Which International Cricketers Would Make the Aussie Side?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Lara would not make it based on the performances of the past 12 months

O RLY?

Brian Lara (last 12 months to today)

12 Matches
22 Innings
0 NOs
1200 runs
Avge: 54.54
5 hundreds (incl. 196, 176, 130, 153 and 226)
1 fifty

 

[tooextracool]

Because this is assuming they are in their prime I'm guessing? And there ain't no way in hell you can argue that at their peaks Kaspa is better than Pollock!

And even then, all 3 bowlers are past their best now-a-days anyway if its referring to current form.

pollock's peak was so long ago that there is no point even talking about it right now. in the last 5 years, kaspa and gillespie have been far better performers than pollock.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

pollock's peak was so long ago that there is no point even talking about it right now. in the last 5 years, kaspa and gillespie have been far better performers than pollock.

I can't believe you'd take Kasprowicz over Pollock even in this day and age.

 

[Jono]

Jeez TEC, I know you're a huge Kaspa fan, I got used to that when you would constantly claim Kaspa deserved a ODI spot ahead of Lee, but by Golly I never thought you'd claim Kaspa better than Polly. (I hope you realised that rhymes!)

Anyway, since the start of the 2001 up until now, a comparison between both players shows that Pollock trumps Kaspa!

                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St

unfiltered            99  3372 111   31.51   2  14 389  7/87   23.21 16  67  0
                      38   445  25   10.59   0   0 113  7/36   32.88  4  16  0
filtered              50  1770 111   36.87   2   6 186  6/30   26.43  6  41  0
                      22   231  23    9.24   0   0  68  7/39   31.69  2  10  0

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...1;.cgifields=cplayerid;.cgifields=comparetype

 

[tooextracool]

I can't believe you'd take Kasprowicz over Pollock even in this day and age.

Kaspa in his prime was a far better bowler than Pollock since 2001.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Kaspa in his prime was a far better bowler than Pollock since 2001.

But neither is in his prime anymore.
Pollock in his prime >>> Kasprowicz in his prime.

How can you compare a prime Kaspa to an out-of-prime Pollock ahead of comparing both in their prime? It's hardly fair on Pollock.

 

[tooextracool]

Jeez TEC, I know you're a huge Kaspa fan, I got used to that when you would constantly claim Kaspa deserved a ODI spot ahead of Lee, but by Golly I never thought you'd claim Kaspa better than Polly. (I hope you realised that rhymes!)

Anyway, since the start of the 2001 up until now, a comparison between both players shows that Pollock trumps Kaspa!

                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St

unfiltered            99  3372 111   31.51   2  14 389  7/87   23.21 16  67  0
                      38   445  25   10.59   0   0 113  7/36   32.88  4  16  0
filtered              50  1770 111   36.87   2   6 186  6/30   26.43  6  41  0
                      22   231  23    9.24   0   0  68  7/39   31.69  2  10  0

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...1;.cgifields=cplayerid;.cgifields=comparetype

no the period i was referring to in Kaspa's case was this one:http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
hes clearly been below par since then for whatever reasons. 55 wickets at an average of 26 though is definetly very good.
in Shaun pollocks case i refer to the period after the series against India in 2001 right up until now which is :http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
127 wickets at an average of 30 which is certainly worse.

 

[tooextracool]

But neither is in his prime anymore.
Pollock in his prime >>> Kasprowicz in his prime.

How can you compare a prime Kaspa to an out-of-prime Pollock ahead of comparing both in their prime? It's hardly fair on Pollock.

because the poster said "Assume a full-strength Aussie side of the past 3 years"
Therefore one would assume that the players who would make the side would also have to have been in their prime in the past 3 years. Pollock has been out of his prime for nearly 5 years now, while Kaspa was still in his prime only a year or so ago.

 

[GIMH]

I think it's common knowledge the man they'd like to have the most is Flintoff, hence the whole Watson/Symonds Test experiment

 

[adharcric]

I think it's common knowledge the man they'd like to have the most is Flintoff, hence the whole Watson/Symonds Test experiment

I think they'd take Pathan too, he's the next best option to Flintoff: stable with the bat, huge with the ball (at least in ODIs, not quite as much in tests).

I'd take Pathan over Flintoff as a batsman at the moment, obviously the complete package goes to Freddie.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I think we'd take Pollock or Kallis before Pathan. No offense, but I think that's how the Aussies would go.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think that the Kallis style all-rounder (much more of a batsman) would suit us a lot better than a Pathan type.

 

[HowsThat]

Thank God no one has named Asif for the team, at another site Pak fan are having "Asif Hysteria", they believe he's their next messiah..!

Can't wait to see the two match wonder fail in England!

 

[marc71178]

I'd take Pathan over Flintoff as a batsman at the moment, obviously the complete package goes to Freddie.

You what?

Flintoff with the 4 consecutive Test 50s?

 

[adharcric]

You what?

Flintoff with the 4 consecutive Test 50s?

I should've mentioned I'm referring to more to one-day matches. Yes, I think Pathan is more reliable than Flintoff as a batsman in general these days. As a leading player and current captain, Flintoff has really disappointed me the way he's gotten out playing loose shots when his side is in trouble (at least in this series). Pathan meanwhile has looked a little more composed. Flintoff is an overrated batsman, talented yes but I question his patience and temperament right now.

Last 15 ODIs: Flintoff 35 bat, 38 bowl ... Pathan 31 bat, 19 bowl
Last 10 Tests: Flintoff 37 bat, 27 bowl ... Pathan 35 bat, 32 bowl

Not such a great difference there. Now, I'm not saying Pathan has Flintoff's class, Flintoff is far and away the best all-rounder today.
As a batsman though, Pathan has been more stable than Flintoff lately and hasn't thrown his wicket away like Flintoff has, even though Freddie's the one who should be playing with more responsibility. If I had to choose one as a cricketer, I'd go with Flintoff easily ... but at the present, it'd be a close call batting-wise.

 

[irfan]

Hasn't Pathan gone places with the bat after his debut at No 10 againts Aus

 

[Slats4ever]

I'd say the only players to make the side would be..

Murali (in replace of s clarke presuming G McGrath's fit)
Freddy (in replace of symonds)
Dravid (in replace of marty)

that's it in my opinion.

 

[tooextracool]

I should've mentioned I'm referring to more to one-day matches. Yes, I think Pathan is more reliable than Flintoff as a batsman in general these days. As a leading player and current captain, Flintoff has really disappointed me the way he's gotten out playing loose shots when his side is in trouble (at least in this series). Pathan meanwhile has looked a little more composed. Flintoff is an overrated batsman, talented yes but I question his patience and temperament right now.

Last 15 ODIs: Flintoff 35 bat, 38 bowl ... Pathan 31 bat, 19 bowl
Last 10 Tests: Flintoff 37 bat, 27 bowl ... Pathan 35 bat, 32 bowl

Not such a great difference there. Now, I'm not saying Pathan has Flintoff's class, Flintoff is far and away the best all-rounder today.
As a batsman though, Pathan has been more stable than Flintoff lately and hasn't thrown his wicket away like Flintoff has, even though Freddie's the one who should be playing with more responsibility. If I had to choose one as a cricketer, I'd go with Flintoff easily ... but at the present, it'd be a close call batting-wise.

if you're going to look at ODIs you're better off looking at ER's.
and id appreciate it if you didnt compare genuine all rounders with people who cant do either in tests.

 

[adharcric]

if you're going to look at ODIs you're better off looking at ER's.
and id appreciate it if you didnt compare genuine all rounders with people who cant do either in tests.

if you insist ...
2005 ODIs: Flintoff 5.0, Pathan 5.0
2006 ODIs: Flintoff 4.3, Pathan 4.4

Maybe you should read before you type, I already mentioned I'm talking about batting and not overall performance. You can say what you want, but Pathan's averaged 35 with the bat in the last 10 tests ... that's good enough for me. Again, Flintoff is clearly a better cricketer than Pathan but he got plenty of let-offs in the test series; as the captain and a top-six batsman, he shouldn't be playing some of the shots he has. All I'm saying is that Pathan is the next best option to Flintoff, particularly in ODIs. Flintoff remains a better batsman as well, but Pathan has looked just as composed in ODIs lately.

 

[jack_sparrow]

Assume a full-strength Aussie side of the past 3 years, something like this.
Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Hussey, Clarke, Gilchrist, Warne, Lee, Gillespie/Clark/Kasprowicz, McGrath, a few reserves (macgill, watson, hodge, clown)
If you want, you can go back further to Waugh, Lehmann and the likes ... you get the point, this side has been top-class for the past decade or so now.

So from the other cricketing nations, who would crack the Aussie side? If a player is currently out of touch (tendulkar, lara, ganguly, gillespie), assume he's at his usual best.

I'll start with India.

Dravid, Tendulkar and Harbhajan would make the Aussie side IMO. Kumble would get overshadowed and Gangs and Sehwag wouldn't cut it fitness/discipline-wise. Yes, Kumble and Ganguly are all-time greats but I don't see them going as far if they were Aussies. Harbhajan would beat out MacGill for his offies.

IF someone is at their usual awsomely best?

then certainly with a certain certainty lara, tendulkar and shoiab akhtar. any of these three in their superpower best can destroy anyone. youd be out of sync if they werent included.