Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 53
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: The Official Cricketweb Criteria for Selecting ATG XIs

  1. #31
    Cricketer Of The Year watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,967
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    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.
    Last edited by watson; 10-07-2013 at 03:59 PM.
    01. Victor Trumper 02. Warren Bardsley 03. Clem Hill 04. Charlie Macartney 05. Warwick Armstrong 06. Monty Noble 07. George Giffen 08. Hugh Trumble 09. Jack Blackham 10. Fred Spofforth 11. Ernie Jones

    01. Jack Hobbs 02. WG Grace 03. Kumar Ranjitsinhji 04. Johnny Tyldesley 05. Frank Woolley 06. Stanley Jackson 07. Frank Foster 08. Arthur Lilley 09. George Lohmann 10. Tom Richardson 11. Sydney Barnes

  2. #32
    Cricketer Of The Year watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,967
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    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.

  3. #33
    International Coach G.I.Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    12,988
    No, it's not. It is possible for the inspiree to surpass the inspirer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    If GI 'Best Poster On The Forum' Joe says it then it must be true.
    Athlai doesn't lie. And he doesn't do sarcasm either, so you know it's true!


    'You will look very silly said Mr Salteena with a dry laugh.
    Well so will you said Ethel in a snappy tone and she ran out of the room with a very superier run throwing out her legs behind and her arms swinging in rithum.
    Well said the owner of the house she has a most idiotick run.'


  4. #34
    Cricketer Of The Year watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,967
    Quote Originally Posted by G.I.Joe View Post
    No, it's not. It is possible for the inspiree to surpass the inspirer.
    Yes, that could be true as well.


  5. #35
    International Vice-Captain kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    4,561
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    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.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3

  6. #36
    Hall of Fame Member HeathDavisSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum... And I'm all out of bubblegum.
    Posts
    16,183
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    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.
    >>>>>>WHHOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHH>>>>>>
    Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation Society
    Supporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
    Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.


    Vimes tells it how it is:
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes View Post
    Heath worryingly quick.
    ~~~~Categorically not Heath Davis~~~~

  7. #37
    International Coach hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    11,716
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    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.

  8. #38
    Cricketer Of The Year watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,967
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    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.

  9. #39
    Hall of Fame Member HeathDavisSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum... And I'm all out of bubblegum.
    Posts
    16,183
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    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.

  10. #40
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    20,767
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    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.

  11. #41
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    20,767
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    this is an excellent rule.

    Trying to think of players that it eliminates.
    Perhaps someone like Mark Boucher, where one day people will look at his impressive dismissals count and include him. I guess someone like Jason Gillespie or a Stuart MacGill who played second fiddle to McGrath and Warne for much of their careers. Its not really that special a rule as like you its not that easy to think of players it eliminates.

  12. #42
    Cricketer Of The Year watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,967
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    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.
    Of course he 'deserves to be in the mix'. I don't think that anyone has said otherwise.

  13. #43
    Hall of Fame Member HeathDavisSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum... And I'm all out of bubblegum.
    Posts
    16,183
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    CW seems not to place a lot of emphasis on being the best in the World, as Hadlee is consistently in the contention for the first XI despite never being the best bowler in the world, and not regarded among the very best as I have never seen him listed in anyone's (historians, past players, commentators, publications ect) AT XI except for those on CW who prefer to have a team that bats to #11 at the expense of the actual bowling attack.
    To me, this quote is saying that Hadlee doesn't deserve to be in the mix.

  14. #44
    Cricketer Of The Year watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,967
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    To me, this quote is saying that Hadlee doesn't deserve to be in the mix.
    Oh I see where you are coming from.

    However, (to use an analogy), not every film that is nominated to win an Acedemy Award actually wins the Acedemy Award. But that doesn't mean that anyone of the nominated films isn't better than the eventual winner. It's just that most/all of the commentators voted a certain way according to their own opinions.

  15. #45
    State Captain Coronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,850
    Its also ridiculous to say that Hadlee was never the best bowler in the world.
    ATG Test XI
    1. J.B Hobbs 2. H. Sutcliffe 3. D.G Bradman 4. S.R Tendulkar 5. W.R Hammond 6. G.S Sobers 7. A.C Gilchrist 8. Richard Hadlee 9. M.D Marshall 10. S.K Warne 11. G.D McGrath

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Official Cricketweb Science Thread!
    By Top_Cat in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 2300
    Last Post: 22-07-2016, 11:40 AM
  2. ** Official Cricketweb Horseracing thread **
    By Blewy in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 1037
    Last Post: 09-04-2016, 10:32 AM
  3. **The Official CricketWeb History Thread**
    By Furball in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 19-03-2011, 09:48 PM
  4. ***Official*** Cricketweb Survivor
    By Mister Wright in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 21-07-2005, 02:09 AM
  5. censorship criteria at cricketweb
    By royGilchrist in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 13-11-2002, 10:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •