Wc world xi

[vcs]

I would definitely have Kohli over Mushy (though I rate the little Nagin-dancing gnome). His century against Australia came when the match was pretty much gone IIRC, and I don't recollect a big impact from him in the rest of the matches. In fact, if he hadn't messed up that Williamson runout, they might have beaten New Zealand.

 

[Howe_zat]

i kind of like the idea of a Shakib-Mushy 3-4 for team of the tournament tho. They're definitely the best pair stats wise for those 2 slots, no other 3/4 combo this WC compares right?

Individually I guess not, but the partnership figures are better for Williamson/Taylor and du Plessis / van der Dussen.

 

[TheJediBrah]

A team of the tournament without any of Kohli, Root, Williamson and Smith would have been seen as very unlikely in May, wouldn't it?

Probably still should have one of them alongside Shakib. You can have two #3s, just don't fill the side with them

I don't see why not. If they have been the best players, then pick 7 no.3s. Who cares if they are batting out of position.

 

[CricAddict]

Only reason Kohli has had relative less flash world cup is because he is playing second fiddle to Rohit. If Rohit hadn't been so gun, Kohli woudl have been.

If Rohit was not so gun, all the pressure would have been on Kohli especially with Dhawan not there. So, it would have been a one man innings by Kohli several times with India struggling to qualify.

 

[CricAddict]

Individually I guess not, but the partnership figures are better for Williamson/Taylor and du Plessis / van der Dussen.

I actually forgot RVD. He will give a tough fight to Stokes but ultimately Stokes wins the slot.

 

[marc71178]

I don't see why not. If they have been the best players, then pick 7 no.3s. Who cares if they are batting out of position.

Because they play different roles in a batting line up?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Because they play different roles in a batting line up?

I'd pick the tournament's 4th best no. 3 to bat at no. 6 ahead of the tournament's best no. 6 if the no.3 was the better player

and just because they haven't been playing that position doesn't mean they won't be better at it. I'd back Kohli to be a better no.6 than . . . whoever is batting at no.6 for any team

 

[cnerd123]

If you care enough to pick a hypothetical XI you should care enough to do it properly. Otherwise why even engage in the exercise to begin with?

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you care enough to pick a hypothetical XI you should care enough to do it properly. Otherwise why even engage in the exercise to begin with?

You're going to have to define this

If by "do it properly" you mean only pick players in the exact positions the played in the WC regardless of how well they played/would play in a hypothetical scenario then I disagree with your defnition

 

[CricAddict]

You're going to have to define this

If by "do it properly" you mean only pick players in the exact positions the played in the WC regardless of how well they played/would play in a hypothetical scenario then I disagree with your defnition

You pick the XI based on how well they have done in the World Cup in their roles. Hence, the importance given to positions. If you are going to pick 4 number 3s in your team from 3 to 6, might as well pick 10 number threes from 1-10 + an opener at 11 if you think they have done the best of all players. As ***** said, it destroys the purpose of the exercise.

 

[cnerd123]

I mean if your goal is to pick a hypothetical XI of players taking part in the WC that would perform well as a team in a hypothetical match-up, then you might as well pick players who have had a bad WC anyways, on the basis that a small sample size of games doesn't reveal the true quality of a player. Form is temporary, class is permanent.

The whole point is to pick a team of the best performers in the WC, and as such you can't just pick a middle order full of openers and number 3s because they haven't actually performed well in the role you're picking them for.

And besides, while there is some merit to 'Kohli would be a better number 6 than most actual number 6s' based on an analysis of their technique and such, the reality is that a lot of players perform way below or above expectations when moved around in the batting order. You have to actually see the player perform in the role you're selecting them for IMO. So even if you were picking a team that would best perform in any given game, I'd still question the validity of picking established top order players to bat in the middle order, especially when they have no recent record of doing so.

So yea, you're not doing it properly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You pick the XI based on how well they have done in the World Cup in their roles.

well that's just, like, your opinion, man

As ***** said, it destroys the purpose of the exercise.

Nothing good ever starts with "As ***** said", and this is no exception

 

[TheJediBrah]

I mean if your goal is to pick a hypothetical XI of players taking part in the WC that would perform well as a team in a hypothetical match-up, then you might as well pick players who have had a bad WC anyways, on the basis that a small sample size of games doesn't reveal the true quality of a player. Form is temporary, class is permanent.

no that's stupid, that would be not doing it properly

The whole point is to pick a team of the best performers in the WC, and as such you can't just pick a middle order full of openers and number 3s because they haven't actually performed well in the role you're picking them for.

That's an exaggeration, and still just your opinion

And besides, while there is some merit to 'Kohli would be a better number 6 than most actual number 6s'

thanks

based on an analysis of their technique and such the reality is that a lot of players perform way below or above expectations when moved around in the batting order.

nah. You're exaggerating this. Definitely some truth to it but not the extent that you think

You have to actually see the player perform in the role you're selecting them for IMO. So even if you were picking a team that would best perform in any given game, I'd still question the validity of picking established top order players to bat in the middle order, especially when they have no recent record of doing so.

eh, sure. I'd still pick Kohli at no. 5 or 6 ahead of most of the best players in those positions at this WC. The difference between coming in at 1-100 and 4-120, while notable, is not significant enough for me to pick an inferior player.

So yea, you're not doing it properly.

sure I am

 

[cnerd123]

you put in a lot of effort for a guy whose shtick is that he doesn't care

 

[TheJediBrah]

you put in a lot of effort for a guy whose shtick is that he doesn't care

???

If I didn't care why would I post about it. You don't have to change the subject and be so defensive every time you get called out for being wrong.