious company.

Oh definitely.

I'd have thought both not including Tendulkar and including Sehwag and Kapil Dev would tend to go against the popular opinion, when it's been approached properly, but in no way is it wrong to not pick, or pick, them.

 

[Bun]

Agreed. I rate Tendulkar higher than before (pre 2007) but he still doesn't get in my XI. It's Bradman, Richards, Chappell and Sobers before I consider any others.

CHappell ahea of 10dulkar

 

[Borges]

Boycotts isn't perfect but its much better than the fan picked one

Yeah, IMHO, at least it has an infinitely better all rounder, a keeper who could keep, and a clearly superior bowling attack.

IMHO, being the operative phrase there. Each one to their own. To me, the opinion of every cricket follower is credible - as long as I have no grounds to suspect that it is not a genuinely held opinion. Whether I agree with it or not is another matter altogether.

 

[Cevno]

Tendulkar's an autopick in very XI.. avg 57 after a ****ing 180 tests

Personally i don't believe anyone is a autopick so to speak.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and entitled to not Pick Bradman as well despite what some others would say or rate.

 

[GotSpin]

Here we go

 

[Prince EWS]

Agree with weeman, although I'd add Sobers to the definite picks.

Hmm, I'd have Sobers in mine, but I could see an argument for him not being there. I certainly don't think it'd be outrageous to suggest his bowling would be ineffective bordering on irrelevant if he played at a theoretical level two levels above Tests, in which case you'd just be comparing him with other batsmen. And again, while I'd have Sobers in my top six batsmen on batting alone, I could accept the argument that, for example, Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Tendulkar, Hammond and Chappell were all superior.

He's not a deal-breaker for me. Bradman, however (even though I don't even consider him the best cricketer), should not be left out. Any ATWXI that didn't contain him would just be dismissed as ridiculous by me, much as people would laugh at me if I named a team with Daren Ganga and Vusi Sibanda opening the batting.

 

[Bun]

Personally i don't believe anyone is a autopick so to speak.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and entitled to not Pick Bradman as well despite what some others would say or rate.

fair nuff

 

[Z-Man]

To be honest Geoffrey makes some good point.

There was underarm bowling, round arm bowling and over-arm bowling. The new ball was taken at different times, which means teams with fast bowlers had an advantage. In Bradman’s 1948 team to England the new ball was taken after 55 overs. Try facing Ray Lindwall, Keith Miller and big Bill Johnson with new ball after 55 overs. Test matches were played over three, four, five days and timeless Tests.\

To make a proper judgement of all players you have to do research on the times people played in. The rules they played under and type of pitches they played on. And even then when you have done all that we will probably only agree on five or six players. It is just a matter of opinion.

He does have a point, the situations were way different than today and so evaluating based on Statistics it is really difficult to debate since you have to consider the pitches/weather and conditions.
Imo, there should not be an ATXI, it should be the last decade XI or so, so that the evaluation of players become easier. that said, it is also difficult to have a collective opinion of Fans.

 

[BlazeDragon]

To be honest Geoffrey makes some good point.



He does have a point, the situations were way different than today and so evaluating based on Statistics it is really difficult to debate since you have to consider the pitches/weather and conditions.
Imo, there should not be an ATXI, it should be the last decade XI or so, so that the evaluation of players become easier. that said, it is also difficult to have a collective opinion of Fans.

I don't think anybody but little kids and teenagers argue that back in the Bradman's days it was somehow "easier" than it is today.

 

[Cevno]

Every aspect of the game from Bats to Bowls to Video technology to commercialisation ,Travelling,Media exposure, techniques,Pitch Soils,intensity,Number of countries,Spread of players around countries with infrastructure,rules of the game etc... has evolved and changed with passing of time.

And argument can be made either side for each era to be tougher or easier. That is why there really can't be any any certainty in these excercises and ultimately comes down to opinion.
Geoffrey Boycott has one, and those who voted for the ICC team have theirs,Cricinfo experts had their and other players, officicals etc... will have theirs.

 

[Sanz]

The only questionable spots in Fans Xi are Sehwag and Kapil, but Boycs selection of Alan Knott ahead of Gilchrist ? Pleaseee

 

[Z-Man]

I don't think anybody but little kids and teenagers argue that back in the Bradman's days it was somehow "easier" than it is today.

True, but considering that, Bradman was not the only player playing in those days and there were 21 players who used to play with Bradman in a match.

Bradman was extraordinary but my point is that there were other players in his days who were supposedly also better than ordinary and comparatively better than todays Sehwags and Dilshans considering the pitches/situations they had to play in.

 

[hang on]

cricket, as with all sports, is more competitive today. more people play it to a higher level. people are certainly fitter and stronger. i would quite happily argue that cricket is harder today. that said, it doesn't at all mean that cricket at that point was easy either, especially if the difference in equipment is taken into consideration. the super players from all eras would, in all probability do well in other eras.