Cricinfo Best Test 11 from last 25 years

[cnerd123]

That is*

That is your face

 

[Burgey]

So which team had the best worst player - or, to put it another way, who's the best ever player who was the worst player in his team?

As an opening bid: the England XI at the Oval in 1953 was Hutton, Edrich, May, Compton, Graveney, Bailey, Evans, Laker, Lock, Trueman, Bedser. Not packed with ATGs, but no obvious weak links either.

Brett Lee in Australia’s 2006/2007 Ashes side is a good shout here.

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Clark
McGrath.

Alternatively, Symonds in the same side once once Martyn retired is worth a mention too. Hardly a dud player but very much a bit player in that outfit.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Mine does the same thing. It's annoying.

Switch your phone to PC web page display, and it will stop doing it.

 

[Victor Ian]

Switch your phone to PC web page display, and it will stop doing it.

I guess you must be a relative of ***** with hobbitses fingers too. I suppose I could switch just for edits but most times I have confidence in you guys figuring out what I mean.

 

[Engle]

It's hard to rate the batting of a bowler as a thing in an ATG team. Hadlee would hardly ever need to bat. Therefore his practice would go down and he'd become a McGrath. McGrath, in a good batting team never needed to give a shot about his batting. Hadlee, in a **** batting team did. I might pick hadlee over McGrath but I don't think I'd ponder too much on the bowling part. So now someone will point out that this atg team is playing against an art team so batting matters again, but against an atg team hadlee does not bat as well as his career suggests, so picking a bowler for their batting... I'm not sure.

Exactly my thinking...and I'm sure.

Let's say Hadlee is playing for the NZ of his time, where batting was chronically weak. Thus, his batting skills are very relevant.

Now, let's say NZ batting has an infusion of very good batsmen. Let's say Border, Chappell, Ponting are NZealanders. Thus, Hadlee's batting requirments start to become less relevant.

Extrapolating, let's say NZ batsmen now have superstar batsmen, the creme de creme, the best of the best. Thus, Hadlee's batting requirements continue to reduce ...to the point of becoming irrelevant.

Would you grant/agree with the above thinking ?

So, for an ATG team, which really is a match of fantasy for the minds, just pick your best bowlers. Pick your best bowlers. Pick your best bowlers.
For the leftover players who don't make the ATG 1st XI, that's when you can go batting deep.

 

[Bolo]

So which team had the best worst player - or, to put it another way, who's the best ever player who was the worst player in his team?

As an opening bid: the England XI at the Oval in 1953 was Hutton, Edrich, May, Compton, Graveney, Bailey, Evans, Laker, Lock, Trueman, Bedser. Not packed with ATGs, but no obvious weak links either.

You can rule out most of the ancient teams if you judge the wk on modern standards. Evans would get nowhere near a team today.

Something with Gilchrist is almost certainly the answer on modern standards. Burgey's is a good shout, or maybe the 4th bowler in a Warne Mcgrath Fleming team.

Exactly my thinking...and I'm sure.

Let's say Hadlee is playing for the NZ of his time, where batting was chronically weak. Thus, his batting skills are very relevant.

Now, let's say NZ batting has an infusion of very good batsmen. Let's say Border, Chappell, Ponting are NZealanders. Thus, Hadlee's batting requirments start to become less relevant.

Extrapolating, let's say NZ batsmen now have superstar batsmen, the creme de creme, the best of the best. Thus, Hadlee's batting requirements continue to reduce ...to the point of becoming irrelevant.

Would you grant/agree with the above thinking ?
.

Batting from the tail only becomes superfluous if you have a significantly stronger outfit than the opposition. Playing against another ATG team, you need runs from the tail just as much as you would if two weak teams were playing each other

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Batting from the tail only becomes superfluous if you have a significantly stronger outfit than the opposition. Playing against another ATG team, you need runs from the tail just as much as you would if two weak teams were playing each other

Or you could simply say that McGrath played for an ATG side, and yet Steve Waugh still made him his batting coach because runs scored matters to the team and a batsman stuck not out.

 

[Engle]

Or you could simply say that McGrath played for an ATG side, and yet Steve Waugh still made him his batting coach because runs scored matters to the team and a batsman stuck not out.

An ATG side is a fantasy side. It is not a real-life side. It may span nations. Or span decades, eras....the very beginning of the game. In this case, it spans both, nations and eras.

There is not a single real-life side that cannot be improved upon by replacing a player from a different era or nation.

Thus, S.Waugh's side was a very good real life side. But it's not an All Time Great side. So, it's fine for him to coax McGrath to improve his batting.

But If you had an ATG Aus XI with Bradman in it, can you envision Bradman coaxing McGrath to improve his batting ?

Would you have in an ATG Aus XI, Benaud instead of Warne ?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

An ATG side is a fantasy side. It is not a real-life side. It may span nations. Or span decades, eras....the very beginning of the game. In this case, it spans both, nations and eras.

There is not a single real-life side that cannot be improved upon by replacing a player from a different era or nation.

Thus, S.Waugh's side was a very good real life side. But it's not an All Time Great side. So, it's fine for him to coax McGrath to improve his batting.

I think you may be over complicating this. Keep it simple. Even the greatest team of its own era saw the need to improve the batting of their number 11 so as to win more games and lose less.

But If you had an ATG Aus XI with Bradman in it, can you envision Bradman coaxing McGrath to improve his batting ?

Yes to Bradman, even he could make a duck, a century in a lost game, or send in lambs to the slaughter as the pitched dried out.

Would you have in an ATG Aus XI, Benaud instead of Warne ?

Maybe, but Warne's batting wasn't altogether horrid and he certainly got the wickets much much more quickly than Benaud did at a clearly better average. So I probably favouring Warne, but I see some merit to the likes of Beanaud, Davidson, and Lindwall's claims for higher recognition due to their batting and could well end up with a Benaud, Davidson, Lindwal combo.

But if you want to discuss Benaud and Warne further, I am really not your man as my interest factor is not sufficient. You'll have to take up that debate with someone else.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You can rule out most of the ancient teams if you judge the wk on modern standards. Evans would get nowhere near a team today.

Something with Gilchrist is almost certainly the answer on modern standards. Burgey's is a good shout, or maybe the 4th bowler in a Warne Mcgrath Fleming team.

Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and Lee played together I'm sure. Easily Lee the worst.

 

[Daemon]

What about Colin Miller in the Steve Waugh sides?

Australia also have definitely played Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and MacGill together. Should be interesting to see who the weakest batsmen was in that XI. Could be someone really good like Martyn.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What about Colin Miller in the Steve Waugh sides?

Australia also have definitely played Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and MacGill together. Should be interesting to see who the weakest batsmen was in that XI. Could be someone really good like Martyn.

When Miller played the more recent of his games it would have been Slater, Hayden, Langer, Waugh x 2, Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne/MacGill, McGrath, Gillespie

So yeah maybe Miller if you think he was better than Lee.

 

[Daemon]

When Miller played the more recent of his games it would have been Slater, Hayden, Langer, Waugh x 2, Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne/MacGill, McGrath, Gillespie

So yeah maybe Miller if you think he was better than Lee.

Nah, too short a career.

Watson is a shout imo. Was the weakest player in a stupidly strong team on his debut.

 

[Bolo]

I rank them as macgill>=Martyn>lee>Watson.

Don't remember Miller at all.

Burgey's team still wins for mine, unless there's a similar batting lineup without Lee.

 

[Cow]

Adam Dale wasn't even a professional cricketer. Yet he got game for Aus.

 

[ankitj]

ok but you get the point. This is why I never liked the idea of having Dravid as keeper, even in ODIs, though I know there wasn't exactly much to choose from back then (Ratra, Mongia, MSK Prasad, Dighe?).

You have my like for knowing these names. Also, Vijay Dahiya.

 

[trundler]

The men's ODI XI of the last 25 years | ESPNcricinfo 25 year Anniversary | ESPNcricinfo

Men's ODI XI. Cricinfo clearly gives their imaginary XIs much less thought than we do. Kallis at six, FFS!

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The men's ODI XI of the last 25 years | ESPNcricinfo 25 year Anniversary | ESPNcricinfo

Men's ODI XI. Cricinfo clearly gives their imaginary XIs much less thought than we do. Kallis at six, FFS!

Lol. 2 wicket keepers and only 4 bowlers with Kallis as 5th.

Poor team.

Where is Amla?

Kohli at 4? If he hasn't beaten Lara and Punter already...

 

[trundler]

Lol. 2 wicket keepers and only 4 bowlers with Kallis as 5th.

Where is Amla?

Poor team.

Absolutely horrid team. Lara ahead of Ponting at 3 in ODIs doesn't make sense. Tests, sure. ODIs, not at all. Ponting was the superior ODI bat. Kohli at 3 makes more sense too.
Anyway mine was:
Gilly
Sachin
Ponting
Kohli
ABDV
Symonds/Hussey
Klusener
Pollock
Akram
Murali
McGrath

 

[harsh.ag]

Kallis at 6 is pants selections. Others are justifiable including Lara over Ponting (although it's tough on Ricky)

Watson/Klusener/Flintoff at 7 (Dhoni at 6) and that's a fine team (can't be Symonds if you have two spinners already)