ESPNcricinfo World XI

[Days of Grace]

If he had to face a consistent set of quality quicks in that period, i strongly believe his average would have been similar to his record againts quality spin as shown above. With him playing the odd shot gun innings mixed with alot of low scores between. But his average wouldn't have been anywhere close to 50 IMO, which would be the tie breaker in the picking him over a pure glovesman like Knott in a ATXI.

Let`s look at this another way: Gilly, it could be theorised, was not used to such high-quality attacks as the one`s you mentioned (England 2005). Thus he was likely to average lower than his overall stats.

However, I would argue that if he did indeed face high-quality attacks more often than not in the early part of his career, he would have become accostomed to them and, whilst not averaging as high as 60, probably would have been capable of averaging 40+ and not a mere 30.

 

[sifter132]

Totally DWTA TBF.

Firslty from you start talking about non-existant things like "time machines" haa to defend pre war (1900-1939) batsmen except of Bradman, Hammond, Chapell, McCabe. You are going to far IMO.

Well if I recall YOU are the one who bought up how Hobbs would go in a game right now against the quick bowlers of the modern era. That's a non-existent fantasy too as I don't see Hobbs ever getting a chance to play against them. So I don't see my time machine has to be bagged

Thats why i always say when people pick these All-time XI. You have to decide what you picking these teams for. If its a wall of fame XI to hang or your wall, then the likes of Trumper, Barnes etc would be given their record & impact on the game.

Exactly. I personally think that a world XI should be a hall of fame type selection. Otherwise surely the modern players would have the advantage. They have the best training, and even the dodgy fielding of Pakistan would probably look good against the average team in the 60s. I can't imagine that older players would be more skilled than modern players either. How exactly would players in a sport get worse over time?? Is there a sport where that's happened?

That's why when the arguments fly that the old players couldn't survive, it's a bit lame. Of course!!! They lived in the dark ages and they'd have a lot of problems if they showed up at a cricket ground wanting a match. So realistically the all time XI should be players from the last 5-10, maybe 20 years. Unless they were absolute standouts eg. maybe Bradman, maybe Sobers. That's frightfully boring to pick though, and it closes the minds of the fans to the history of the game.

Old players could/should get to use modern batting equipment for example without a doubt. That would help them presuming they get time to adjust in a few practice matches before the real test matches begin.

Why not send the modern players back?? Give them scrawny pads, thin bats and make them bat in caps.


Also, on Adam Gilchrist it must be mentioned: He was very unselfish and he'd often come in when quick runs were desired for a declaration, play an ambitious hoick and get out cheaply. So for those clinging to averages, it's something to keep in mind. He never played for his average.

 

[aussie]

Let`s look at this another way: Gilly, it could be theorised, was not used to such high-quality attacks as the one`s you mentioned (England 2005). Thus he was likely to average lower than his overall stats.

However, I would argue that if he did indeed face high-quality attacks more often than not in the early part of his career, he would have become accostomed to them and, whilst not averaging as high as 60, probably would have been capable of averaging 40+ and not a mere 30.

I dont buy the whole "not accustomed to argument" TBF. Thats what separtes Ponting, Dravid, Sangaka, Langer, Hayden, for eg in the 2000s era from others FTBs. Since although they plundered runs of roads too, they where able to adjst at very instant they faced high quality attacks or make the adjustment after initial struggles. While other batsmen (FTBs) would get exposed when they faced top pacers in one series & go right back to hammering joke attacks on roads.

Gilly unfortunately didn't just after he was exposed in Ashes 05. Just like he never adjusted to playing quality spin. He just was hit & miss againts the quality spin & thats what i reckon he would done if a consistent amount of quality quick attacks where present.

We all would have still been in awe of his ability to turn a match with a blazing shot gun innings. But I'd say he would have been capable of doing it averaging anywhere in the 30s but under 40. But not anywhere close to 50+60 as he did between PAK 99 - NZ 05, which the ESPN panel picked him expecting he could do againts another ATG bowling attack, which based on his career is impossible AFAIS TBH.

 

[Ikki]

LOL so Gilchrist was found out after 05 and was flawed allll along. Just don't buy it.

Personally find it funny the Ashes 05 attack is constantly harped as a great attack. Yeah, they were fantastic for a series but those guys hardly played together and one by one certainly were not greats. How is Gilchrist to prove himself when he'd never face that attack like that again. Always disagreed with how Richard would build an argument against Hayden in that series too; forgetting Hayden hadn't scored a century in some 19 consecutive tests IIRC and went into that series in poor form.

 

[ankitj]

Well.....Pak fielding has always been bad......I remember once Wasim was on a hattrick and a simple chance came to Imran at mid on and he dropped it........

I don't remember exactly but I think that I remember reading that more than a quarter of his wickets were tailenders........not sure if I remember correctly........the percentage was lower for Waqar and Imran (this much I recall for sure)

Wasim's 35-36% wickets come from tail. Compare that to Marshall who takes 26% of tail. For a better picture you can look at: www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html. Wasim has a fairly low average value of wicket.

 

[aussie]

Well if I recall YOU are the one who bought up how Hobbs would go in a game right now against the quick bowlers of the modern era. That's a non-existent fantasy too as I don't see Hobbs ever getting a chance to play against them. So I don't see my time machine has to be bagged

Thats what the ESPN World ATXI was picked for basically. A hypotetical game againts another ATG team.

Of course the game would never happen except in our fantasy. Thus the correct & most fair conditions for the players to play under would have to be used.

Exactly. I personally think that a world XI should be a hall of fame type selection. Otherwise surely the modern players would have the advantage. They have the best training, and even the dodgy fielding of Pakistan would probably look good against the average team in the 60s. I can't imagine that older players would be more skilled than modern players either. How exactly would players in a sport get worse over time?? Is there a sport where that's happened?

That's why when the arguments fly that the old players couldn't survive, it's a bit lame. Of course!!! They lived in the dark ages and they'd have a lot of problems if they showed up at a cricket ground wanting a match. So realistically the all time XI should be players from the last 5-10, maybe 20 years. Unless they were absolute standouts eg. maybe Bradman, maybe Sobers. That's frightfully boring to pick though, and it closes the minds of the fans to the history of the game.

As i said in that previous post. Cricket has been of a very similar style & standard since the 1950s:

- A regular diet of two of quality new-ball bowlers of the 80-90 mph vs openers in most teams

- change in the lbw rule.

- Introduction of helmets

- elimination of timeless tests

- 6 ball pers over in all natiosn except for AUS in the 60s & 70s

- No uncovered wickets, except the last phase of it in England during the 60s.

All Has been very consistent in test cricket for more than 60 years now. So i'd say comparing players across era's in the last 60 years can be easily done. I can see no difference between comparing from the 1950s to 90s in terms of standard of cricket.

Its the pre-war 1900-1939 & 1877-1899 era of players in which they played in different world of cricket basically. That would be become serious achillies heels in ATXI for the top 8 nations or an ESPN world XI.

Why not send the modern players back?? Give them scrawny pads, thin bats and make them bat in caps.

Because as i said above, the that 60 years of cricket the style & tends of the game has been similar & you are trying to put the together best & most fair conditons for these hypotetical match-ups to be played under. Thus modern improved equipment should used for all players including the old timers, especially the post war old timers since as i showed up those from 1950s onwards would be fairly accustomed to the style trends of a test match in 2010.

Old equipment shouldn't be used at all. Just like for the hypotetical playing conditons:

- 8 ball overs should be used
- test shouldn't be timeless
- no old lbw rule
- no uncovered wickets

 

[aussie]

LOL so Gilchrist was found out after 05 and was flawed allll along. Just don't buy it.

Personally find it funny the Ashes 05 attack is constantly harped as a great attack. Yeah, they were fantastic for a series but those guys hardly played together and one by one certainly were not greats. How is Gilchrist to prove himself when he'd never face that attack like that again. Always disagreed with how Richard would build an argument against Hayden in that series too; forgetting Hayden hadn't scored a century in some 19 consecutive tests IIRC and went into that series in poor form.

Well obviously between 99-05 nobody knew what the flaw was around since no body tried it & no bowlers where good enough around to expose it all. Until England with Flintoff tried a tactic & they exposed the world copies for the back end of his career & Gilly never adjusted.

Its same way after Lara was on fire between 1992-1994. When McGrath in the 94/95 found a around the wicket-tactic to him, thus exposing his flaw that he & other quality bowles worldwide exposed & target for the remainder of his career . Of course Lara being a legend was able to counter it & score many many great innings, but especially overseas he was found out.

Secondly Gilly certainly had a chance to prove himself againts a another quality pace attack. Have you forgetton how Ntini & co exposed that around the wicket tactic vs SA 05/06?

Thirdly that ENG attack wasn't just great in the 05 Ashes. It was good/great for 1 whole year before the Ashes. Individually none of them will go down as great fast-bowlers, but they where most lethal 4-prong pace attack of the 2000s era.

 

[Jono]

Hating on Sehwag and Gilly, so sacrilegious

 

[vic_orthdox]

Well obviously between 99-05 nobody knew what the flaw was around since no body tried it & no bowlers where good enough around to expose it all. Until England with Flintoff tried a tactic & they exposed the world copies for the back end of his career & Gilly never adjusted.

After the success of Mullaly and Vaas against Gilchrist in a One Day series (1998/99), many right arm bowlers went around the wicket to Gilchrist early on to him. There was a fair bit of success, but then Gilchrist adjusted to it, and began scoring freely again. To suggest that no-one went around the wicket to him before then isn't correct.

 

[Noble One]

After the success of Mullaly and Vaas against Gilchrist in a One Day series (1998/99), many right arm bowlers went around the wicket to Gilchrist early on to him. There was a fair bit of success, but then Gilchrist adjusted to it, and began scoring freely again. To suggest that no-one went around the wicket to him before then isn't correct.

I was thinking the same thing. It was always a common tactic to Gilchrist after the 98/99 series to bowl around the wicket. I recall Pollock was always quick to bowl around the wicket to Gilchrist to try and expose his 'weakness'.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

By aussie's own admission,only series played bet. full strength teams count.So Ashes 05 doesn't count...

 

[vcs]

By aussie's own admission,only series played bet. full strength teams count.So Ashes 05 doesn't count...

Burgey approves.

 

[aussie]

After the success of Mullaly and Vaas against Gilchrist in a One Day series (1998/99), many right arm bowlers went around the wicket to Gilchrist early on to him. There was a fair bit of success, but then Gilchrist adjusted to it, and began scoring freely again. To suggest that no-one went around the wicket to him before then isn't correct.

I should have been more sepcific & said no pacer/pace attack in test cricket between 99-05 tried/good enough to try the around the wicket tactic to him in tests & or where good enough to maintain it consistently like ENG 05 & SA 05/06.

I certainly do remember that 98/99 ODI series whenit occured, plus in the 99 WC it was an issue for him as well. I remember Akram, Ambrose & Elworthy bowling with that around the wicket line in that tournament

Plus you had this dismissals in ENG 2001: YouTube - Shoaib Akhtar vs Gilchrist [This is how you reply to enemy] & many other times in ODIs like this over the years. So yes the weakness was sort of always known.

 

[aussie]

By aussie's own admission,only series played bet. full strength teams count.So Ashes 05 doesn't count...

Good trolling, but thats never been a POV i share.

I always say that unless you are legendary team with great bench strenght like Windies 76-91 & AUS 95-2006/07. Teams in general cannot be expected two lose key players to injuries who are basically the heart beat of the side & be expected to maintain that high level of performance.

AUS bench strenght in general during that period to win them many series with key players missing. They won in SRI 04 & SA 06 without McGrath for example, to very very tough tours.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Good trolling, but thats never been a POV i share.

I always say that unless you are legendary team with great bench strenght like Windies 76-91 & AUS 95-2006/07. Teams in general cannot be expected to lose key players to injuries who are basically the heart beat of the side & be expected to maintain that high level of performance.

AUS bench strenght in general during that period to win them many series with key players missing. They won in SRI 04 & SA 06 without McGrath for example, to very very tough tours.

Funny how the one test Eng lost in that series had McGrath in it.And no,highlighting your double standards is not trolling.

 

[smash84]

I should have been more sepcific & said no pacer/pace attack in test cricket between 99-05 tried/good enough to try the around the wicket tactic to him in tests & or where good enough to maintain it consistently like ENG 05 & SA 05/06.

I certainly do remember that 98/99 ODI series whenit occured, plus in the 99 WC it was an issue for him as well. I remember Akram, Ambrose & Elworthy bowling with that around the wicket line in that tournament

Plus you had this dismissals in ENG 2001: YouTube - Shoaib Akhtar vs Gilchrist [This is how you reply to enemy] & many other times in ODIs like this over the years. So yes the weakness was sort of always known.

But Akram bowled him over the wicket.........

 

[aussie]

Funny how the one test Eng lost in that series had McGrath in it.And no,highlighting your double standards is not trolling.

Okay i just told you only great teams with great bench strenght can be expected to lift & maintain the same standard of performance they would normally have when they lose key/main players in general.

Then you reply here my telling me this a double standard because in the test ENG lost, McGrath did play.

Something between your left ear & right year is missing without a doubt.

 

[aussie]

But Akram bowled him over the wicket.........

Well i was refering to Elworthy & Ambrose when i said around the wicket. I would have thought mentioning Akram as you said, most would be well aware that the left-armer wold bowl to him form over the wicket. That dismissal is similar to the way Vaas & Mullaly left arm bowlers troubled him in 98/99 ODIs in AUS.

 

[GotSpin]

Funny how the one test Eng lost in that series had McGrath in it.And no,highlighting your double standards is not trolling.

Missed his point tbf.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Then you reply here my telling me this a double standard because in the test ENG lost, McGrath didn't play.