All-Time World XIs: Discussion Thread

[Johan]

c'mon.

 

[sayon basak]

Ignoring Pre Golden age players is the way to go imo. Makes it cleaner. Maybe make a pre golden age XI and an uncapped XI separately later?

@capt_Luffy Give it a thought.

 

[Thala_0710]

Miller making a comeback

 

[centurymaker]

Kallis 14-11 Miller

 

[Bolo.]

I don't dislike Kallis/Knott, I just feel Sanga/Miller with Imran at 8 will be more productive Overall

I don't really have an opinion about Kallis vs Miller in this team. I'm just commenting on the batting order.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis 14-11 Miller

Still time to reconsider lol

 

[kyear2]

Ok and remove minnows. Btw Hammond before the war and getting injured was clearly Kallis level.

Dude it's an ATG side neither are taking consistent wickets.

That's not the primary role of a relief bowler.

Especially in a team with Murali and Barnes who can bowl all day, the overs are limited to primarily some dog overs with a minimally effective ball.

That's not worth the sacrifice of a front line batsman, and certainly not a less effective wicketkeeper.

 

[subshakerz]

That's not the primary role of a relief bowler.

Especially in a team with Murali and Barnes who can bowl all day, the overs are limited to primarily some dog overs with a minimally effective ball.

That's not worth the sacrifice of a front line batsman, and certainly not a less effective wicketkeeper.

Except of course on Day 1 and 2 when Murali is not going to be as effective, or on green seamers, etc.

If you want a relief bowler, you already have Hammond.

If you want a high quality pace quartet, you pick Miller.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't really have an opinion about Kallis vs Miller in this team. I'm just commenting on the batting order.

It doesnt have to be Sanga/Miller IMO. I think Walcott or even ABD have good shouts.

 

[Bolo.]

It doesnt have to be Sanga/Miller IMO. I think Walcott or even ABD have good shouts.

With Murali in, it should be Sanga or Knott.

 

[Johan]

Walcott could be great as he has experience keeping to Ramadhin and Valentine on genuinely uncovered 50s England wickets and was respectably successful, was rated as a class keeper. De Villiers is a no-no, didn't keep to any spinner worth a salt in my opinion.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Technically that would be Kuruppu with a double century every 7 innings

But realistically its Hammond with 7 doubles in 140 innings. We’ve also got Sanga with 11 in 233 and Lara with 9 in 232.

Meh, they got a big chunk of their doubles against crap minnows (Hammond more so). Give Lara a good deck against even the first ATG XI CW selected and I'd back him to get a big one far more readily than I'd back the other two. Lara's doubles were against attacks that had: Some combination of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Macgill (3), Murali/Vaas (2), , Pollock/Ntini (1), the English 04/05 quartet (1). The only big ones that came against mediocre to poor attacks were the 375 vs England and the double in Pakistan.

If he'd got to play minnows every other week like Hammond and Sanga did, he'd have 15 doubles imo. Putting him at 6 in a lineup is dreadful.

 

[subshakerz]

Walcott could be great as he has experience keeping to Ramadhin and Valentine on genuinely uncovered 50s England wickets and was respectably successful, was rated as a class keeper. De Villiers is a no-no, didn't keep to any spinner worth a salt in my opinion.

I get your point on ABD but he was so exceptional as an athlete I would be surprised if he wasn't excellent against spin keeping.

 

[subshakerz]

With Murali in, it should be Sanga or Knott.

Then Sanga

 

[OverratedSanity]

I get your point on ABD but he was so exceptional as an athlete I would be surprised if he wasn't excellent against spin keeping.

Keeping against spin is not about athleticism whatsoever. Need a very sound technique, footwork and soft gloves.

 

[subshakerz]

Keeping against spin is not about athleticism whatsoever. Need a very sound technique, footwork and soft gloves.

I back ABD to be at least safe.

 

[morgieb]

Meh, they got a big chunk of their doubles against crap minnows (Hammond more so). Give Lara a good deck against even the first ATG XI CW selected and I'd back him to get a big one far more readily than I'd back the other two. Lara's doubles were against attacks that had: Some combination of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Macgill (3), Murali/Vaas (2), , Pollock/Ntini (1), the English 04/05 quartet (1). The only big ones that came against mediocre to poor attacks were the 375 vs England and the double in Pakistan.

If he'd got to play minnows every other week like Hammond and Sanga did, he'd have 15 doubles imo. Putting him at 6 in a lineup is dreadful.

Even the 375 was against Caddick and Fraser (albeit one with little depth). It's really only that Pakistan double that was a double against a weak attack. Lara's ability to go big against good attacks is unparalled outside of Bradman.

 

[subshakerz]

Meh, they got a big chunk of their doubles against crap minnows (Hammond more so). Give Lara a good deck against even the first ATG XI CW selected and I'd back him to get a big one far more readily than I'd back the other two. Lara's doubles were against attacks that had: Some combination of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Macgill (3), Murali/Vaas (2), , Pollock/Ntini (1), the English 04/05 quartet (1). The only big ones that came against mediocre to poor attacks were the 375 vs England and the double in Pakistan.

If he'd got to play minnows every other week like Hammond and Sanga did, he'd have 15 doubles imo. Putting him at 6 in a lineup is dreadful.

Putting Kallis at 6 is even worse I think though. At least Lara can shepherd the tail. Smith makes the most sense.

 

[Johan]

4 of Hammond's doubles come against Australia and 1 against India who had two respectable pacemen, 2 against New Zealand might be the only ones that can be called minnows.

 

[Bolo.]

Then Sanga

IDK. Think I might agree with the people who are picking the WK based on the AR.