The Official Cricketweb Criteria for Selecting ATG XIs

[kyear2]

From a previous post I made, a comparative look at other 11's released:

Geoff Armstrong
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Pollock, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Marshall, Warne, Barnes

Cricinfo
Hutton, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Akram, Warne, Lillee

Geoffrey Boycott
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Headley, Richards, Sobers, Knott, Marshall, Warne, Lillee, Barnes

Bleacher
Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Miller, Imran, Warne, Marshall, Barnes

Benaud
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Imran, Gilchrist, Warne, Lillee, Barnes

CricketWeb
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Marshall, Warne, McGrath

Christopher Martin-Jenkins
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Warne, Barnes, McGrath

The Roar
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Warne, Lillee, McGrath


Not a amention of Hadlee.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

And none of those line-ups are tainted by their own inherent biases, no doubt. And of course, if you were to find the doyen on New Zealand cricket, he wouldn't name Hadlee ahead of some of those bowlers in those line-ups?

Pick and choose all you like, it doesn't make an inherently biased viewpoint any less biased.

 

[Flem274*]

WARNING: Temporarily going off topic.

By his own admission Richard Hadlee was only ever an imitation of Dennis Lillee . And when Lillee reached the end of career then Malcolm Marshall took over the mantle of greatest fast bowler of his era. So I'm with kyear on this issue.

Richard Hadlee talks about his bowling hero Dennis Lillee - YouTube

Twatto probably thinks he's the best opener in Australia too.

Just because someone said something doesn't mean it's true. If Sachin said Ponting is better than him would it make it true? No, it wouldn't, it would still be very debateable.

But then I'm pretty sure you're the guy who thinks Barry Richards is the bees knees of test cricket because another batsman said so.

And none of those line-ups are tainted by their own inherent biases, no doubt. And of course, if you were to find the doyen on New Zealand cricket, he wouldn't name Hadlee ahead of some of those bowlers in those line-ups?

Pick and choose all you like, it doesn't make an inherently biased viewpoint any less biased.

What this guy said.

 

[watson]

My 8 Simple Rules..

1 Test performances count. 99% of the cricketers career should only focus on Test Cricket and I would say 100% in the current era.

2 To further add to number 1, none of this 4 Test career bull****. Richards Test career lasted under 50 days, he was still on his probation period. Realistically nowadays no one should make the team unless they play 70 Tests and that number should probably be about 80 Tests for Cricketers from Australia and England where Tests occur more frequently. Obviously that number is too high for Cricketers who retired 30+ years ago, so I use I guess reluctantly 20 Tests as an absolute bare minimum.

3 Being a match winner and match saver is important. 5 wicket hauls and big tons are important, batsman need double tons.

4 You need to be regarded as the best player in the world at your discipline at a particular time, unless there is a freak player like Bradman ahead of you and you are quite close.

5 A great average and overall record against the top tier teams are required. What great is depends on the era.

6 You have to like the guy and his style or story. Its your team after all.

7 Performances away from home count, anyone with a weak record away is going to be considered a home track bully. The ability to perform in different conditions is what Test Cricket is all about.

8 Dates must be in crowded public places. You want romance? Read a book.

8/9. Personal testimonies and assessments by expert co-players and umpires should be given due credit. Especially for players who have played fewer Test matches, or for pre-WWII players because film footage was either poor or unavailable.

 

[Flem274*]

lawl

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

8/9. Personal testimonies and assessments by expert co-players and umpires should be given due credit. Especially for players who have played fewer Test matches, or for pre-WWII players because film footage was either poor or unavailable.

Yeah. I like this idea. I can selectively choose testimony from Trevor Bailey to support my selection of any player from Essex. Makes my life a lot easier, as my Garnham by osmosis campaign seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

 

[NUFAN]

8/9. Personal testimonies and assessments by expert co-players and umpires should be given due credit. Especially for players who have played fewer Test matches, or for pre-WWII players because film footage was either poor or unavailable.

That fits into the fourth rule.

 

[watson]

That fits into the fourth rule.

Fair enough. Then that would give some latitude to players like Graeme Pollock (I won't mention the other bloke) who played fewer Tests than many other greats (23 is not a lot), and Sydney Barnes who we can never watch in action apart from a dubious 10 second video.

 

[NUFAN]

Yep. It gives them a chance but it doesn't give Barry Richards one because he fails rule 2 and rule 3 and perhaps rule 6

I have absolutely no problem with Sydney Barnes especially. 27 Tests was a very respectable career in his day, not looking on cricinfo at the moment, but I'm confident his career spanned 10+ years.

 

[fredfertang]

WARNING: Temporarily going off topic.

By his own admission Richard Hadlee was only ever an imitation of Dennis Lillee . And when Lillee reached the end of career then Malcolm Marshall took over the mantle of greatest fast bowler of his era. So I'm with kyear on this issue.

Richard Hadlee talks about his bowling hero Dennis Lillee - YouTube

I don't think Hadlee's opinions on his own ability are really very much help - it's a bit like me, being an essentially self-effacing individual, asserting that I am the worst lawyer who has ever been in a courtroom, 'cos even I know, itbt, that already this decade there have been possibly as many as half a dozen worse than me

 

[watson]

Yep. It gives them a chance but it doesn't give Barry Richards one because he fails rule 2 and rule 3 and perhaps rule 6

I have absolutely no problem with Sydney Barnes especially. 27 Tests was a very respectable career in his day, not looking on cricinfo at the moment, but I'm confident his career spanned 10+ years.

Barry Richards fails Rule 2. However, he does have a double century against a good Aussie attack in WSC, so Rule 3 is a pass IMO. Rule 6 is purely a matter of subjective personal taste so should carry little weight.

There is not much doubt that Barry Richards was regarded as one of the best openers in the world by 1970-71, if not the best;

Barry Richards - ESPN Legends Of Cricket No. 24 (Part 1) - YouTube

So, I propose a clause - Rule 4 supercedes Rule 2 when it is universally accepted that the player under question passes Rule 4.

 

[watson]

I don't think Hadlee's opinions on his own ability are really very much help - it's a bit like me, being an essentially self-effacing individual, asserting that I am the worst lawyer who has ever been in a courtroom, 'cos even I know, itbt, that already this decade there have been possibly as many as half a dozen worse than me

Hadlee's answer to Benaud's question wasn't a cursory; "Oh I guess Lillee".

Rather, Hadlee admitted that he studied Lillee in great detail to learn about his bowling techniques and then modelled himself on Lillee - not Roberts, or Snow.

Admittedly, I am quibbling over a matter of principle - the Mentor (the 'Original') should be more highly regarded than the Pupil (the 'Copy')- but it's a farely good principle just the same.

 

[G.I.Joe]

No, it's not. It is possible for the inspiree to surpass the inspirer.

 

[watson]

No, it's not. It is possible for the inspiree to surpass the inspirer.

Yes, that could be true as well.

 

[kyear2]

And none of those line-ups are tainted by their own inherent biases, no doubt. And of course, if you were to find the doyen on New Zealand cricket, he wouldn't name Hadlee ahead of some of those bowlers in those line-ups?

Pick and choose all you like, it doesn't make an inherently biased viewpoint any less biased.

So all of them are biased?

And additionally I didn't pick and choose, those were all of the XI's I could find online.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

So all of them are biased?

And additionally I didn't pick and choose, those were all of the XI's I could find online.

Of course they're all biased.

 

[hendrix]

My 8 Simple Rules..

4 You need to be regarded as the best player in the world at your discipline at a particular time, unless there is a freak player like Bradman ahead of you and you are quite close.

this is an excellent rule.

Trying to think of players that it eliminates.

 

[watson]

Of course they're all biased.

People naturally gravitate to things that they have grown-up with, or are familiar with. So I don't think that there is anything wrong with this sort of natural affinity to certain cricketers.

However, there is such a thing as 'deliberate bias'. This I don't like because it generally comes with some kind of 'agenda'.

And so we should be careful not to confuse 'natural affinity' with 'deliberate bias' because they imply different things.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

And so we should be careful not to confuse 'natural affinity' with 'deliberate bias' because they imply different things.

When you are trying to claim that Hadlee doesn't deserve to be in the mix because various sources have said so, then 'natural affinity' and 'deliberate bias' amount to the same thing.

 

[NUFAN]

Barry Richards fails Rule 2. However, he does have a double century against a good Aussie attack in WSC, so Rule 3 is a pass IMO. Rule 6 is purely a matter of subjective personal taste so should carry little weight.

There is not much doubt that Barry Richards was regarded as one of the best openers in the world by 1970-71, if not the best;

Barry Richards - ESPN Legends Of Cricket No. 24 (Part 1) - YouTube

So, I propose a clause - Rule 4 supercedes Rule 2 when it is universally accepted that the player under question passes Rule 4.

Man... He fails rule 3 because that match was not in TEST CRICKET. He fails rule 2 because that rule was designed for cricketers with such short Test Cricketers to FAIL.

Obviously these are just my rules and I said if you fail any one of the 7 rules, I'm not considering them. So no matter what, I'm not picking a Test Cricketer who's entire, and I can't stress enough times, career lasted under 50 days. You can continue disagreeing with my rules and I am willing to make some minor changes, but not to suit a Test novice, focus on another Cricketer that you discover.