ESPNcricinfo World XI

[Ruckus]

Well I think he'd have a better chance of improving his record if he had a better technique. That's my point.
What he's achieved so far is in spite of his technique, his technique can be improved, thus I feel his performances can be improved.

Which takes us back to my very first post IIRC. If Batsman A averages 55 using a textbook technique and Batsman B averages 55 using a flawed technique, then it's stupid to consider Batsman A superior to Batsman B. In fact I think it more logical to think the opposite but illogical to consider either

Wasn't that my point haha? Thats why he isn't better than Ponting, because, assuming all other things are equal, his technique is more flawed. If he happens to score lots of runs against swing in the future, it will mean perhaps his technique isn't flawed. But I think, given his previous record using his current technique, if he faces such conditions he won't perform well.

If all other things are equal (things not to do with technique like determination etc.) then Batsman A has to average more than batsman B by definition. Btw I assume by textbook technique you are refering to good technique lol...

 

[Ruckus]

booooo. i was looking forward to more pedantic technique discussion

did I deliver?

 

[GotSpin]

Also, the only times I've criticised discussion is when:

its either

- On a topic that has been discussed ad nauseum and is clearly going around in circles
- Targets a particular player in an effort to prop up their own favourite player

or

- Is extremely pedantic because a couple posters insist on dissecting a post sentence by sentence and focusing on a single irregularity with their own views

 

[Teja.]

Also, the only times I've criticised discussion is when:

its either

- On a topic that has been discussed ad nauseum and is clearly going around in circles
- Targets a particular player in an effort to prop up their own favourite player

or

- Is extremely pedantic because a couple posters insist on dissecting a post sentence by sentence and focusing on a single irregularity with their own views

Nah, You used to generalize the entire of CC to be crap a lot before, just because a few threads were not to your liking.

 

[GotSpin]

I understand your point, but honestly that could be said for MOST all time XIs don't you think?

Part of the reason I refuse to construct my own AT XI - It'd change almost from week to week and there'd always be players who I'd subsequently feel that they'd been hard done by.

 

[GotSpin]

Nah, You used to generalize the entire of CC to be crap a lot before, just because a few threads were not to your liking.

That was at a time when about 5 threads that were on the first page were utter bile and consisted of my main gripes against CC

 

[Ruckus]

Also, the only times I've criticised discussion is when:

its either

- On a topic that has been discussed ad nauseum and is clearly going around in circles
- Targets a particular player in an effort to prop up their own favourite player

or

- Is extremely pedantic because a couple posters insist on dissecting a post sentence by sentence and focusing on a single irregularity with their own views

Why do they call it Ovaltine? The mug is round. The jar is round. They should call it round tine.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why do they call it Ovaltine? The mug is round. The jar is round. They should call it round tine.

Best reply.

 

[GotSpin]

Why do they call it Ovaltine? The mug is round. The jar is round. They should call it round tine.

We can make up for it over soup at mendy's

 

[Jarquis]

Wasn't that my point haha? Thats why he isn't better than Ponting, because, assuming all other things are equal, his technique is more flawed. If he happens to score lots of runs against swing in the future, it will mean perhaps his technique isn't flawed. But I think, given his previous record using his current technique, if he faces such conditions he won't perform well.

If all other things are equal (things not to do with technique like determination etc.) then Batsman A has to average more than batsman B by definition. Btw I assume by textbook technique you are refering to good technique lol...

I think we're both making the same point, just different interpretations.
Going back to the inital post, you say Ponting is better because his technique is better... but the point I was making is that technique is actually irrelevant to who is better. It's about scoring runs, that's what the should be judged on at the end of the day.

However, the fact Ponting has a better technique should not count in his favour, in fact it could be argued against him. Ponting's technique optimises his run scoring ability, it allows him to transform his reactions, his reflexes, his shot selection etc etc into runs.
On the other hand, Sehwag's technique could be said to inhibit his run scoring, that the fact he manages to score similar amounts of runs to Ponting despite an inferior technique means that his reactions/shot selection/whatever and several areas of batting are superior to Ponting's.

 

[Ruckus]

I think we're both making the same point, just different interpretations.
Going back to the inital post, you say Ponting is better because his technique is better... but the point I was making is that technique is actually irrelevant to who is better. It's about scoring runs, that's what the should be judged on at the end of the day.

However, the fact Ponting has a better technique should not count in his favour, in fact it could be argued against him. Ponting's technique optimises his run scoring ability, it allows him to transform his reactions, his reflexes, his shot selection etc etc into runs.
On the other hand, Sehwag's technique could be said to inhibit his run scoring, that the fact he manages to score similar amounts of runs to Ponting despite an inferior technique means that his reactions/shot selection/whatever and several areas of batting are superior to Ponting's.

Sehwag deficits in technique indeed might mean he has more potential . But being realistic, 1. It is highly unlikely Sehwag will alter his technique. 2. Sehwag might not be able to train himself to have a better technique. 3. If he did train himself to imrprove his deficits, he might end up losing his previously good areas of batting. The situation isn't black and white, and you have to look at it in a realistic sense (i.e. Sehwag is 32, he has been playing this way his whole career etc.).

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah, I'm not saying he will change his technique or that he will get better, but the fact he hasn't doesn't make Ponting better than him.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah, I'm not saying he will change his technique or that he will get better, but the fact he hasn't doesn't make Ponting better than him.

Yeh it does. Because Ponting has averaged more runs (with a more equal distribution of those runs over all conditions) than Sehwag. Sehwag could potentially be better than Ponting, but the fact is he isn't at the moment. And judging by his previous records in SA and playing swing bowling, there is only evidence to suggest he won't EVER be better than Ponting.

I'm open to things changing, but thats just my opinion at the moment.

 

[Jarquis]

We were talking about if he averaged 70 in his next 20 Tests ffs. Not right now.

Even if that happened and he ended up finishing his career with an average of around 55, I'd still put Ponting above him. Ponting is just a way more versatile batsmen to have with better technique.
.

 

[ankitj]

Great team chosen by cricinfo.McGrath,Imran,Hadlee and Murali unlucky to miss out,but everyone in that side deserves to be there.

I will dare to blaspheme and say that Wasim Akram doesn't. His exploits in ODIs where he was a great great bowler are wrongly extended to assessment of his value as a test bowler. Even in that talk with Ian Chappell on this chosen XI, he mentions 92 world cup final when talking about Wasim

To start with check this and be surprised:

Reliance Mobile ICC Player Rankings

Those are career best ratings, an indication of how good one has been at his peak. Now consider Imran who had the 3rd greatest peak and could bat too and was a great leader. This is why some of us are totally disappointed on Wasim's selection over Imran.

 

[Ruckus]

We were talking about if he averaged 70 in his next 20 Tests ffs. Not right now.

Oh right, the tense you used made it seem like you meant now. But anyway, I think I have gone into depth enough about my opinions on the highlighted matter.

What was this thread about again?

 

[Faisal1985]

I just don't agree with leaving Imran out of the World XI and putting Sobers or Akram over him.

 

[GotSpin]

I just don't agree with leaving Imran out of the World XI and putting Sobers or Akram over him.

Sobers>Imran>Akram

I mean, Sobers can make it based on his batting alone.

 

[Faisal1985]

Sobers>Imran>Akram

I mean, Sobers can make it based on his batting alone.

Not in the context of that lineup though. The batting is literally loaded.

 

[vcs]

I understand your point, but honestly that could be said for MOST all time XIs don't you think?

Part of the reason I refuse to construct my own AT XI - It'd change almost from week to week and there'd always be players who I'd subsequently feel that they'd been hard done by.

awta.