All-Time World XIs: Discussion Thread

[capt_Luffy]

6 medium pacers in world K!

Counting Willis as a medium pacer feel is a bit unfair....

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Counting Willis as a medium pacer feel is a bit unfair....

Yeah, he is fast medium

 

[ataraxia]

I agree that we messed up the balance here. Maybe that problem could've been avoided if we'd selected Goddard 6 or 7 teams earlier.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Counting Willis as a medium pacer feel is a bit unfair....

Cricinfo labels him as fast

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hall was good and all and played on roads,.but dude averages almost 32 against England and Australia, both home and away. The average in those games was 33....

 

[morgieb]

Hall was good and all and played on roads,.but dude averages almost 32 against England and Australia, both home and away. The average in those games was 33....

That surprised me, but yeah on impact both Gillespie and Bishop have him beat. Hell, even Broad has a case.

 

[morgieb]

I agree that we messed up the balance here. Maybe that problem could've been avoided if we'd selected Goddard 6 or 7 teams earlier.

Yeah I think we could've pushed a bowling all-rounder with wheels higher instead of picking Philander just because we needed the batting. Swapping Pollock and Philander might make more sense.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah I think we could've pushed a bowling all-rounder with wheels higher instead of picking Philander just because we needed the batting. Swapping Pollock and Philander might make more sense.

I was feeling the same. Or Bishop instead of Fazal would have been solid

 

[morgieb]

Reckon we might've stuffed up picking all of Clarke, Pietersen and Laxman; as things stand we either have a #3 that rarely batted there or a shitty 5th bowling option.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Reckon we might've stuffed up picking all of Clarke, Pietersen and Laxman; as things stand we either have a #3 that rarely batted there or a shitty 5th bowling option.

Can pick Engineer to open and have Shakib at 7

 

[Thala_0710]

Can pick Engineer to open and have Shakib at 7

That was my plan

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Can pick Engineer to open and have Shakib at 7

Nah. I think the best option would be

Regular top 5, Shakib at 6, C Cairns 7, P Jayawardene at 8

 

[capt_Luffy]

Nah. I think the best option would be

Regular top 5, Shakib at 6, C Cairns 7, P Jayawardene at 8

Don't like it much tbh. Not enough quality. Also think none of the 3 batsmen here is an ideal 3. But if you want so, should vote for Cairns here.

 

[Line and Length]

Derek Underwood was rankled #9 in the 2022 Spinners Poll and was the 10th ranked spinner in the CW 2024 bowlers poll yet, after 13 teams have been voted on, he still hasn't been voted into a team.
Surely 297 wickets @ 25.84 and a miserly economy rate of 2.11 rpo deserves greater recognition.

 

[CricAddict]

Derek Underwood was rankled #9 in the 2022 Spinners Poll and was the 10th ranked spinner in the CW 2024 bowlers poll yet, after 13 teams have been voted on, he still hasn't been voted into a team.
Surely 297 wickets @ 25.84 and a miserly economy rate of 2.11 rpo deserves greater recognition.

Agreed. I am sure he will be in the next team.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Derek Underwood was rankled #9 in the 2022 Spinners Poll and was the 10th ranked spinner in the CW 2024 bowlers poll yet, after 13 teams have been voted on, he still hasn't been voted into a team.
Surely 297 wickets @ 25.84 and a miserly economy rate of 2.11 rpo deserves greater recognition.

Rhodes and Benaud have the allrounder boost, that leaves only Chandrashekhar who I think is better than Derek. He was deadly on turners, but feel on good and true tracks he was overtly defensive. Chandra on the other hand can take the pitch out on his day.

 

[Line and Length]

Rhodes and Benaud have the allrounder boost, that leaves only Chandrashekhar who I think is better than Derek. He was deadly on turners, but feel on good and true tracks he was overtly defensive. Chandra on the other hand can take the pitch out on his day.

Surely a study of their performances in different countries suggest otherwise. Chandra's best performances (averaging >30) were in India (27.70) and NZ (26.73). Underwood trumps him in both countries (India @ 26.52 & NZ @ 13.56). Nowhere, not even on his home turf, does Chandra match Underwood's career Test average of 25.84
On the flatter Australia wickets Chandra was marginally better average wise (30.28 to 31.48) but Underwood's defensive bowling (which you are dismissive of) was an important aspect of England's attack.
I may appear to be putting to much emphasis on averages, but they are a telling factor when comparing players. On top of that, I have seen both in action and rate Underwood more highly by a significant margin.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Surely a study of their performances in different countries suggest otherwise. Chandra's best performances (averaging >30) were in India (27.70) and NZ (26.73). Underwood trumps him in both countries (India @ 26.52 & NZ @ 13.56). Nowhere, not even on his home turf, does Chandra match Underwood's career Test average of 25.84
On the flatter Australia wickets Chandra was marginally better average wise (30.28 to 31.48) but Underwood's defensive bowling (which you are dismissive of) was an important aspect of England's attack.
I may appear to be putting to much emphasis on averages, but they are a telling factor when comparing players. On top of that, I have seen both in action and rate Underwood more highly by a significant margin.

I think that's a maligning POV. Like, Derek also averages 60+ in WI, twice of Chandra. Okay let's do a Country by country comparison:

Australia: Chandrashekhar I think is slightly ahead for winning two games here but close overall.

Home: Pretty close for me. Underwood averages much better, but given he took 2 more wickets in 10 more matches (32 vs 42), I think I will prefer the superior WPM. Also while Underwood is Great at Home to Australia, his India and WI record are kinda mid and outright poor.

Other's Home: Underwood is better, but don't think as much as their average might suggest. Chandra won India a game, and eventually the whole Series in England.

WI: Underwood is Very poor in WI, averages 50+. Chandrashekhar is very good there, won us a match as well.

Pak: Both were pretty inept here. Derek does 38 and Chandra 48. That should in general mean a Derek W, but Chandra played in arguably the flattest Series ever, Bedi averaged 72 and Prasanna 117. I will say a tier here.

NZ: Chandrashekhar is good to them, again winning a game, but Underworld ran them to the ground.

And for me, that's the thing. I don't rate that NZ batting they played at all. As I don't SL. Against them, Derek has 56@12. On removing them from both's records, Underwood averages 29 with a WPM of 3.13 while Chandra does 30 with 4.12. And yeah, I will take the latter here. I won't complain if someone prefers the steadier Derek who can ran through a side in a wet pitch and bowl very cheaply in flat ones, but I want my sole spinner to be more impactful, and Chandra was just that, capable of taking the pitch out completely.

 

[Line and Length]

I think that's a maligning POV. Like, Derek also averages 60+ in WI, twice of Chandra. Okay let's do a Country by country comparison:

Australia: Chandrashekhar I think is slightly ahead for winning two games here but close overall.

Home: Pretty close for me. Underwood averages much better, but given he took 2 more wickets in 10 more matches (32 vs 42), I think I will prefer the superior WPM. Also while Underwood is Great at Home to Australia, his India and WI record are kinda mid and outright poor.

Other's Home: Underwood is better, but don't think as much as their average might suggest. Chandra won India a game, and eventually the whole Series in England.

WI: Underwood is Very poor in WI, averages 50+. Chandrashekhar is very good there, won us a match as well.

Pak: Both were pretty inept here. Derek does 38 and Chandra 48. That should in general mean a Derek W, but Chandra played in arguably the flattest Series ever, Bedi averaged 72 and Prasanna 117. I will say a tier here.

NZ: Chandrashekhar is good to them, again winning a game, but Underworld ran them to the ground.

And for me, that's the thing. I don't rate that NZ batting they played at all. As I don't SL. Against them, Derek has 56@12. On removing them from both's records, Underwood averages 29 with a WPM of 3.25 while Chandra does 30 with 4.12. And yeah, I will take the latter here. I won't complain if someone prefers the steadier Derek who can ran through a side in a wet pitch and bowl very cheaply in flat ones, but I want my sole spinner to be more impactful, and Chandra was just that, capable of taking the pitch out completely.

I concede, Underwood has a poor record in WI while Chandra (ave 31.24) is solid but, imo, short of "very good".
To call Underwood's form in India "kinda mid" when he averages 27.70 there illustrates a certain bias.

 

[trundler]

I concede, Underwood has a poor record in WI while Chandra (ave 31.24) is solid but, imo, short of "very good".
To call Underwood's form in India "kinda mid" when he averages 27.70 there illustrates a certain bias.

Yeah it's working backwards from not wanting to rate Underwood