Only 3

[kyear2]

If you could only choose 3 players to form the nucleus of your team for a decade, which 3 are you choosing. Let's assume the other guys are at or above the mean.

And no I don't expect anyone to chose the 3 that I did, just made me wonder whom everyone would come up with. Though I do have some kind of idea.

 

[kyear2]

Don't think I left out any obvious candidates, but let me know if there's any.

 

[reyrey]

Bradman is the no brainer choice. Sobers and Hadlee as they are an ATG batsman and bowler whose second (and third) string will give any team incredible flexibility and batting depth.

 

[Aidan11]

Don't think I left out any obvious candidates, but let me know if there's any.

Ian Botham.

 

[kyear2]

Ian Botham.

He was one of the 3 names that were on the periphery, and would be relevant if it was 5 or more, but is anyone literally choosing him, or does he look good on the list?

 

[Coronis]

Don't think I left out any obvious candidates, but let me know if there's any.

Sutcliffe, Chappell, Gavaskar, Sangakkara imo.

(personally I wouldn’t choose these guys but imo they should be options - considering there are 7-8 pure bowling options, there should be more than 10 pure batting options, and another keeper/batsman for balance, just my personal opinion)

 

[kyear2]

Sutcliffe, Chappell, Gavaskar, Sangakkara imo.

(personally I wouldn’t choose these guys but imo they should be options - considering there are 7-8 pure bowling options, there should be more than 10 pure batting options, and another keeper/batsman for balance, just my personal opinion)

I chose the top 8 batsmen and bowlers from the recent polls and 4 of the better all round cricketers I could think of that might Garner votes.
Though 20 was a good round number, and doubt more than 8 would even get votes.

 

[Aidan11]

He was one of the 3 names that were on the periphery, and would be relevant if it was 5 or more, but is anyone literally choosing him, or does he look good on the list?

I'd vote for him. An absolute legend for any English teenager watching him at his peak.

 

[Coronis]

He was one of the 3 names that were on the periphery, and would be relevant if it was 5 or more, but is anyone literally choosing him, or does he look good on the list?

I chose the top 8 batsmen and bowlers from the recent polls and 4 of the better all round cricketers I could think of that might Garner votes.
Though 20 was a good round number, and doubt more than 8 would even get votes.

I mean 20 options and you’re only allowed 3, there’ll always be ones that don’t get picked by the majority of people. Proportionally there should be more batsmen than bowlers - you’re picking 3 players for a team and you pick more batsmen for a team than you do bowlers.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Bradman/Sobers/Woakes.

 

[ataraxia]

Sutcliffe, Chappell, Gavaskar, Sangakkara imo.

(personally I wouldn’t choose these guys but imo they should be options - considering there are 7-8 pure bowling options, there should be more than 10 pure batting options, and another keeper/batsman for balance, just my personal opinion)

But this imbalance is precisely why it makes sense to pick bowlers over batters: they're simply more valuable.

 

[Pothas]

Would actually be tempted to leave Sobers and just have Bradman and have the best possible pace bowler and best spinner.

 

[Pothas]

Actually I am just going Bradman, McGrath and Marshall

 

[kyear2]

Actually I am just going Bradman, McGrath and Marshall

Actually think the batsman and two bowlers thing isn't a bad idea

 

[Archer6K]

87.5% of people voted for Bradman, so one person didn’t pick him

 

[howitzer]

87.5% of people voted for Bradman, so one person didn’t pick him

Heef

 

[shortpitched713]

Went Bradman, Imran, McGrath.

Poll is missing Shaun Pollock.

 

[shortpitched713]

If there's no Bradman, then I go Sobers probably as my third.

 

[smash84]

I went with Bradman, Imran and Hadlee. Pretty good bowling attack and decent batting

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Heef

Unapologetically. I'm afraid in this day of cricket as entertainment rather than pure sport, we're going to need the swashbuckling heroics of Sir Viv instead of the more (comparatively speaking) workaday inevitability of Sir Donald.

That, and I completely skipped the first line in the poll and assumed this was one of those things where the Don was taken as read, but I'm gonna justify my ineptitude anyway. In fact, I don't think I really read the options in the poll and just alighted on Viv. And I would do so again. 10/10.