All-Time World XIs: Discussion Thread

[kyear2]

Sanga and Walcott made some sense because they were actually really good keepers who just decided to focus on batting, but de Villiers is another matter IMO.

Yeah, there needs to be a minimum standard for the actual glove work to even earn consideration.

 

[DrWolverine]

I feel Walsh is underrated.

He has longevity(15+ years) and has proved himself is more places than the top 10 pacers.

Yes he his record against Australia isn’t impressive but it is due to him playing his debut series and 2nd last series against them. Otherwise it’s okay.

ATG series against everyone he
in India : 26 wickets in 4 Tests @ 16.
in Eng : 34 wickets in 5 Tests @ 12.
in SA : 22 wickets in 4 Tests @ 18.
in NZ : 16 wickets in 2 Tests @ 8.
in Pak : 14 wickets in 3 Tests @ 21.
in WI : 20 wickets in 4 Tests @ 20 vs Aus.
Didn’t play in SL.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The obsession on CW with picking batsmen who are part-time keepers has been something I've noticed during my time here. Not only in selections such as this but in drafts.
Truly great keepers such as Knott, Ames, Healy are all more than adequate batsmen and their glovework sets the standard for the rest of the field. Being "fine" doesn't equate to being an ATG keeper.

More than adequate batting isn't good enough as well, when you could have so much more. It's a matter of priority really. There's only 1 Gilchrist, for everyone else you have to trade between skills. Sangakkara and Walcott both were very high quality keepers, definitely not as much as Healy or Knott, but so they weren't as batsmen. And as much as I have seen ABD, he was a pretty good keeper too, especially to pace.

 

[Coronis]

I feel Walsh is underrated.

He has longevity(15+ years) and has proved himself is more places than the top 10 pacers.

Yes he his record against Australia isn’t impressive but it is due to him playing his debut series and 2nd last series against them. Otherwise it’s okay.

ATG series against everyone he
in India : 26 wickets in 4 Tests @ 16.
in Eng : 34 wickets in 5 Tests @ 12.
in SA : 22 wickets in 4 Tests @ 18.
in NZ : 16 wickets in 2 Tests @ 8.
in Pak : 14 wickets in 3 Tests @ 21.
in WI : 20 wickets in 4 Tests @ 20 vs Aus.
Didn’t play in SL.

He might get a bit underrated yes. I’m excluding the current three because they’re still playing, but yeah I have Walsh right around Waqar, the two are basically the polar opposites. You have great longevity and consistency vs excellent short peak.

 

[Coronis]

Also just looking at the votes and the 4 opening contenders - Hayden, Mitchell, Sehwag, Simpson - ideally imo we have an aggressor and defender…

 

[OverratedSanity]

I totally disagree with Sanga being classified as a part time keeper. He was behind the stumps for almost 50 damn tests and for hundreds of ODIs. Murali is an extremely difficult keeper to keep to and he did a great job for him. Barely remember him making any big errors. He also wasnt some batsman who was turned into a keeper, had all the technical skills and passed the eye test pretty obviously .

De villiers I don't rate too highly with the gloves though.

 

[kyear2]

More than adequate batting isn't good enough as well, when you could have so much more. It's a matter of priority really. There's only 1 Gilchrist, for everyone else you have to trade between skills. Sangakkara and Walcott both were very high quality keepers, definitely not as much as Healy or Knott, but so they weren't as batsmen. And as much as I have seen ABD, he was a pretty good keeper too, especially to pace.

More than adequate keeping also isn't good enough. That little tidbit is often ignored these days.

And Gilchrist also requires trading between skills. There was a point where his keeping skills were a little underrated because of his batting, but some here have reached the point where it's overrated. He was neither in the class of Knott or Healy.

It's a spectrum with guys like Taylor and Tallon on one end and Flower and Pant at the other. With the position fully morphing into an an all rounder one post 50's, neither end is acceptable.

But at the middle there are two keeper batsman who are in my opinion equals, and ones preference comes down purely to which discipline one gives greater weighting to.

Most here goes batting, but either are fully viable, and Knott is the preference of many.

 

[capt_Luffy]

More than adequate keeping also isn't good enough. That little tidbit is often ignored these days.

And Gilchrist also requires trading between skills. There was a point where his keeping skills were a little underrated because of his batting, but some here have reached the point where it's overrated. He was neither in the class of Knott or Healy.

It's a spectrum with guys like Taylor and Tallon on one end and Flower and Pant at the other. With the position fully morphing into an an all rounder one post 50's, neither end is acceptable.

But at the middle there are two keeper batsman who are in my opinion equals, and ones preference comes down purely to which discipline one gives greater weighting to.

Most here goes batting, but either are fully viable, and Knott is the preference of many.

It actually is

 

[kyear2]

It actually is

It really isn't.

I don't see how that is even an argument.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It really isn't.

I don't see how that is even an argument.

Same

 

[Thala_0710]

Need to vote Sundar in soon

 

[sayon basak]

Need to vote Sundar in soon

You jinxed him. Now you need to be banned soon.

 

[kyear2]

Same

It is an all rounder position, but just like with the batting and bowling versions, where those skills must take prescedence, so does glove work in this scenario.

If the job is to take the gloves, I'm never taking Flower over even Healy.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It is an all rounder position, but just like with the batting and bowling versions, where those skills must take prescedence, so does glove work in this scenario.

If the job is to take the gloves, I'm never taking Flower over even Healy.

The difference between a Very Good keeper and an ATG keeper in a match to match basis is miniscule.

Flower vs Healy is a separate argument, but Flower over Healy any day for me.

 

[Line and Length]

I'm with @kyear2 on this one. Flower hardly ranks as a "Very good" keeper. A fine batsman for his team but his sometimes untidy work spread through his team's fielding.

 

[Ju7]

I'll kick it off by saying that already the pacer selection is going to be very interesting for the first 2 pacers between Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee. There's a good chance that this ends up as the 3 eventually in the first XI, but interesting to see who people go for first.

Marshall has to be in it.He could do everything with the ball aswell as being rapid.

 

[kyear2]

I'm with @kyear2 on this one. Flower hardly ranks a s a "Very good" keeper. A fine batsman for his team but his sometimes untidy work spread through his team's fielding.

If you have anything approaching a decent option, you're replacing Flower and getting a real keeper.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall has to be in it.He could do everything with the ball aswell as being rapid.

They aren't many bowlers who ever existed who combined being rapid along with the ability to be the enforcer, the ability to swing the ball both directions, the variety of cutters, and success in all conditions and against everyone. Actually may just be him.

With regards to Hadlee, I was scouring the internet as usual and came across a couple XI's from two players who played during the 80's and 90's and they listed the best they played against.



One was by Gooch, the other by Gower, two Englishmen, but even when we look at Martin Crowe's list it was also Marshall, Lillee and Wasim.

Again it wasn't just pundits who slighted Hadlee because he played for NZ, former players who played against Hadlee just didn't rate him that highly. Even Viv named Marshall and Lillee and when pressed for another name from whom he played against went for (from memory) Willis.

 

[Coronis]

They aren't many bowlers who ever existed who combined being rapid along with the ability to be the enforcer, the ability to swing the ball both directions, the variety of cutters, and success in all conditions and against everyone. Actually may just be him.

With regards to Hadlee, I was scouring the internet as usual and came across a couple XI's from two players who played during the 80's and 90's and they listed the best they played against.

View attachment 49056View attachment 49057

One was by Gooch, the other by Gower, two Englishmen, but even when we look at Martin Crowe's list it was also Marshall, Lillee and Wasim.

Again it wasn't just pundits who slighted Hadlee because he played for NZ, former players who played against Hadlee just didn't rate him that highly. Even Viv named Marshall and Lillee and when pressed for another name from whom he played against went for (from memory) Willis.

Once again you’ve shown how peer rating can be flawed. Top show, old chap.

 

[sayon basak]

Again it wasn't just pundits who slighted Hadlee because he played for NZ, former players who played against Hadlee just didn't rate him that highly. Even Viv named Marshall and Lillee and when pressed for another name from whom he played against went for (from memory) Willis.

Then why was Hadlee not rated highly? We can't just look at these ratings and then just take them as Gospel without investigating the reason.

And it's stupid to pick Willis over Hadlee. Viv was stupid to pick Willis over Hadlee.