Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
That's the joke. Pretty obvious to me that you are only kicking up a fuss because Richard is the one conducting the polls. Poor form.
That's the joke. Pretty obvious to me that you are only kicking up a fuss because Richard is the one conducting the polls. Poor form.
Interesting, in ODIs I would clearly rate Tendulkar better than Lara, Jones and Hussey (already he's in there?). And better than Waugh at the top. I am surprised you don't think so.I'm thinking he shouldn't be in the side as the following is my top 7:
1. Gilchrist
2. M. Waugh
3. Ponting
4. Lara
5. Jones
6. Hussey
7. Bevan
umm..maybe a bit of Aussie bias creeping in, so he could possibly replace Deano who should also get into the earlier era team.....now that's worthy of a Poll, which era should Dean Jones be selected in as the era's you selected have split his career exactly down the middle
Pre-1990: 84 matches, 3044 runs @ 45.43
Post-1990: 80 matches, 3024 runs @ 43.82
btw, voted Tendulkar should open
Well, I did write at the bottom that I voted Tendulkar as opener I was mainly trying to show that maybe it is possible that he be left out of some people's teams, albeit only with extreme bias as I did name 6 Aussies in the top 7.....add Warne & McGrath and that would be 8 Aussies in the XIInteresting, in ODIs I would clearly rate Tendulkar better than Lara, Jones and Hussey (already he's in there?). And better than Waugh at the top. I am surprised you don't think so.
I'm having Deano in the earlier team, for reasons which would probably be best stated in the main thread (and therefore will be).now that's worthy of a Poll, which era should Dean Jones be selected in as the era's you selected have split his career exactly down the middle
Pre-1990: 84 matches, 3044 runs @ 45.43
Post-1990: 80 matches, 3024 runs @ 43.82
The fact that that is inestimatably unlikely suggests that it'd not be unreasonable to do so.And if all of a sudden a bunch of people voted for Sachin not to be in the team, do you think it would be right to ignore those opinions, just because you dont agree with them?
And yes, Robert is right. The whole point of having two teams is that the two eras are so different as to make combination impossible. You can't really change the fact that the two sides we'll end-up with played a different game to the other. Quite unlike, for instance, an all-time Pakistan XI vs an all-time West Indies XI.Knowing Richard, I'd give that a definite "NO!!" answer.Richard at the end of this are you going to make it into a debate as to who would win in the match?
Well, as you said, we ARE talking about an all-time ODI XI here. He could be batted in other positions and we'd still have cover. The same could go for Bradman in an all-time ODI XI. Still, I think you play your best player in their most deadly spot.The fact that it's his favourite position shouldn't automatically say that he bats there - it's what makes the strongest side.
However, with a World XI when there's many outstanding middle-order players available, it's not at all unreasonable to put him there really.
You can - but you just have to speculate how the earlier era team would go if you showed them a dvd of all the Aussies' games at this years world cup to study and then gave them a couple of years to learn the newer style of play, and only then held the big match.And yes, Robert is right. The whole point of having two teams is that the two eras are so different as to make combination impossible. You can't really change the fact that the two sides we'll end-up with played a different game to the other. Quite unlike, for instance, an all-time Pakistan XI vs an all-time West Indies XI.
And if you can't combine the two eras, you can't really play a game that involves both playing the game they played.
IMHO, 2 week polls are too long. I think you should only run week-long polls.2 week poll, but we can now consider the result as decided. Will post the next one sometime soon.
OK, will do from now on.