Ian Chappells World Eleven for the Super series

[Deja moo]

Here it is:

Virender Sehwag
Stephen Fleming (captain)
Rahul Dravid
Brian Lara
Sachin Tendulkar
Jacques Kallis
Sangakkara (wicket-keeper)
Irfan Pathan
Anil Kumble
Shane Bond
Muttiah Muralitharan

12th man .Andrew Flintoff.

Thoughts ?

 

[Tim]

Im surprised he's left out the all-rounder Andrew Flintoff..and im even more surprised that Irfan Pathan gets in there!

So he's decided to go with 2 spinners & just 2 quick bowlers with really only Kallis as the back-up.
Personally I wouldn't pick that bowling attack..Bond has been out of test cricket for over a year & Pathan is very in-experienced.

 

[Tim]

http://www.htcricket.com/htcricket/74_000100040015,879411.htm

Here's Chappell's article & reasons for the team he selected.

 

[Deja moo]

Im surprised he's left out the all-rounder Andrew Flintoff..and im even more surprised that Irfan Pathan gets in there!

So he's decided to go with 2 spinners & just 2 quick bowlers with really only Kallis as the back-up.
Personally I wouldn't pick that bowling attack..Bond has been out of test cricket for over a year & Pathan is very in-experienced.

2 spinners are ok vs Australia ,I think.

Flintoff being left out puzzles me somewhat.

And Irfan Pathan , guess Chappell thinks he will be one of the best in a years time .

 

[Deja moo]

Ah , this explains it then....
quote from the article...I have chosen Kallis as the all-rounder just ahead of Flintoff but I have the feeling that the South African's bowling is on the wane while the Englishman is on an upward curve. If this is the case then I would play Flintoff and make Kallis twelfth man as a bowling all-rounder is more value than the batting variety..

 

[Tim]

Playing Bond & Pathan as the strike bowlers would be extremely risky IMO.
Although if Bond comes back before then & hits form it would be justified...Pathan is still only 19 or 20 and probably needs another few years yet.

 

[Craig]

VVS Laxman must be one of the most unluckiest players not to make the XI.

The man who played that magic knock in Kolkata in 2001, and then made two centuries last time around in Australia and along with that 75 in Brisbane along with Ganguly's 100 as India fought back.

 

[tooextracool]

heres a little quote "Fleming gets the nod ahead of Michael Vaughan, Graeme Smith or Herschelle Gibbs because a good captain is imperative and the Kiwi skipper is the only one who plays Australia at their own game."

a good captain is imperative?what about 2 genuine openers??
how anyone could select pathan and bond ahead of the likes of pollock & harmison is beyone belief really.

 

[tooextracool]

Ah , this explains it then....
quote from the article...I have chosen Kallis as the all-rounder just ahead of Flintoff but I have the feeling that the South African's bowling is on the wane while the Englishman is on an upward curve. If this is the case then I would play Flintoff and make Kallis twelfth man as a bowling all-rounder is more value than the batting variety..

well he has only gone in with 2 frontline fast bowlers, one terribly inexperienced and unproven and the other who still hasnt recovered completely from injury and has just modified his action.

 

[Arjun]

That said, Kallis cannot be counted out- he has a very good Test and ODI bowling record. Even then, with Sangakkara as a keeper, he has to have 5 genuine bowlers.

Just because a bowler is inexperienced doesn't mean he's not a good bowler, does it? Williams, Bracken, Harmison, Butler and Best have proven that, so why not Pathan?

Pollock's exclusion is also strange, and so is that of Laxman. A more reliable keeper like Mark Boucher would also help the spinners.

 

[tooextracool]

you would be the only person to call bracken,williams,butler and best as proven......pathan has only played 2 series, while harmison has played since 02 and harmison has enjoyed quite a bit of success as opposed to pathan's average of 38?

 

[Simon]

my thoughts are chappell is an idiot, for someone who achieved so much in cricket and has a "well respected" media personality covering the game, he really has no idea.....

 

[marc71178]

Thoughts ?

Did this need a seperate thread?

 

[Loony BoB]

heres a little quote "Fleming gets the nod ahead of Michael Vaughan, Graeme Smith or Herschelle Gibbs because a good captain is imperative and the Kiwi skipper is the only one who plays Australia at their own game."

a good captain is imperative?what about 2 genuine openers??
how anyone could select pathan and bond ahead of the likes of pollock & harmison is beyone belief really.

I don't know about Pathan at all, but as for Fleming, it's quite true that he knows and can read Australia's game better than any other captain and he is the kind of guy that can win games by being a captain rather than a batsman. Also, as of late, he's not what anyone would call a shabby batsman at all - although I would argue that you could use him in a different position, but I'm not really that fussed because the way he's developing as an opener has been promising if anything.

As for Bond, well, I'm guessing that he's assuming that Bond will continue his previous form once he's better. If he does continue it then he deserves his spot because he can bowl Australia out better than any other bowler in world cricket. That should be for sure. Having said that, I can't see why Harmison wouldn't be the man to partner him. I'm guessing it's because Chappy wanted Murali in the team (with good reason) and he didn't want to have three straight tailenders in the squad.

 

[kwigibo]

my thoughts are chappell is an idiot, for someone who achieved so much in cricket and has a "well respected" media personality covering the game, he really has no idea.....

I couldn't agree more. The only thing Ian Chappell has ever been right about is the horrible state of Australian immigration policy. Get him near a cricket match, and forget it. At least Mark Taylor has the sense to seemingly not be able to say anything intelligible. Cricket journalism would benefit greatly if they both vanished from the face of the earth.

 

[delkap]

I wonder how many of you who criticise Chappel so easily, hv played cricket at the highest level, seen the best closely, seen the conditions and hv excelled in this field too. Most of you go by recorsd, which is not always the best way to judge a cricketer.

 

[Loony BoB]

I don't think anyone's judging his ability to play cricket, and I think everyone agrees that he was a great cricketer. They're just judging his ability to play selector / journalist.

I don't think his team is that much worse than a bunch of the other teams I've seen thrown around lately. I don't think he's "rubbish" either - a rubbish selector would pick players like Vettori or Gilchrist in the rest-of-world XI, not the players he's selected.

 

[Kenneff]

Hi there everyone I enjoy reading this board while i'm at work Its one of the few boards which has intelligent cricket discussion, so i thought I'd share my limited cricketing knowledge.

I have no problem with batting line up and i quite like the thought of flemming in there as i think the role of a good captain is often underrated. Personally i would like to see Thorpey in there though it would be difficult to find a place for him though. I know his stats don't compare to the likes of tendulkar and lara but he has averaged over 60 in his last 25 tests and playing better than ever and probably one the best batsmen to have in a run chase situation. (averages over 100 in 4th innings). I know most wouldn't agree with this and I know it's my English bias showing through but what the hell i think hes a great player.

I think the bowling is a bit of a gamble though, I can't believe he has pathan and bond over harmison who is undeniably the best fast bowler at the moment on current form.
I would also have pollock in there too great bowler and no mug with the bat. Pathan is unproved more so than harmision and bond has been out injured for the last year.

anyway thats my humble opinion let me know what you think.

 

[Loony BoB]

I agree that Harmy should be in but bare in mind that Thorpe doesn't average over 100 in his 4th innings - in fact, he averages 36.20, which is below his overall average of 43.93. In his last 25 matches that he's played (where England batted the 4th innings), eh averages 52.45. Not sure where the average-over-100 comes from...

 

[Kenneff]

sorry should have said when england have been on the winning end (think I saw it in a wisden article), the point i was making was he is very good in under pressure situations and a pleasure to watch when in full flow. Not saying he should get in the side but I just thought it was strange how nobody had considered him.