Aaron.....An interesting criteria I should say. What does this mean? That if you had watched only a handful of school boys playing cricket then you would have picked them up over international cricketers since those school boys were the only ones you ever saw playing?
It is your opinion, I guess. I was just curious as to whether you were deliberately excluding certain countries or it just ended up that way, particularly as you were excluding the ones with the better winning records over history. One of the main criteria I look for when choosing an alt-time great would be that your presence makes your side a winning one (regardless of conditions) and so I would mostly be looking for players from sides with winning records.
If I didn't see it, it never happened!
Calling into question how much you've seen of Sobers. You know it's a valid argument not wanting to select Bradman because you haven't seen him, but then at least stay consistent.
I'm interested in knowing if, without the Cricinfo limitations, You'd pick Kallis over Hammond?
Excellent team. Quite similar to mine. Only that I had Greame Pollock in place Hammond and Richards in place of Headley. Also instead of Barnes I had Lillee in my team. Fantastic team still.
Cricinfo has Kallis in as a specialist batsman, so I could've done that. On another day I probably would've too; Kallis is one of my favourite ever cricketers and certainly my favourite cricketer that could be in contention for something like this. I rate Hammond as the marginally better batsman though and even though Kallis's bowling would strengthen the team it wouldn't add that much with a decent fifth bowler already present, and I wasn't feeling in a particularly biased mood.
Any reason you've got Headley at 3 and not Bradman?
In a word, no.
In a word, no.
I knew Bradman's preferred spot was three but I thought that (unlike Headley) he'd batted a decent bit at four too. Only eight innings though apparently and he averaged just 50, so I'll swap them.
Haha, here I was thinking you had some deep reasoning behind it. Should've known better.In a word, no.
I knew Bradman's preferred spot was three but I thought that (unlike Headley) he'd batted a decent bit at four too. Only eight innings though apparently and he averaged just 50, so I'll swap them.
him.
Haha well I did actually have a reason for it, but what I based that reason on turned out to be entirely my imagination.
By the way who gets to captain this world XI? Does it have to be the best player in the team or the guy who captained the side best?Haha well I did actually have a reason for it, but what I based that reason on turned out to be entirely my imagination.
not necessarily. bradman was as good a captain as anybody in the history of the game. his batting order reversal strategy to handle a sticky wicket was the stuff of legends. and he is the only captain to have led a team to a series win in a five test series after losing the first two matches like he did against SA in 1936. and, of course, the 1948 tour of england posed every possible test a captain might have to face in his entire career in terms of game strategy, man management and political diplomacy, and bradman passed all of them in flying colors. imran was a superb captain but he is not assured of a place in everyone's all time xi. bradman is. he should be the captain.
True....