Oh for a strong arm and a walking stick
How I rank my teams at a glance
You don't pick them assuming they will be playing at their peak, but once you do pick them you want Marshall fr '83/84 not '91.
Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2
Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4
Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
If you were that old, and that kind, and the very last of your kind, you couldn't just stand back and watch children cry.
Which incidently, is why I have a problem selecting Ian Botham ahead of the other great allrounders. You have to disregard the latter half of career because it was mediocre at best. Only prior to 1983/84 did he achieve a level of greatness. And disregarding about 50% is not very good at all.
Last edited by watson; 11-02-2013 at 06:22 PM.
So for example; a selector who has a conservative personality will automatically feel more content with Sachin because is a steady reliable player as well as being brilliant.
Likewise, personalities who enjoy risk taking, and are the opposite of conservative, will be more likely to choose a more mercurial player like Brian Lara.
Indeed, logic sometimes gets left behind (a rightly so) as we choose our teams. In other words, selecting an ATG batsman can be like selecting a girlfriend. You don't know exactly why you like her, you just do, end of story.
Yes, choosing the players of an ATG XI is a slightly whimsical process. But, the issue here is not that. The issue here is, if you assume, beforehand, that the players selected in the team will be performing at their peak, then this provides an incentive effect, not just to the risk takers (as you have described them), but also to the conservatives to pick Waqar and Lara (who would have otherwise picked Sachin, or Wasim).
Don't you think so?
I'd put NZ ahead of India in terms of bowling tbh. In fact I think they're close to the other five than they are India. Hadlee and Cowie are complete guns.
~ Cribbertarian ~
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009
Hadlee/Cowie/Bond would be pretty epic.
Think it is time for the New Zealand or Sri Lankan teams Monk.
Which is why, incidently, that Shane Bond is currently getting such high praise. On good days when Bond was unimpeded by injury he was a truly great bowler. But in reality there were not enough of those good days to make an open-and-shut case. Hence we go with our instinctual feelings that he belongs in the category marked great.
Last edited by watson; 11-02-2013 at 08:03 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)