Allrounders XI vs. Specialists XI

[vcs]

Allrounders XI

Watson
Jayasuriya
Sangakkara (wk)
Kallis
Miller
Sobers
Botham
Imran (c)
Wasim
Hadlee
Warne

Specialists XI

Gavaskar
Hobbs
Bradman (c)
Tendulkar
Richards
Gilchrist (wk)
Steyn
Marshall
McGrath
Ambrose
Murali

Who would win a 5-match series played in a variety of conditions throughout the world?

I couldn't think of better openers for the All-rounders X!, please suggest better options.

 

[StephenZA]

Wilfred Rhodes | England Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo... possibly.

But specialists always win imo.

 

[watson]

Trevor Goddard or Vinoo Mankad perhaps. Eddie Barlow is sort of an allrounder.

Since Marshall, McGrath and Ambrose are a fair pace attack I don't think that Steyn should take the place of a batsman. If you want a decent trundler to bowl some overs then McCabe and Greg Chappell were OK with ball without being true allrounders

 

[harsh.ag]

All Rounders XI:

WG Grace
Charlie Macartney
Jacques Kallis
Garfield Sobers (c)
Aubrey Faulkner
Keith Miller
Adam Gilchrist (w)
Ian Botham/Mike Procter
Imran Khan
Richie Benaud/Wilfred Rhodes
Richard Hadlee

Warne and Wasim aren't all rounders imo. Gilly much better than Sanga.

The specialists are gonna have to be on their A game to beat this side.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I couldn't think of better openers for the All-rounders X!, please suggest better options.

Vinoo Mankad of course. Barlow and Goddard good options as well but Mankad gives the bowling attack extra variety.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Since Marshall, McGrath and Ambrose are a fair pace attack I don't think that Steyn should take the place of a batsman.

Steyn > Ambrose, though, so I'd just drop Curtly as much as I love him.

 

[vcs]

I also thought 5 bowlers makes the Specialists XI a tad short in batting depth, but then again they have Bradman so they can afford it.

Having only 4 bowlers is a problem if you need 70+ overs to bowl out the opposition. Steyn's old ball skills would be pretty handy in such a situation.

 

[Shady Slim]

i'd say just for fairness sake give both sides the same keeper

 

[Gob]

Steyn > Ambrose, though, so I'd just drop Curtly as much as I love him.

Nah

 

[ImpatientLime]

Steyn > Ambrose, though, so I'd just drop Curtly as much as I love him.

I wish there were a dislike button

 

[watson]

Gilchrist is technically an allrounder. For the Specialist side we should be picking someone like Herbert Strudwick, Wally Grout, or perhaps Bob Taylor.

 

[vcs]

I tend to consider batting to be part of a wicketkeeper's must-have skills, not a bonus.

 

[harsh.ag]

I tend to consider batting to be part of a wicketkeeper's must-have skills, not a bonus.

You're breaking Bob Taylor's heart.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think the choice of "specialist" for a keeper should be someone who was good enough to make the team as a keeper. I don't know whether Gilchrist was necessarily the best keeper in Australia after Healey retired, but he was definitely a Test class keeper - unlike a lot of those who are thrown the gloves these days.

 

[harsh.ag]

I think the choice of "specialist" for a keeper should be someone who was good enough to make the team as a keeper. I don't know whether Gilchrist was necessarily the best keeper in Australia after Healey retired, but he was definitely a Test class keeper - unlike a lot of those who are thrown the gloves these days.

Runs into a problem when we consider other skills though. The only batsmen being considered are those who weren't good bowlers, not the ones who were simply good enough to make the team as batsmen. Same should apply for keepers.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Not too many real rabbits. Taylor and Grout both made the odd half century and averaged in the mid teens and could stick around. Another one would be Wasim Bari.

 

[harsh.ag]

Not too many real rabbits. Taylor and Grout both made the odd half century and averaged in the mid teens and could stick around. Another one would be Wasim Bari.

Yeah, but that's fine I think (Taylor and Grout and others of their ilk). I mean Tendulkar could get a few wickets every now and then, but we wouldn't question his place in the specialists team.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Nah

I wish there were a dislike button

Look at these lame Steyn deniers.

Steyn has just as many wickets as Ambrose despite having played fewer tests, has a ridiculously low average, and a truly obscene strike rate. He's not as cool as Curtly though.

 

[Coronis]

Look at these lame Steyn deniers.

Steyn has just as many wickets as Ambrose despite having played fewer tests, has a ridiculously low average, and a truly obscene strike rate. He's not as cool as Curtly though.

No way! The players I grew up with are sooooo much better than whoever came before them and whoever comes after them.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Gilchrist is technically an allrounder. For the Specialist side we should be picking someone like Herbert Strudwick, Wally Grout, or perhaps Bob Taylor.

yes. Sangakkara & Gilchrist are basically the same "all-rounder wise", not sure how one is considered an all-rounder and one a specialist.

The keeper for the specialist side should be a specialist wicket-keeper, not someone in the team primarily for their batting, obviously

I also thought 5 bowlers makes the Specialists XI a tad short in batting depth, but then again they have Bradman so they can afford it.

Having only 4 bowlers is a problem if you need 70+ overs to bowl out the opposition. Steyn's old ball skills would be pretty handy in such a situation.

Yeah but that's the whole point of the exercise. A "specialists XI" is going to be "short" in some aspect, by definition.