Test XI for The Last Quarter Century

[trundler]

Should have Bradman in the ODI ATG XI tbh. And Sobers too. They dominated at Tests, I'm sure it'll convert.

And MSD averaged more than Gilly did, why don't we open with him instead?

Well the Don had a test strike rate of about 60, (lowest I've read is 58, highest 62). That's a lot higher than Hammond (30s) and Archie Jackson even (high 20s in the 1930 Ashe I think). Plus, he only ever got run out once and was great at picking gaps (no **** Sherlock). I bet he could strike at 85+ and average 130 with a lot of not outs. After all, a 4 is only worth 2 less than a six and he hits 12 of those every match in tests. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't be the greatest ODI bat (high SR, excellent runner, excellent at picking gaps, excellent performer under pressure and so on) ... except that he never played an ODI. I wonder what the Don thought of ODIs? Sobers thought they produced batsmen incapable of batting long.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Really Mr Miyagi, what you've done here is:

1) Present an idea that wasn't completely thought through (An ODI XI of the last 25 years that attempts to bat deep)

Does it bat deep? Yes. Thought through. Does it have 6 bowlers? Yes. Thought through. So what are the team's strengths and what are the weaknesses. Do the weaknesses outweigh the strengths?

2) Present a bold stance (Jos Butler is deserving of being in such an XI)

Agreed.

3) Reacted badly when the basic team structure was challenged (players batting out of position, no McGrath)

No, I have swapped Kluesner and Flintoff around in the batting order. I am not reacting badly at all.

4) Reacted badly when the bold stance was challenged (deeming Dhoni and Bevan batted 'too slow' and that Butler's performances would convert against ATG bowlers; basically no adjustment for eras or weight given to established performers)

What do you mean by reacted badly?

5) Stubbornly held on to your initial (probably hastily thought through) stances and insisted that if people don't like it they should put you on ignore.

You say stubborn, I say persuade me.

There are some interesting ideas that are worth exploring there (like it could be fun to think of how do we structure an ODI team that can bat deep and not sacrifice bowling strength too much, or whether or not that strategy is even one worth pursuing, and how do we rate Butler and what doe he need to do to be in the conversation), but you don't need to dig in the trenches and fight for this. It's not worth it.

I'm not at war with you *****.

 

[cnerd123]

Change of batting order due to *****'s suggestion to all roles players are more than familiar with:

1 Tendulkar
2 Amla
3 Kohli
4 ABdV
5 Watson
6 Buttler
7 Flintoff (and if you still dislike him that much, I am happy to put C Cairns back here if you convince me that he deserves to as against Flintoff)
8 Kluesner
9 Pollock
10 Akram
11 Murali

No one cares enough to convince you what your XI should be lol

We just like pointing out when people are wrong. And we've done that enough in this thread. Up to you if you want to engage with those criticisms meaningfully or not.

Well the Don had a test strike rate of about 60, (lowest I've read is 58, highest 62). That's a lot higher than Hammond (30s) and Archie Jackson even (high 20s in the 1930 Ashe I think). Plus, he only ever got run out once and was great at picking gaps (no **** Sherlock). I bet he could strike at 85+ and average 130 with a lot of not outs. After all, a 4 is only worth 2 less than a six and he hits 12 of those every match in tests. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't be the greatest ODI bat (high SR, excellent runner, excellent at picking gaps, excellent performer under pressure and so on) ... except that he never played an ODI. I wonder what the Don thought of ODIs? Sobers thought they produced batsmen incapable of batting long.

I think Sobers would have been gun at ODIs tbh. It's funny he thought that given his one ODI innings was a duck

Can't seem to find anything on Bradman's views on ODIs. He did score 100 of 22 balls once in a club game thou. Guy was a beast.

If Martians came down to play Earth in an ODI to determine our survival, do we resurrect prime Bradman and prime Sobers and put them in the team or not? Assuming we're given like, a year to prepare them for it. Let them adjust to new equipment and laws and stuff.

 

[trundler]

The batting deep is countered by the mediocre bowling. Your team has an equal likelihood of 350 (which it equally capable of leaking imo) and 200 all out (which it is incapable of defending).

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The batting deep is countered by the mediocre bowling. Your team has an equal likelihood of 350 (which it equally capable of leaking imo) and 200 all out (which it is incapable of defending).

Please do share how you came to this.

 

[cnerd123]

The truth cannot be taught

We must let Mr Miyagi be to seek and learn for himself why he is mistaken

Lots of good points have already been raised in this thread. It's up to him if he choose to engage with them or not.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And then you just say "well if they concede a lot of runs they'll chase it down too". Well yea maybe. We've yet to see that formula win a world cup.

There's something innately appealing about fielding a team with crazy deep batting though. I can't explain it, but this isn't the first time the logic has been put forward, " don't worry too much about the bowling, just stack with batsmen and you can chase anything". And it's so tempting.

But you're right, we know that it just doesn't work in practice. It's having great bowlers that really makes the difference more often than not.

 

[trundler]

No one cares enough to convince you what your XI should be lol

We just like pointing out when people are wrong. And we've done that enough in this thread. Up to you if you want to engage with those criticisms meaningfully or not.




I think Sobers would have been gun at ODIs tbh. It's funny he thought that given his one ODI innings was a duck

Can't seem to find anything on Bradman's views on ODIs. He did score 100 of 22 balls once in a club game thou. Guy was a beast.

If Martians came down to play Earth in an ODI to determine our survival, do we resurrect prime Bradman and prime Sobers and put them in the team or not? Assuming we're given like, a year to prepare them for it. Let them adjust to new equipment and laws and stuff.

In my head, the resurrected ATGs play tour first-class against current test teams to get used to the conditions, rules and new developments. They then play a game against the #1 ranked side like touring parties play against an A team for example. Bradman and Trumper face Ashwin in Chennai to get used to it so they can get ready to dominate Murali/Warne whoever is in your second XI.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well the Don had a test strike rate of about 60, (lowest I've read is 58, highest 62). That's a lot higher than Hammond (30s) and Archie Jackson even (high 20s in the 1930 Ashe I think). Plus, he only ever got run out once and was great at picking gaps (no **** Sherlock). I bet he could strike at 85+ and average 130 with a lot of not outs. After all, a 4 is only worth 2 less than a six and he hits 12 of those every match in tests. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't be the greatest ODI bat (high SR, excellent runner, excellent at picking gaps, excellent performer under pressure and so on) ... except that he never played an ODI. I wonder what the Don thought of ODIs? Sobers thought they produced batsmen incapable of batting long.

I doubt many people would argue that Don wouldn't be the greatest ODI bat if he had played. He's in his own class and probably always will be.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

No one cares enough to convince you what your XI should be lol

We just like pointing out when people are wrong. And we've done that enough in this thread. Up to you if you want to engage with those criticisms meaningfully or not.

You use we and us a lot in your writing.

Anyway, you may think I am wrong, I know it is not 'wrong'.

The question is one of degree. How good or strong is the team. The team I have picked isn't 'wrong'. All 11 players are correctly picked by me.

So unless you can persuade me that the weaknesses of my team outweigh the strengths; I am happy with it.

'Wrong' is an absolute position to take.

 

[trundler]

Please do share how you came to this.

Eh, guesswork. It's an exact science trust me!
Your best case scenario is that the Twatto, Buttler and the all-rounders also make quick, big scores which wouldn't happen a lot. Your worst case is scenario is your useful bats getting out like your useless ones which wouldn't happen a lot either, imo.

 

[trundler]

I doubt many people would argue that Don wouldn't be the greatest ODI bat if he had played. He's in his own class and probably always will be.

There's the odd Sachin fan in the YouTube comments who think Bodyline was the Don's failure (despite averaging 56+ at a strike rate of 75 against a block trying to hurt you) and that he only played in 2 countries against terrible bowling (never mind no one, ranging from the Master to the 'Black Bradman' came close to him). The first rule of being a hardcore cricket fan should be being a Bradman believer.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You use we and us a lot in your writing.

Anyway, you may think I am wrong, I know it is not 'wrong'.

The question is one of degree. How good or strong is the team. The team I have picked isn't 'wrong'. All 11 players are correctly picked by me.

So unless you can persuade me that the weaknesses of my team outweigh the strengths; I am happy with it.

'Wrong' is an absolute position to take.

No one's telling you that you have to change your imaginary team. Anyone can pick whoever they like, obviously. But the purpose of this thread is discussion about players' and teams' hypothetical merits and limitations. People will disagree with you and that's the point of the thread. Don't take it personally if someone disagrees with you.

tbh I like your team and it provides something different at least from the usual.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Eh, guesswork. It's an exact science trust me!

Your best case scenario is that the Twatto, Buttler and the all-rounders also make quick, big scores which wouldn't happen a lot.

That isn't my best case. My best case is they do it often enough.

Your worst case is scenario is your useful bats getting out like your useless ones which wouldn't happen a lot either, imo.

Don't quite follow what you meant to say as I agree with what you have written and it is plain; I don't expect my useful bats to get out like my useless ones.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

No one's telling you that you have to change your imaginary team. Anyone can pick whoever they like, obviously. But the purpose of this thread is discussion about players' and teams' hypothetical merits and limitations. People will disagree with you and that's the point of the thread. Don't take it personally if someone disagrees with you.

tbh I like your team and it provides something different at least from the usual.

I'm not taking it personally JediBrah, and I am happy to discuss my team. I am even happy to change things about it if persuaded.

 

[cnerd123]

There's something innately appealing about fielding a team with crazy deep batting though. I can't explain it, but this isn't the first time the logic has been put forward, " don't worry too much about the bowling, just stack with batsmen and you can chase anything". And it's so tempting.

But you're right, we know that it just doesn't work in practice. It's having great bowlers that really makes the difference more often than not.

Yup. It may be in the future that #BatDeep becomes the new standard for ODI strategy - England in 2019 WC will be the litmus test - but as Mr Miyagi himself said, he's picking a team based on what happened in the last 25 years, not what will happen in the next 5. Batting deep at expense of bowling is just not a proven strategy

Personally if I was to do that, I'd go

Sachin
Jayasuriya
Kallis
Viv / ABDV / Kohli
Symonds
Bevan
Dhoni (+)(*)
Pollock
Dev
Warne
McGrath

So basically you bat to 10 and still have, essentially, an ATG bowling lineup - Symonds/Kallis/Jayasuriya filling in the remaining 10 overs. You have Bevan and Dhoni for the runchases, and that number 4 can be any of those explosive guys.

 

[trundler]

No one's telling you that you have to change your imaginary team. Anyone can pick whoever they like, obviously. But the purpose of this thread is discussion about players' and teams' hypothetical merits and limitations. People will disagree with you and that's the point of the thread. Don't take it personally if someone disagrees with you.

tbh I like your team and it provides something different at least from the usual.

TJB and Miyagi, sitting in a tree. K-I-S-S-I-N-G

 

[trundler]

Yup. It may be in the future that #BatDeep becomes the new standard for ODI strategy - England in 2019 WC will be the litmus test - but as Mr Miyagi himself said, he's picking a team based on what happened in the last 25 years, not what will happen in the next 5. Batting deep at expense of bowling is just not a proven strategy

Personally if I was to do that, I'd go

Sachin
Jayasuriya
Kallis
Viv / ABDV / Kohli
Symonds
Bevan
Dhoni (+)(*)
Pollock
Dev
Warne
McGrath

So basically you bat to 10 and still have, essentially, an ATG bowling lineup - Symonds/Kallis/Jayasuriya filling in the remaining 10 overs. You have Bevan and Dhoni for the runchases, and that number 4 can be any of those explosive guys.

Wouldn't have Kallis. SR is important after all. I cant forgive him for that 48 off 75 something balls whilst chasing a huge total.

 

[trundler]

Kohli to move up and Flintoff at 4 or 5. Or Shakib somewhere lower.

 

[cnerd123]

Wouldn't have Kallis. SR is important after all. I cant forgive him for that 48 off 75 something balls whilst chasing a huge total.

Yea honestly it bothers me too. But I suppose he can be the anchor around whom everyone goes beserk

Or maybe we let Viv, Bevan and Sachin be bowling options too. Then it's Sachin/Jaya/Kohli/Viv/Symonds/Bevan in the the top 6. I'm sure we can squeeze out 10 overs between them without too much damage, right?