Luke Wright looked every inch the joke player at the World T20.
Sometimes he looked like a joke, sometimes he looked fairly competent. But he will always be a use to ENG T20 set-up whether he open with him or batting him down the order. The fact that he even has a use is disgrace to the format.
Agricultural slogging might pay off every once in a while, but almost without exception, the top T20I batsmen are good solid Test and ODI batsmen who have the ability to hit big.
Yea but you will still have your Pollards, Dwayne Smith etc who are brainless sloggers being of great use in a T20, where they came make the best of bowlers look like crap.
Pretty sure in a Test Gayle wouldn't come out looking to smash bowlers the way he does in T20s.
Oh i think he would still based on passed innings:
-
vs SA 03 (hundred of 79 balls)
-
VS Eng 04 (24 of one over from Hoggard)
-
vs AUS 09
Thats how he prefers to play.
Gayle's been in excellent nick for the last year in Test cricket, while he might still have technical issues I'd back him to be a reasonably good Test opener.
I have seen slight improvement with his patience while batting, since he became captain yea. But i certainly do think if Hilfenhaus had played in the final two test, he would have failed Gayle. Since none of the AUS bowlers tested him technically after the 1st test.
Still dont see him as much of test opener & is perfect example of techically inept batsman who in T20 would be a star, since bowlers cant test him technically. T20 is his domain.
Anyway, you've missed the point with that line up. All 11 players in that list would strongly challenge for a place in an all time ODI team in the time I've been watching cricket, yet IMO with the exception of Flintoff at his peak, none of them challenge for a place in an all time Test from the same era.
I disagree. As i said all of those players had very good peak periods in test where they where good/very good excellent test players. For example i would argue Saqlain at his peak could make a Pakistan All-time test XI
- Dhoni in some peoples mind already would make an Indian All-time test XI. Although i personally would still have Engineer. He could probably make a test team of the 2010s..
- Jayasuriya surely would open for a SRI ATXI?
Okay maybe none would make make a test XI from the same era. But they will still quality test players, so the distinction you are drawing with this list is an unfair one TBF.
At his peak yes, but in an all time Test side from when I've been watching the game, Pollock and Kallis are miles in front.
One's an all time great batsman with an equivelant Test bowling record to Flintoff, the other is an all time great bowler who scored a similar amount of runs to Flintoff with a slightly superior average.
Thats blinding looking at stats. Kallis is 2000s era was as we have argued on this specific point before was MAINLY a batsman who contributed with the ball for SA. He stopped being a complete all-rounder "capable of scoring hundreds & taking 5-wicket hauls" very early in the 2000s era. His last 5 wicket haul was since 2003 vs ENG @ TB. So for 7 years he was just a WC batsman who bowled.
Pollock for most of the decade regressed significantly as bowler & his batting was never capable of batting in the top 6 or 7 consistently for SA. If you want to pick Pollock for anything in the 2000s era is as a bowler, you can't compare his output as an all-rounder to Flintoff in any way.
Flintoff was the only all-rounder during at his peak during the 2000s era who was able to combine quality batting capable of scoring centuries & 5 wicket hauls consistenly. Plus he would have been better if it weren't for injuries. So he was the best pure "all-rounder" of the 2000s era.
Its a totally different argument is you say Kallis & Pollock where better than him from a career perspective based on their peaks as all-rounders, which i'd say Kallis was for sure. While Flintoff at his peak vs Pollock at his peak is fairly comparable.
Nah i aint got to do that i'm pretty clear what i'm trying to say. You just got to follow di warlord..
