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

[Cevno]

If the Fans 11 was dominated by more current players ,Boycott is "Romanticising The Past".

What is interesting is that having said all of that he goes ahead and picks Barnes as a bowler from that Era ahead of Mcgrath. Infact from a Era before Bradman,Hobbs,Headley,Hammond etc.. when the matches were lesser scoring mostly than when these people played and the matches got more high scoring.

 

[GotSpin]

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.

Same old argument. If you transported players from the yesterday era immediately into the modern day they'd undoubtedly struggle (at first anyway). I don't think anyone would argue against that.

However, there's an illogical conclusion drawn that professionalism today means the players are better. All great players contain certain characteristics - such as determination, grit, concentration etc. - that IMO, are transferable skills across eras. I refuse to believe that a Jack Hobbs would have been reduced to playing first grade had he played today by the definition that players today are strong and fitter

 

[vcs]

Somewhat disappointed that Boycott didn't name an All-Time XI comprised only of his female ancestors.

 

[hang on]

Same old argument. If you transported players from the yesterday era immediately into the modern day they'd undoubtedly struggle (at first anyway). I don't think anyone would argue against that.

However, there's an illogical conclusion drawn that professionalism today means the players are better. All great players contain certain characteristics - such as determination, grit, concentration etc. - that IMO, are transferable skills across eras. I refuse to believe that a Jack Hobbs would have been reduced to playing first grade

what do u mean by 'same old argument?' isn't the jack hobbs bit what i am alluding to...the best would find a way to do well. the average wouldn't. professionalism does mean that.

 

[smash84]

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

Depends on the balance of the team. I also value bowling all rounders more than batting all rounders. Would ideally have 2 all rounders in my all time team with Sobers, Imran, and Hadlee to pick from. Keith Miller also under consideration.

 

[Cevno]

Same old argument. If you transported players from the yesterday era immediately into the modern day they'd undoubtedly struggle (at first anyway). I don't think anyone would argue against that.

However, there's an illogical conclusion drawn that professionalism today means the players are better. All great players contain certain characteristics - such as determination, grit, concentration etc. - that IMO, are transferable skills across eras. I refuse to believe that a Jack Hobbs would have been reduced to playing first grade had he played today by the definition that players today are strong and fitter

He said "the super players from all eras would, in all probability do well in other eras"

 

[GotSpin]

what do u mean by 'same old argument?' isn't the jack hobbs bit what i am alluding to...the best would find a way to do well. the average wouldn't. professionalism does mean that.

Sorry, I may have misread your post, but every six months or so the argument crops up implying that the professional modern day game is tougher than the eras preceding it, suggesting that the greats of yesterday would not have have been so great today

 

[GotSpin]

He said "the super players from all eras would, in all probability do well in other eras"

Yeah I've misread his post.

Never mind me *whistles*

 

[Sanz]

I refuse to believe that a Jack Hobbs would have been reduced to playing first grade had he played today by the definition that players today are strong and fitter

But that argument should work both ways, Don't you think that someone like Sehwag or players from Fan XI would have done well in the past as well ?

I really don't understand the rationale for ridiculing fan's XI unless someone clearly thinks that the players from their list are not good enough to match those that are there in Boycs list.

Alan Knott ahead of Gilchrist ? On the basis of what ?

 

[Z-Man]

It would be interesting if we had an Imran Khans Dream XI.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Alan Knott ahead of Gilchrist ? On the basis of what ?

Being a far superior wicketkeeper.

 

[GotSpin]

But that argument should work both ways, Don't you think that someone like Sehwag or players from Fan XI would have done well in the past as well ?

I really don't understand the rationale for ridiculing fan's XI unless someone clearly thinks that the players from their list are not good enough to match those that are there in Boycs list.

Alan Knott ahead of Gilchrist ? On the basis of what ?

I'm not arguing against that idea, but there are other openers that have achieved more than Sehwag throughout history and thus deserve the spot instead of him. Hobbs, for example.

Like I said in the ICC XI thread, if Sehwag can sustain his performances for another couple years he'd definitely be a major candidate

And I presume he picked Knott because he's the better keeper.

 

[Borges]

but every six months or so the argument crops up implying that the professional modern day game is tougher than the eras preceding it

Probably true.

suggesting that the greats of yesterday would not have have been so great today

Probably false.

Don't really think that the first by itself automatically suggests the second.

 

[hang on]

Sorry, I may have misread your post, but every six months or so the argument crops up implying that the professional modern day game is tougher than the eras preceding it, suggesting that the greats of yesterday would not have have been so great today

no worries!

 

[Cevno]

But that argument should work both ways, Don't you think that someone like Sehwag or players from Fan XI would have done well in the past as well ?

I really don't understand the rationale for ridiculing fan's XI unless someone clearly thinks that the players from their list are not good enough to match those that are there in Boycs list.

Alan Knott ahead of Gilchrist ? On the basis of what ?

Exactly.

Boycott is ridiculing the fan eleven and then making speculative points and some bizarre ones without justifying at all why that eleven is a Joke?
He has just picked a different eleven except for Bradman for the sake of it. Ultimately everybody could have picked 11 from so many great players so there was bound to be difference of opinion.

 

[Isura]

Boycott's XI doesn't even have Tendulkar.What a joke.

lol. Tendulkar isn't a lock for a test XI IMO

 

[Sanz]

Being a far superior wicketkeeper.

What is far superior and on the basis of what ? Gilchrist played almost 100 tests and replaced Healy with great success. And if having the best wicketkeeper is the criteria, why not Godfrey Evans ?

 

[GotSpin]

Exactly.

Boycott is ridiculing the fan eleven and then making speculative points and some bizarre ones without justifying at all why that eleven is a Joke?
He has just picked a different eleven except for Bradman for the sake of it. Ultimately everybody could have picked 11 from so many great players so there was bound to be difference of opinion.

Maybe so, but there were some pretty peculiar selections for the fans XI

I mean, Kapil Dev, really?

 

[Borges]

Being a far superior wicketkeeper.

Far far far superior wicketkeeper, and a fairly competent batsman too.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Sorry, I may have misread your post, but every six months or so the argument crops up implying that the professional modern day game is tougher than the eras preceding it, suggesting that the greats of yesterday would not have have been so great today

I think its quite hypocritical to say that players have it tougher today. Sure players from back in the days would struggle with today's rules but vice versa also applies. Players of today would also struggle back in the days with no helmets, no bouncer limitations etc.

It gets on my nerves when people that try to take credit away from old legends saying its tougher today than it was back then. I mean really how would feel if in 50 years people take credit away from our generation's greats when even more modifications have been made to the game?