CW50 2nd Edition - No 04

[MrPrez]

About right. Maybe a touch high, but pretty much right.

 

[kyear2]

and his greatest XI is stronger than most XIs thrown up.

It is a very strong XI indeed.

He might think Lillee is the greatest and I won't grudge him for that. In fact I rate Lillee a little higher because of people like Benaud rather than just taking a spreadsheet view of him

No problem with his 11, it is strong, and his after all. He dis let his bias show in his short list though.

 

[smash84]

what bias?

 

[Garson007]

Already been and gone, 14 iirc

That's only the bowling Kallis. Batting Kallis will be second. Kallisball Kallis at number 1.

 

[Contra]

what bias?

If you take a look at the shortlists, most of his fast bowling selections are either Aussies or English players. No west Indian included. Reckon his battling/middle order is perfectly fine (even in terms of the shortlist) but he clearly does have a bias when it comes to the specialist bowlers.

 

[Dan]

If you take a look at the shortlists, most of his fast bowling selections are either Aussies or English players. No west Indian included. Reckon his battling/middle order is perfectly fine (even in terms of the shortlist) but he clearly does have a bias when it comes to the specialist bowlers.

Or, maybe he believes those 6 to be the best 6 fast bowlers ever.

Can't fault any of his picks in there really - its not like he's picked Mohammad Sami or Gary Gilmour or someone equally mediocre. Lindwall, Trueman, Barnes, McGrath, Larwood and Lillee were all damn good bowlers.

Marshall unlucky to miss out though, obvs.

 

[smash84]

Or, maybe he believes those 6 to be the best 6 fast bowlers ever.

Can't fault any of his picks in there really - its not like he's picked Mohammad Sami or Gary Gilmour or someone equally mediocre. Lindwall, Trueman, Barnes, McGrath, Larwood and Lillee were all damn good bowlers.

Marshall unlucky to miss out though, obvs.

yeah awta. Additionally he has Imran as the other seamer and Sobers to turn his arm over if need be.

 

[Contra]

Or, maybe he believes those 6 to be the best 6 fast bowlers ever.

Can't fault any of his picks in there really - its not like he's picked Mohammad Sami or Gary Gilmour or someone equally mediocre. Lindwall, Trueman, Barnes, McGrath, Larwood and Lillee were all damn good bowlers.

Marshall unlucky to miss out though, obvs.

Yeah but then we can say for practically anyone's XI. In any case I don't have too much of a problem with his list, I was just explaining what Kyear meant by bias.

 

[silentstriker]

If you take a look at the shortlists, most of his fast bowling selections are either Aussies or English players. No west Indian included. Reckon his battling/middle order is perfectly fine (even in terms of the shortlist) but he clearly does have a bias when it comes to the specialist bowlers.

I'm not sure if that's a bias - he may have thought all the West Indian bowlers were really great as a group, but not as good individually as those mentioned. Most of us would have at least Marshall in there, but IMO it's not a horrible list. I mean Barnes and Lillee are self explanatory. McGrath I rate as the best ever, so IMO that's an easy case too. That leaves Trueman and Larwood. Trueman too is understandable - average and SR are both excellent.

The only one I would have a 'problem' with is Larwood but hey, the man is allowed a romanticized pick.

I would have both Ambrose and Marshall in there but aside from Larwood, I can't say I have a 'strong' objection to any of them.

Now Bradman's XI:

Barry Richards - South Africa
Arthur Morris - Australia
Don Bradman - Australia
Sachin Tendulkar - India
Gary Sobers - West Indies
Don Tallon - Australia
Ray Lindwall - Australia
Dennis Lillee - Australia
Alec Bedser - England
Bill O'Reilly - Australia
Clarrie Grimmett - Australia

I have a lot more problems with this one than Benaud....

 

[smash84]

I'm not sure if that's a bias - he may have thought all the West Indian bowlers were really great as a group, but not as good individually as those mentioned. Most of us would have at least Marshall in there, but IMO it's not a horrible list. I mean Barnes and Lillee are self explanatory. McGrath I rate as the best ever, so IMO that's an easy case too. That leaves Trueman and Larwood. Trueman too is understandable - average and SR are both excellent.

QUOTE]

Trueman is so so good

 

[ankitj]

Yeah, no problems with Benaud's XI tbh. Only thing probably is that his side might be one top bowler short.

 

[kyear2]

If you take a look at the shortlists, most of his fast bowling selections are either Aussies or English players. No west Indian included. Reckon his battling/middle order is perfectly fine (even in terms of the shortlist) but he clearly does have a bias when it comes to the specialist bowlers.

The bowing attack does have a decided ashes bias, with Larwood the most surprising pick, Trueman was seriously great as well. There was also a intimation in the video that he didn't appreciate the M.O. of the 80's W.I. fast bowlers, and as such why none were included, ironic since what Larwood did was even worse. Any way the exclusion and as such main bias was the exclusion even of mention of Murali, where the Aussie bias of the young man was quite evident.
Also it seems eveident that the reason he rates Sachin so high is because that was the opnion of Don and that seems to have factored into his decision. Also as I have stated I too have Lillee in my top echleon, but was just using that as an example the say that you dont have to agree with every opinon he has.

 

[bagapath]

Yeah, no problems with Benaud's XI tbh. Only thing probably is that his side might be one top bowler short.

Really? I think lillee, imran, barnes and warne can bowl out any batting lineup anywhere.

 

[Spark]

I'd really love to know where this idea that a top cricket side must have five bowlers has come from. Really.

 

[smash84]

from 8ankitj

 

[kyear2]

I'd really love to know where this idea that a top cricket side must have five bowlers has come from. Really.

Beacause you must. Even if it is just a part time bowler and not a full time allrounder, at some point the frontline bowlers will need a rest, or the attack a change of pace. In the last aussie/wi test Watson, Clarke and Hussey turned their arms over and the pressence of Watson and Ramnarine helped influence the team selection in this second test. To me it is required. Just my two cents.

 

[Spark]

Oh I'm not saying that you don't need a 5th bowling option, but it seems increasingly common that it's an absolute must to have four bowlers + a high class bowling all-rounder at a minimum nowadays in cricketing wisdom, and I don't really see that as an absolute necessity. You're better off picking a better sixth batsman than a better 5th bowler IMO.

 

[vic_orthdox]

If I had Sobers in my team, I don't see the need for a fifth "proper" bowling option. Would be hoping like hell that my fifth option isn't bowling more than 10 overs per new ball. Not worth sacrificing a batting option for that.

 

[kyear2]

Which is why everyone tries to find a 6th batsman who can bowl a bit, thed best of both worlds. And yes with Sobers I would still choose four specialist bowlers, and you still wouldn't loose any batting in the process, unlike a bowling A/R at six where you loose batting.

 

[ankitj]

Oh I'm not saying that you don't need a 5th bowling option, but it seems increasingly common that it's an absolute must to have four bowlers + a high class bowling all-rounder at a minimum nowadays in cricketing wisdom, and I don't really see that as an absolute necessity. You're better off picking a better sixth batsman than a better 5th bowler IMO.

It's not an absolute at all. These teams won't ever take fields anyways, so why **** our brains over it