ICC Teams of the decade

[vandem]

I don't know why ICC bother promoting these public vote teams. Nobody who follows cricket takes them seriously.

 

[vandem]

I don't know why ICC bother promoting these public vote teams. Sanga as test WK ??? 2 decades ago perhaps.

 

[Shady Slim]

move over now dweebs here's shady's cool xi for attractive people

alastair cook
tom latham
virat kohli
kane williamson
steve smith
bj watling
jason holder
vernon philander
dale steyn
stuart broad
rangana herath

it's basically a dead heat between herath and ashwin but i've gone for rangana just for personal preference - feel he's done more with less support around him, though i do get the argument for ashwin instead. great shame that it's a choice between two offies who, as burgey is right to point out, have chosen the least impressive discipline in the game.

 

[honestbharani]

it's a choice between two offies who, as burgey is right to point out, have chosen the least impressive discipline in the game.

Which, be definition, makes their achievements the most alpha.

 

[Shady Slim]

Which, be definition, makes their achievements the most alpha.

this post is a good example of why we need the ? react on the site

 

[Flem274*]

i know you hate warner but tom latham's average is built on smashing sub-plunket shield standard sri lankans and bangers. averages 28 against the proper attacks, and most of his best knocks are in asia.

 

[Shady Slim]

i know you hate warner but tom latham's average is built on smashing sub-plunket shield standard sri lankans and bangers. averages 28 against the proper attacks, and most of his best knocks are in asia.

latho had some pretty good knocks in england did he not (though that doesn't necessarily change the criticism re subplunket attacks)? or am i misremembering. also having the string to his bow of good knocks in asia is a big plus to me imho.

otherwise then it's dimuth karunaratne or like... pujara? maybe pujara, though that sort of feels like cheating a little bit

 

[TheJediBrah]

Which, be definition, makes their achievements the most alpha.

There's nothing alpha about off-spin. It's the type of bowling you decide to take up because you're not fit enough to bowl fast or brave enough to bowl leg-spin. Maybe it makes their achievements notable, but not alpha.

Oh and the average age that off-spinners lose their virginity is 23. Compared to leg-spinners (16) and fast bowlers (15).

 

[Flem274*]

latho had some pretty good knocks in england did he not (though that doesn't necessarily change the criticism re subplunket attacks)? or am i misremembering. also having the string to his bow of good knocks in asia is a big plus to me imho.

otherwise then it's dimuth karunaratne or like... pujara? maybe pujara, though that sort of feels like cheating a little bit

yea he's not awful because he does a fleming against the proper sides by dealing in 50s rather than a rohit and dealing in single digits, but i think warner is the guy even if he is a home track and south african bully. tom latham needs to be a bit more switched on and ruthless against the good attacks and turn those 70s into 170s.

i love me some karu but he also loves throwing away a start on 34* despite being a quality batsman.

 

[Shady Slim]

yea he's not awful because he does a fleming against the proper sides by dealing in 50s rather than a rohit and dealing in single digits, but i think warner is the guy even if he is a home track and south african bully. tom latham needs to be a bit more switched on and ruthless against the good attacks and turn those 70s into 170s.

i love me some karu but he also loves throwing away a start on 34* despite being a quality batsman.

i just can't give it to warner for sucking absolute ass in both england and in india, the two most important tours for an australian batsman - i suppose you could make the same argument for latham and tests here, but that's more an "i hate you" "i don't even know who you are" rivalry, so it doesn't count against him as much. warner's problems are also endemic of the greater problems at large with the australian team over the past decade at a greater level

if kraigg hadn't started sucking ass in the last quarter of the decade it probably would've been him to partner cook

 

[Shri]

my t20 side of the decade

Rohit
Gayle
Kohli
Abdv
Morgan
Dhoni
Shakib
Afridi
Rashid
Bumrah
Malinga

 

[Spark]

i just can't give it to warner for sucking absolute ass in both england and in india, the two most important tours for an australian batsman - i suppose you could make the same argument for latham and tests here, but that's more an "i hate you" "i don't even know who you are" rivalry, so it doesn't count against him as much. warner's problems are also endemic of the greater problems at large with the australian team over the past decade at a greater level

if kraigg hadn't started sucking ass in the last quarter of the decade it probably would've been him to partner cook

nah at some level this is just idolosing some very arbitrary checklist over actual performance. the guy has been crazy good at home and, as we are now seeing, that really makes a material difference. he's had some important away performances as well, albeit not as many (nz and sa come to mind). you're picking the worse player, with worse like-for-like performances in virtually every meaningful comparison, just because their standards are lower so the lows don't stand out as much. it doesn't make sense.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yup, the correct answer is to pick neither and go for Sanga and ABdV as the openers

 

[Daemon]

Yup, the correct answer is to pick neither and go for Sanga and ABdV as the openers

@cnerd123 will not be pleased.

 

[cnerd123]

Wait let me open statsguru and catch up on this thread, I want to tell you all why you all are all wrong too

 

[Daemon]

Quick lock the thread

 

[cnerd123]

tbf the whole ICC 'of the decade' thing was such garbage. Terrible nominees, and they always pick awful teams. Got no idea what politics goes on behind the scenes when they do this.

Having said that, our CW's 50 Best ODI Cricketers of all time had Ian ****ing Harvey in the list, so what do we all know.

 

[Flem274*]

at least ian harvey was novel in a fun way (and let's be honest it was a tjb or gob vote). when the icc elevates glenn maxwell to open the batting in the team of the decade to have a massive go then im on board.

 

[TheJediBrah]

at least ian harvey was novel in a fun way (and let's be honest it was a tjb or gob vote). when the icc elevates glenn maxwell to open the batting in the team of the decade to have a massive go then im on board.

Glenn Maxwell who averages 211 opening the batting in T20Is at a strike-rate of 225? And strikes at 150 opening in ODIs without ever being dismissed?

Sounds like a solid choice

 

[Shady Slim]

nah at some level this is just idolosing some very arbitrary checklist over actual performance. the guy has been crazy good at home and, as we are now seeing, that really makes a material difference. he's had some important away performances as well, albeit not as many (nz and sa come to mind). you're picking the worse player, with worse like-for-like performances in virtually every meaningful comparison, just because their standards are lower so the lows don't stand out as much. it doesn't make sense.

isn't that the point of this exercise though - that people have different graded judgements based on weighing different factors at a greater level? never once have i doubted his home abilities, heck he's the second name picked on an "in australia" world xi after bradman himself. it's just that he also makes an incredible material difference in england and the subcontinent by ensuring australia will always be at least one down for less than twenty, and for me for an aussie bat england and subcontinent performances (especially india) are a very important part of how i rate them. it's why i think wade has way more bolts in the bank than head does, for example.

i will say this though, my logic to you may not be externally consistent but at least it's internally consistent, and just as a general comment (not at you), anyone who has warner in their xi can only justify excluding clouderson if they include warner as the "least worst" option of the non cook openers. if you do include warner then the same logic dictates anderson is probably the second bowler picked after dale steyn.

also

something i was considering - most people have warner and smith in their team, and everyone, me included, has smith. but can you in good conscience put in guys who were banned a year for willfully cheating? it's not as if they did light cheating either it was megacheating. unsure where i am on this, and happy to hear arguments from either side