The Official Cricketweb Criteria for Selecting ATG XIs

[NUFAN]

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.

 

[watson]

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.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

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.

 

[watson]

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.

 

[Coronis]

Its also ridiculous to say that Hadlee was never the best bowler in the world.

 

[smash84]

Its also ridiculous to say that Hadlee was never the best bowler in the world.

From 1989 until his retirement in 1991 Hadlee was CLEARLY the best bowler in the world, and that too I pick just the last 3 years of his career. During that time he was definitely ahead of Marshall.

Kyear2, please remember that repeating something again and again doesn't make it true

 

[Red]

Just pick whoever the **** you want to pick. If someone disagrees, so be it.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Just pick whoever the **** you want to pick. If someone disagrees, so be it.

I like this idea.

 

[G.I.Joe]

To me, someone being 'in the mix' would imply that there would be days when I'd pick him in my XI. If I claim that Tendulkar and Lara are in the mix, it would mean that there would be days when I'd pick Tendulkar at #4, and other days when I'd change my mind and pick Lara at #4 instead. But if someone has made his mind up that they wouldn't pick Hadlee for the XI, instead preferring another player to him at all times, then they really shouldn't be claiming that they have Hadlee in the mix. The way I see it, Hadlee definitely deserves to be in the mix.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Current ATG ITM XI

Hobbs, Gavaskar, Hutton
"
Bradman
Lara, Tendulkar, Richards
"
Sobers
Gilchrist
Imran, Hadlee, Marshall
"
Warne, Muralitharan
McGrath, Barnes, Trueman

 

[kyear2]

For me it's not that complicated.

Best bowling All Rounder : Imran, much better batsman than Hadlee and brings more to the teaam with reverse swing that Hadlee would.
Best two Fast Bowlers : Malcolm Marshall and Glenn McGrath, easily for me better bowlers than Hadlee who proved themselves the world over in all conditions and who were the main reasons why their teams were the best in the world... ever. Foe me I also rate Ambrose, Lillee, Trueman and Holding over Hadlee as pure bowlers, and as except for the #8 slot, selection is purely based on bowling merits, for me he is not "in the mix". No disrespect intended.

Plus as previously mentioned, I have never seen an ATG XI from a past player, historian, commentator or publication that had Hadlee in the first XI, it doesn't mean he wasn't an ATG, but just not as esteemed as or by his peers.
An no, they (especially a compilation slection lile cricinfo) cannot all be biased.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

An no, they (especially a compilation slection lile cricinfo) cannot all be biased.

Of course they can. Watson put this particularly well when he clarified the difference between "bias" and "natural affinity". Geoff Boycott selecting Alan Knott, everyone else selected Adam Gilchrist. There were no Kiwi-led selections in your list, no doubt they would favour Hadlee over Imran and vice versa from a Pakistani point of view. This is still a bias inherent in the sample - people tend to select the more familiar over the less familiar in tight comparisons. So, yes, all of those XIs will be biased.

 

[Flem274*]

Example of inherent bias in ATG selections: kyear manipulating Bradman criteria so he could select a West Indian middle order instead of the greater Australian one.