Alan Knott VS Adam Gilchrist

[Coronis]

Also, this is insanely disrespectful, this has been noted.

All in good fun. I only ever assumed you were young cos I do that with new members in general unless they’re obviously not.

 

[subshakerz]

Also, this is insanely disrespectful, this has been noted.

Not if you're from the SC bro. Then it's par for the course.

 

[Burgey]

Our candidate for Werriwa's father voted Labor though and threw a five dollar note at her on the way out and said "Sorry I just couldn't do it".

Omg this is magnificent

 

[Prince EWS]

Omg this is magnificent

It made Anne Stanley's day. First time I'd seen her smile on the pre poll booth and she was still talking to me and our candidate about it three days later.

 

[kyear2]

I don't get it. If he were a lock, why wouldn't someone include him in his XI even after knowing that?
And if there are reasons not to include him, how is he a lock?

Because my team isn't selected purely on accolades but rather one that is built to be the best possible one to take the field and win against any possible opposition.

I also accept that my selection is a minority one, and doesn't impact the overall reality that Hobbs is a lock for the overwhelming majority of the teams.

And my opinion doesn't supercede what actually occurs.

Becuse and finally, at the end of the day, not a single person makes every team out there. Not a one.

Let's even bring it down to CW, the last time we did an AT XI, one player was exempted from the vote and only one there after was unanimous. Doesn't take away that 6 if them were guaranteed to make the team,.and as such, locks, before we started.

And no, the unanimous one wasn't Sobers, Gilchrist, nor Hobbs.

 

[subshakerz]

Because my team isn't selected purely on accolades but rather one that is built to be the best possible one to take the field and win against any possible opposition.

Then why are you going on and on about pundit accolades to prove your case for Marshall and others?

 

[capt_Luffy]

My father's AT XI:

Gavaskar
Richards (Viv, not Barry)
Bradman
Tendulkar
Lara
Sobers
Gilchrist+
Hadlee
Akram
Warne
Bumrah


India:

Gavaskar
Sehwag
Dravid
Sachin
Laxman
Dhoni+*
Dev
Ashwin
Kumble
Shami
Bumrah


He does really rate Shami

 

[Thala_0710]

He does really rate Shami

That's good, he generally isn't that popular with the dads.

 

[Johan]

got an England XI of the old bastard, it was

Boycott
Gooch*
Barrington
Root
Cowdrey
Dexter
Botham
Knott+
Underwood
Snow
Trueman

Pretty good.

 

[kyear2]

Let me simplify it for you.

He wants to create a case for Marshall to be as certain a selection in the ATG XI as possible and therefore needs other players like Hobbs and Tendulkar for him to be bunched with.

Stop projecting.

Tendulkar is a lock at this point. Hobbs is iconic to that point where he is as well.

 

[kyear2]

Yet Kyear considers Warne as less of a lock than Marshall. That's the discrepancy.

And this is where it becomes obvious that you either don't read what I post, are totally incapable of even basic levels of comprehension, or you're just salty and argumentative and it's your goal to dispute every and anything I say, or any player I advocate for.

I have repeatedly said that Warne makes more teams than anyone bar Bradman and Sobers. There was even a point where I said that Warne can legitimately and objectively be seen as the 3rd name on the list. It's uncanny how he just makes every single list.

I've been said that Warne has as legitimate a aim as anyone, and more than most to be the 3rd greatest player of all time.

As I explained earlier, while among the experts and former players, Warne is just automatic, here he's one of the narrowest of inclusions.

And that's where the argument was made, that he has a compeditor that's arguably better than he is. There's an argument against him. Here, he and Murali is like Hutton vs Sunny, Warne and Hutton generally wins, but it's not a slam dunk.

But yeah, in the wider cricketing community, he's more of a lock than the others.

I have no issue with that.

 

[kyear2]

Yes

I rate McGrath as the third best pacer.

But I see an argument for saying Holding is better.

.

Holding isn't even rates that highly in the Caribbean.

I think Holding is special, his main obvious knock is that he couldn't stay healthy, period. He also had a more limited tool set than some of the others. Think he's definitely better than Garner.

McGrath is just in a different tier, but after the top 5 pacers and top 2 or 3 spinners, he's fair game.

Donald | Holding | Imran | Lillee

As I've consistently said, these are the 4 I find near impossible to separate. Think I can throw Wasim in there as well.

 

[kyear2]

I asked him to come up with an all time XI and he sent me this:

1 Hobbs
2 B Richards
3 Bradman
4 V Richards
5 Kallis
6 Sobers
7 Gilchrist
8 Imran
9 Warne
10 Lillee
11 Holding

He said if Barry Richards isn't allowed he wants Boycott (!!) instead.

There's Barry again, lol.

He really was exceptionally highly rated in that era.

 

[kyear2]

He didn't see Hutton, he was born in 59.

He rates Kallis's batting ahead of Lara but equal to Sachin, so picked him for bowling/catching. He's a bit like kyear with the catching thing, he mentioned Bob Simpson when he was talking about the second opener.

Clearly a man of class, pretty damn smart as well.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah...... I don't rate my players on their likeliness to make AT XIs, so Warne being in Top 3 overall isn't very likely personally.

It's not purely based on his ability to make XI's.

Two separate sentences.

But it's like saying being able to make the test team isn't an indication of how well you did in first class.
And let's be honest, if the guy you have as 3rd don't make such teams, he's probably not 3rd.

But that aside, Wisden player of the century that early into his career, made the Wisden and Cricinfo teams, the Cricinfo one unanimously along with Bradman and Sobers.
He's one of the great phenomenons to have graced the test sport, along with McGrath, they were the major reason for that team being one of the two greatest of all time. He also seems to garner far more of the credit between the two, dominating on pitches that generally didn't suit him. He was one of the greatest match winners of all time.

In an era of great fast bowlers, he was the one who succeeded Ambrose as the best in the world. He's also noted by some to be the greatest bowler ever.

Who else has a resume like that? Team and individual success, impact, accolades and legacy?

He's not my choice, but so very few.

 

[kyear2]

Asked my mother for an XI, an intriguing reply to say the least

"do you really have nothing better to do?"

Seems about fair to me.