Test Team of the Decade - The Noughties
Calvin
you are eligible, but only performances in the decade are taken into
account.
Hayden
Smith *
Ponting
Kallis
Yousuf
Sangekkara
Gilchrist
Flintoff
Warne
Steyn
McGrath
Murali
Pollock is unlucky to miss out, but there's nt much point in pickinh
both him and McGrath. Competition for the middle order places was
extremely fierce, with excellent players like Jayawardene and
Tendulkar not quite making it. KP is not even close.
cheers,
calvin
R Bharat Rao
> No silly qualification rules. If you played a Test in the Noughties
> you are eligible, but only performances in the decade are taken into
> account.
>
> Hayden
> Smith *
> Ponting
> Kallis
> Yousuf
> Sangekkara
> Gilchrist
> Flintoff
> Warne
> Steyn
> McGrath
> Murali
Sehwag ahead of Smith certainly, and possibly even before Hayden.
Warne to skipper, and if not, Sangakarra.
Bharat
yeskay
How can one miss out on the best batsmen to be "seen" after
Bradman and IVAR.
Calvin
> Warne to skipper,
Like that idea.
cheers,
calvin
skp
Murali would be a poor choice for 12th man :-)
(with Flintoff in, you have got one too many MO bats in your lineup)
Nirvanam
For the record, Warne never captained even 5 Tests to be considered a
Test captain at all. What he did in county cricket and in season 1 of
the IPL has no bearing on his Test captaincy. Unfortunately we will
never know if he would've been the same kinda skipper in Test cricket.
From the 11 given, Ponting is definitely not a great captain on
'subjective' evaluation (which of course is as necessary as
objective). I'd think Smith should be the captain. And in my team it
would be Gilly (because Smith will be replaced by Viru)
Nirvanam
Going strictly by your criteria, the team I'd choose is:
Viru
Hayden
Ponting
Sachin
Lara
Gilly*
Pollock
Steyn
Warne / Kumble (outside sub-continent / in sub-continent)
Murali
McGrath
12th man
Warne / Kumble (in sub-continent / outside sub-continent)
Given the XI I'd think Lara could be captain but he fails miserably on
objective data just like how Ponting fails on subjective inferences.
Gilly is the only guy who does well in both. Pollock always gives you
the impression that something's not there.
dodo
Wouldn't the arguments apply to Gilchrist as well? He did not have an
extended run as captain
Nirvanam
It does but the difference is that Gilly has actually captained the
Australian side for a few Tests, and in fact is responsible for
capturing the final frontier. Whereas Warne does not even have that
little number of Tests on his side.
If we go by pure numbers, there is no way anyone other than Ponting
can be the captain. If we include Smith in the XI maybe Smith will
become the captain. But given that Smith is not in the team at all, it
leaves us with only 1 guy as choice for captain: Ponting. But if we
were to consider both subjective and objective data then there is no
clear winner. My team has Gilly as captain, you can choose yours.
krquet
It is only my unenlightened opinion, but maybe the reason why a few of
us were hard pressed to find the last decade to be as wondrous as the
few preceding ones, can best be summed up by these lists with McGrath
and Steyn featuring as the specialist champions of pace bowling.
What a decade!
aA...
hl@yM..
Asif Zaidi
> No silly qualification rules. If you played a Test in the Noughties
> you are eligible, but only performances in the decade are taken into
> account.
>
> Hayden
> Smith *
> Ponting
> Kallis
> Yousuf
> Sangekkara
> Gilchrist
> Flintoff
> Warne
> Steyn
> McGrath
> Murali
>
> Pollock is unlucky to miss out, but there's nt much point in pickinh
> both him and McGrath. Competition for the middle order places was
>
> cheers,
> calvine Jayawardene and
> Tendulkar not quite making it. KP is not ev
M Yousuf over SRT - I think not. Yousuf has had a terrific decade but
SRT is a class above.
I would go with (a sane) S Akhtar over Murali (the chucker)
Thanks
Asif
Calvin
He's not. Twelfth man would depend on the conditions.
cheers,
calvin
higgs
>
> - Show quoted text -
I, like you, value longevity and 'runs on the board' above everything
else.
Ponting is the Test skipper who has won the most Tests.
Period.
That makes him the best Test skipper ever
Higgs
Nirvanam
Nope I am not with you on that. Runs on the board and longevity are
factors that I value...but not necessarily above all other factors.
> Ponting is the Test skipper who has won the most Tests.
> Period.
Like I said, when it comes to sheer numbers, given the team we had
Ponting is the favorite. But in case you missed comprehending my whole
post, I also mentioned that objective data is not enough. Subjective
inferences are also equally valuable. Given the two of them, Ponting
would not be the right choice. If you were to go only by numbers,
Ponting comes out on top, but it does not mean Ponting is the best
captain.
> That makes him the best Test skipper ever
>
> Higgs
Higgs, your problems with comprehending things are getting difficult
by the day. No one is out here with an agenda to prove you wrong. It
is a forum where people share opinions. It is not fair to first
misinterpret what a fellow poster said and follow that up with a
misrepresentating post.
higgs
So things other than sheer numbers can have a bearing on your
evaluation of players?
> > Ponting is the Test skipper who has won the most Tests.
> > Period.
>
> Like I said, when it comes to sheer numbers, given the team we had
> Ponting is the favorite. But in case you missed comprehending my whole
> post, I also mentioned that objective data is not enough. Subjective
> inferences are also equally valuable. Given the two of them, Ponting
> would not be the right choice. If you were to go only by numbers,
> Ponting comes out on top, but it does not mean Ponting is the best
> captain.
>
Why would subjective values not be relevent when comparing, say,
batsmen, but would be for a skipper?
Why are you happy to di9smiss, say, Pollock or Sutcliffe as top notch
batsmen, based on lack of aggregate runs, yet argue against Pontings
captaincy, based on some unmeasureable quantity?
> > That makes him the best Test skipper ever
>
> > Higgs
>
> Higgs, your problems with comprehending things are getting difficult
> by the day. No one is out here with an agenda to prove you wrong. It
> is a forum where people share opinions. It is not fair to first
> misinterpret what a fellow poster said and follow that up with a
> misrepresentating post.-
Then stop doing it and be consistent.
I'm quite happy to discuss cricket with a fellow who has some sort of
ground rules, but when a chap starts to move goalposts at every
opportunity, it gets increasingly difficult
Higgs
cricd...@hotmail.com
> I'm quite happy to discuss cricket with a fellow who has some sort of
> ground rules, but when a chap starts to move goalposts at every
> opportunity, it gets increasingly difficult
If you think it's hard talking cricket with moving
goalposts, trying playing it that way. Even with fixed
goalposts, for that matter.
vijay...@my-deja.com
Since you say no silly qualifications, why did
you choose to leave out Courtney Walsh? I'd
have him and Bond ahead of Steyn and McGrath.
I am not sure I would find a place for both
Sanga & Gilchrist. One of the two, plus
Chanderpaul should do it for me.
Vijay
Nirvanam
> evaluation of players?
Rather clearly answered already
> Why would subjective values not be relevent when comparing, say,
> batsmen, but would be for a skipper?
Were they supposed to not be relevant? Did I say anytime that they
were not relevant?
> Why are you happy to di9smiss, say, Pollock or Sutcliffe as top notch
> batsmen, based on lack of aggregate runs, yet argue against Pontings
> captaincy, based on some unmeasureable quantity?
Who said lack of aggregate runs? Maybe you are not comprehending
properly, again. The reason why Pollock and Headley (not Sutcliffe) I
feel they don't make it to the ATG list without a qualifier is quite
subjective on the contrary...remember I said they did not play on any
dust bowls, in different conditions?
> Then stop doing it and be consistent.
Doing what, Higgs?
> I'm quite happy to discuss cricket with a fellow who has some sort of
> ground rules, but when a chap starts to move goalposts at every
> opportunity, it gets increasingly difficult
>
> Higgs
For one I am not moving any goalposts. Secondly, please understand
this is a forum for sharing opinions not to judge right or wrong. Have
I ever said you are wrong to have an opinion? Give it a little more
thought before saying whatever you want to say.
higgs
> > So things other than sheer numbers can have a bearing on your
> > evaluation of players?
>
> Rather clearly answered already
>
Not
> > Why would subjective values not be relevent when comparing, say,
> > batsmen, but would be for a skipper?
>
> Were they supposed to not be relevant? Did I say anytime that they
> were not relevant?
>
So you said that they were?
> > Why are you happy to di9smiss, say, Pollock or Sutcliffe as top notch
> > batsmen, based on lack of aggregate runs, yet argue against Pontings
> > captaincy, based on some unmeasureable quantity?
>
> Who said lack of aggregate runs? Maybe you are not comprehending
> properly, again. The reason why Pollock and Headley (not Sutcliffe) I
> feel they don't make it to the ATG list without a qualifier is quite
> subjective on the contrary...remember I said they did not play on any
> dust bowls, in different conditions?
>
Modern players don't play on uncovered wickets or stickies, nor do
they play less than upwards of 100 Tests over a career if they are
selected.
Pollock & Headley played where they were able to; they didn't duck any
challenges.
> > Then stop doing it and be consistent.
>
> Doing what, Higgs?
>
> > I'm quite happy to discuss cricket with a fellow who has some sort of
> > ground rules, but when a chap starts to move goalposts at every
> > opportunity, it gets increasingly difficult
>
> > Higgs
>
> For one I am not moving any goalposts. Secondly, please understand
> this is a forum for sharing opinions not to judge right or wrong. Have
> I ever said you are wrong to have an opinion? Give it a little more
> thought before saying whatever you want to say.
Sound sentiments.
When you start abiding by them, we may have a more productive
discourse
Higgs
Nirvanam
Higgsy, please don't respond to my posts unless I specifically ask for
your response or have referred you in it...I'll do the same. To be
frank Higgs, I am totally confused on how to respond to your posts.
For one I don't understand why you are reading too many things in
someone's post or reading something that is not there at
all...comprehending something that is sometimes very different from
what the post says. And this happens in your responses not just to me
but to all others.
At the same time I also understand it just could be something which
happens to all of us and hence it hurts me to have to point out to you
every time. Its probably not right on my part to remind an elderly
person that misinterpretations are happening frequently. But I am a
human with human frailties, therefore tend to correct any
misinterpretations when I am being misrepresented.
I'll try not to trouble you anymore. Higgsy, :-)