I don't know about Border and Richards. #5 should be a face-off between Lara and Waugh.aussie tragic said:I thought this would be a lot closer between Lara and Tendulker and I even "threw" my vote to Border to give Lara a better chance (I voted Sachin in the prelim)
I think Lara may now struggle against Steve Waugh, Border and Richards for # 5 given these current numbers....interesting
Haha my bad, I got it mixed up with Dravid, and I'm assuming he's there from the number 3 debate. I'll just shut up from now on.aussie tragic said:Read the first post again andyc, Lara has 7352 runs @ 50.70 at # 4.
i dont think so. had sachin been pitted against lara for number three he would probably have lost the race. i think most forum members consider sachin to be more of a natural at no 4. at no.3 lara would have had the upper hand. thats my guess.SJS said:I too voted for Sachin but am amazed at the difference in the number of votes between him and Lara.
Thats not reflective of the true relative merits of these giants of the game.
Maybe it reflects the demographics of CW
Isn't number 6 going to be voted for last of all, to make up the ideal team balance?Pothas said:Waugh for me would be an automatic for number 6 but i suppsoe there will proably be a genuine all rounder there.
The majority of CW Members obviously disagree with youJason_M said:Lara should be at 3 and Tendulkar at 4, and Ponting out.
aussie tragic said:The majority of CW Members obviously disagree with you
Why should Tendulker be considered as the best # 3 between 1986-2006 when he has never batted at # 3 in his test careersilentstriker said:The majority of the CW members are wrong.
I think Tendulkar should be at #3, Lara at #4...but I can see it the other way around too. Either way, they should make up #3 and #4.
Because I think he would be suited to that role in this specific team. The best players (Dravid, Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar, etc) have the technique and the temperment to bat anywhere, so thats not an issue. A large part of Lara batting at #3 is because there is no one close to him in talent in that batting order, so he provides solidity there. But Lara is fantastic against spin, and he would be ideally suited at #4 when spinners are working or coming on.aussie tragic said:Why should Tendulker be considered as the best # 3 between 1986-2006 when he has never batted at # 3 in his test career
Yes that should've been the ideal situation and now looks like Steve Waugh is going to miss out because no one wants to see a team of 1986-2006 without Lara.Jason_M said:Lara should be at 3 and Tendulkar at 4, and Ponting out.
Yeah the concept of picking "position by position" does have its obvious flaws. But I think we have had enough "all time" XI's picked on the traditional methods. So I think this concept which is a bit different adds to the fun.C_C said:I personally think that it is just dumb to pick anyone apart from openers on the basis of 'batting strength on position by position' basis on stats for that position.
If thats the case, Chanderpaul should walk into this team's #6 spot, having by far the best #6 record on planet for this period.
Which i think (though not a diss on Chanders, who i consider an excellent batsman) is a total traversity on batsmen of the callibre of Waugh, Tendy,Dravid,Lara, Border, Ponting,Inzy,Kallis,etc etc.