Last edited by watson; 25-04-2013 at 03:37 PM.
Tendulkar - M.Waugh - Ponting - Richards - Dhoni - Bevan - Kapil Dev - Hadlee - Akram - Garner - Muralitharan
Would much rather have Barnes/Murali than Barnes/Warne
ATG World XI
1. J.B Hobbs 2. H. Sutcliffe 3. D.G Bradman 4. W.R Hammond 5. G.S Sobers 6. M.J Procter 7. A.C Gilchrist 8. M.D Marshall 9. S.K Warne 10. M. Muralitharan 11. G.D McGrath
It's facinating that many people with in depth knowledge of the history of the game have such different visions of what at AT XI should look like.
Watsons, Coronis and my XI's only have Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers, Marshall and Warne in common and if even one more person added their team to their sig, that list would drop even futher, probably just ti Hobbs and Bradman.
One question though, how does Pollock surpass Richards, Lara, Tendulkar and Chappell when they played in the most difficult eras of fast and spin bowlers and succeeded againts the best, Chappell in particular gets really short changed in the comparrison when we look at what he did in WSC. Pollock in particular only played a series againts Benaud and one game againts Statham and Snow each and it was Stathams last game and Snow's second. That combined with the fact that he played only 20 tests in a quiet period for great bowlers in a very strong lineup and team in general. Even Headly in comparrison played againts better bolwers (Verity, Grimmett, Ironmonger ect) and on a very weak team (where Atlas was the only batsman of quaity) where he bore the brunt of the pressure and the opposition's attention, faced more challenging circumstances. And he is normally discounted because of the number of tests he played. Just wondering about the though process.
Last edited by kyear2; 28-04-2013 at 09:43 AM.
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 | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
You can get too bogged down worrying thought processes. I just pick what I can consider from watching and reading over many years who I consider to be the best two openers, the best three middle order batsman, the best allrounder, the best keeper, the best two pacemen and the best two spinners.
1. Barry Richards
2. Jack Hobbs
3. Don Bradman
4. Viv Richards
5. Sachin Tendulkar
6. Garry Sobers
7. Alan Knott
8. Shane Warne
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Muttiah Muralitharan
You can rabbit on all day about having Gilchrist as the keeper and using Imran and get the slide rule out and say that Viv rarely batted at 4 or Barry Richards didn't play enough. I couldn't give a monkey's about any of that drivel - that team wouldn't get beaten very often.
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.
For example the only truly great spinner he kept to in Tests was Tiger O'Reilly, just the once, in NZ just after the war - NZ mustered just 96 in their two innings combined, 8 of them byes
In 46/47 Tallon conceded 91 byes in the 5 Tests, as against 47 by Godfrey Evans for England, which strikes me (in both cases) to be a lot more than you'd expect given their reputations
The Top 10 Misers are;
See article: Blogs: Analysing wicketkeepers by byes conceded | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo
Note: There is a 'fudge factor' that adjusts the Byes : Deliveries ratio according to which country the Test match was played in. This is because, 'wicket-keeping is easier in some countries than in others'. I assume that the author has made the 'fudge factor' fair.
Last edited by watson; 29-04-2013 at 02:39 AM.
The number of byes is a nonsense way to judge a keeper unless you see them all being conceded and can say how many were his fault.
Also, 84 Byes conceded over 29,517 deliveries is still impressive however you view it, and must carry some statistical weight because 29,000+ is a big number (in relative terms).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)