SA Footy

A mate and I sat down and picked our world elevens since 1992 for test cricket.

The way we did it was one of us got 1 pick and then the next person got 2 picks and then 2 again until we had 12 players each.

which team is better?

TEAM A

Hayden
Langer
Kallis
Hussey
Pietersen
S.Waugh (c)
Sangakkara
Pollock
Akram
Muralitharan
McGrath

12th Kumble

Team B

Sehwag
Kirsten
Ponting (c)
Tendulker
Lara
Yousuf
Gilchrist
Flintoff
Warne
Ambrose
Donald

12th Gillespie

Good exercise.
Team B probably a bowler short (Sehwag would have to bowl a few) but would still pick them win in a canter.

Who picked team A? Pietersen?? I'm a big fan and he is a very good cricketer but since 1992 there are a large number of players i'd pick before him.Each to their own though. Hussey as well is an interesting selection. Not easy i guess given the number of players to choose from.

Team B would win IMHO.

A vs B
Hayden > Sehwag
Langer = Kirsten
Kallis = Ponting (only because of Kallis' bowling adding to the team)
Hussey < Tendulkar
Pieterson < Lara
S Waugh > Yousuf
Sangakarra < Gilchrist
Pollock > Flintoff
Murali < Warne
Akram = Donald
McGrath = Ambrose

I would say a middle order of Ponting, Tendulkar and Lara plus Gilchrist and Warne makes Team B comfortably stronger.

Aerie wrote:A vs B
Hayden > Sehwag
Langer = Kirsten
Kallis = Ponting (only because of Kallis' bowling adding to the team)
Hussey < Tendulkar
Pieterson < Lara
S Waugh > Yousuf
Sangakarra < Gilchrist
Pollock > Flintoff
Murali < Warne
Akram = Donald
McGrath = Ambrose

I would say a middle order of Ponting, Tendulkar and Lara plus Gilchrist and Warne makes Team B comfortably stronger.

Reckon you have it spot on except for Akram = Donald. I'd have Akram > Donald easily especially taking into account his batting.

Just off the top off the top of my head some notable players to miss out on selection here:

Border, Inzamam, Walsh, Gooch, Dravid, Kumble, M. Waugh, Taylor, Waqar, A. Flower, Laxman, Haynes, Giles.

I'm sure there are more but this just indicates how difficult it would be to pick these sides. For what it's worth i don't think Pietersen, Langer, Hussey , Kirsten, Sehwag, Flintoff or Donald should be in there. All very subjective though i guess.

Yep, I'd run with the B brigade and be confident it would win!

Rod,

Most notable exclusions are Dravid and Younis. You must be joking about Giles. On Pietersen when the team was picked he had played 9 tests v AUS and averaged over 50. I thought this was a good sign for his career. I guess with him and hussey you could argue they havnt done it long enough but i think in 5 years they will both be in there. As for leaving Dravid out I couldnt afford two slow coaches Kallis and Dravid. I got Kallis cos as a 5th bowler his average of 30 is magnificent.

Whoever said Border,

he wasnt good enuf post 1992.

Rod,

I was the murali team. I lost toss and he let me pick 1st. I went murali. He went warne gilchrist. I then went Mcgrath Kallis.

I think I put too much emphasis on having 5th and 6th bowling options and batting past 7.

My summary of strengths and weaknesses.

Team B has a stronger batting line up and is capable of scoring their runs more quickly.

Both bat equally deep. Flintoff 32 pollock 31 the two 8's. Akram 22 and warne 18 the two 9's.

Team A has Kallis and Steve waugh as 5th and 6th bowler team b has nothing in that department and generally has greater flexibility.

On a bunsen burner team a has two good spinners.They could drop Pollock or Akram for Kumble or just leave out Pietersen or Hussey and bat Kumar 6 pollock 7 akram 8 which is acceptable.

Equal wicket taking power in my opinion. Mabee team a slightly more economical.

I think team b's best day would be better than team a's.

I reckon team a may be slightly less hot and cold.

As much as one questions hussey and pietersen i think you can question flintoff as the 4th frontline bowler as he is relatively new like hussey and pietersen. Whats more flintoff doesnt have the back up of waugh and kallis.

I reckon team b just gets the cake due to the batting of Ponting Tendulker and Lara. Nothing in it though.

rod_rooster wrote:

Aerie wrote:A vs B
Hayden > Sehwag
Langer = Kirsten
Kallis = Ponting (only because of Kallis' bowling adding to the team)
Hussey < Tendulkar
Pieterson < Lara
S Waugh > Yousuf
Sangakarra < Gilchrist
Pollock > Flintoff
Murali < Warne
Akram = Donald
McGrath = Ambrose

I would say a middle order of Ponting, Tendulkar and Lara plus Gilchrist and Warne makes Team B comfortably stronger.

Reckon you have it spot on except for Akram = Donald. I'd have Akram > Donald easily especially taking into account his batting.

I was actually leaning towards Donald except taking into account Akram's batting I made them even. Both were brilliant and fairly different styles.

Aerie wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:

Aerie wrote:A vs B
Hayden > Sehwag
Langer = Kirsten
Kallis = Ponting (only because of Kallis' bowling adding to the team)
Hussey < Tendulkar
Pieterson < Lara
S Waugh > Yousuf
Sangakarra < Gilchrist
Pollock > Flintoff
Murali < Warne
Akram = Donald
McGrath = Ambrose

I would say a middle order of Ponting, Tendulkar and Lara plus Gilchrist and Warne makes Team B comfortably stronger.

Reckon you have it spot on except for Akram = Donald. I'd have Akram > Donald easily especially taking into account his batting.

I was actually leaning towards Donald except taking into account Akram's batting I made them even. Both were brilliant and fairly different styles.

Fair enough. Each to their own i gues. I'd pick Akram any day over Donald purely on bowling ability. Akram was one of the finest fast bowlers i have seen and while Donald was good he wasn't in the same class IMHO.

- wrote:You must be joking about Giles.

Yes my tongue was firmly in my cheek with that one

rod_rooster wrote:Who picked team A? Pietersen?? I'm a big fan and he is a very good cricketer but since 1992 there are a large number of players i'd pick before him.

Absolutely. I've never seen so much fuss about a player with so many flaws. Over-rated to the extreme.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:Who picked team A? Pietersen?? I'm a big fan and he is a very good cricketer but since 1992 there are a large number of players i'd pick before him.

Absolutely. I've never seen so much fuss about a player with so many flaws. Over-rated to the extreme.

He had played 9 tests v aus when this was picked and had an ave ova 50. not many players can boast that.

- wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:Who picked team A? Pietersen?? I'm a big fan and he is a very good cricketer but since 1992 there are a large number of players i'd pick before him.

Absolutely. I've never seen so much fuss about a player with so many flaws. Over-rated to the extreme.

He had played 9 tests v aus when this was picked and had an ave ova 50. not many players can boast that.

Do you think he is a better player than Inzamam or Border etc?

Inzamam is not a great player, he is a wasted talent.
Fat, lazy & selfish.
Just goes to show that talent alone is not enough, you need desire, ambition, discipline etc... could've been a great player

Punk Rooster wrote:Inzamam is not a great player, he is a wasted talent.
Fat, lazy & selfish.
Just goes to show that talent alone is not enough, you need desire, ambition, discipline etc... could've been a great player

Inzamam-ul-Haq 116 192 21 8615 329 50.38 25 45 79 - PAK

8615 runs at 50.38 is far from a wasted talent i would've thought. What more does he have to do?

rod_rooster wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:Inzamam is not a great player, he is a wasted talent.
Fat, lazy & selfish.
Just goes to show that talent alone is not enough, you need desire, ambition, discipline etc... could've been a great player

Inzamam-ul-Haq 116 192 21 8615 329 50.38 25 45 79 - PAK

8615 runs at 50.38 is far from a wasted talent i would've thought. What more does he have to do?

Rod, read my remarks- Fat, lazy & selfish.
I didn't say he doesn't make runs, but he lets himself down badly with his poor attitude.
He has potential to be one of the greats, but sadly, he'll just be a very good player, so yes, he's a wasted talent (not reaching full potential)

That middle order for team b does it for me.

Punk Rooster wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:Inzamam is not a great player, he is a wasted talent.
Fat, lazy & selfish.
Just goes to show that talent alone is not enough, you need desire, ambition, discipline etc... could've been a great player

Inzamam-ul-Haq 116 192 21 8615 329 50.38 25 45 79 - PAK

8615 runs at 50.38 is far from a wasted talent i would've thought. What more does he have to do?

Rod, read my remarks- Fat, lazy & selfish.
I didn't say he doesn't make runs, but he lets himself down badly with his poor attitude.
He has potential to be one of the greats, but sadly, he'll just be a very good player, so yes, he's a wasted talent (not reaching full potential)

What is the criteria to make a player one of the greats? Is Viv Richards a great? If so his record is inferior to Inzamam's (albeit only very slightly).

I would have 1 Viv Richards over 10 Inzies...