Best Test XI

[Howard Littlejohn]

Perhaps he should've picked a different Kiwi.

In fact, I can think of one that would've fit perfectly - an opener who no-one selected:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/38622.html

I wish I had thought of him. That would have also solved having to play my Lankan out of position.

 

[Noobz0r]

No offence meant at all, but I can't help but feel that @Torz's team is being overrated due to the modern greats in his middle order.

 

[Torz]

No offence meant at all, but I can't help but feel that @Torz's team is being overrated due to the modern greats in his middle order.

This sort of logic is what I don't get. I've picked just about the best middle order I could've (from the players I've seen), have a strong fast bowling attack and an adaptable opening pair, yet everyone seems to think I'm being overrated.

Is it because I've got obvious choices, rather than 'unique' or 'clever' picks?

 

[Bradesmaen]

No offence meant at all, but I can't help but feel that @Torz's team is being overrated due to the modern greats in his middle order.

People tend to overrate players from yesteryear too, playing against non-professional athletes in a time where 150km/h wasn't heard of.

 

[The Speaker]

People tend to overrate players from yesteryear too, playing against non-professional athletes in a time where 150km/h wasn't heard of.

How long ago is yesteryear?

 

[Noobz0r]

I'd like to point out before I post this that I am not being ungracious or have sour grapes etc. At the end of the day this was just a bit of fun, and (almost) all of the teams are top notch. In fact, breaking it down statistically everyone's teams are practically identical.

That wasn't quite the point I was making, you were close with your comment about them being obvious. To anyone reading this forum, the names in your team are more recognisable. Statistically, our middle orders are very evenly matched.

Anyway, I have more votes than thorne89, and that's all that matters!

 

[Bradesmaen]

How long ago is yesteryear?

I was thinking probably anywhere before the 1960's

 

[The Speaker]

I was thinking probably anywhere before the 1960's

Nonsense.

Richie Benaud still rates Frank Tyson as the fastest bowler he ever saw.

Larwood, Lindwall, Miller and Trueman all would've got up there. Pre-1960s test cricket wasn't just a bunch of medium pacers and spinners.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Nonsense.

Richie Benaud still rates Frank Tyson as the fastest bowler he ever saw.

Larwood, Lindwall, Miller and Trueman all would've got up there. Pre-1960s test cricket wasn't just a bunch of medium pacers and spinners.

I never said that, but it is impossible to compare both eras of cricket, so saying that modern players are overrated is a tad harsh, just as it would be the other way.

 

[Noobz0r]

I went with Glinn as the second best team, bats deep (with a very strong top order) as well as having a wide variety of bowling options at his disposal.

 

[Noobz0r]

Also of note: I never said the individual players were overrated, they are very far from that IMO. All I meant that his team was being overrated because of the names.

It was all very innocent!

 

[Gak Attack]

This sort of logic is what I don't get. I've picked just about the best middle order I could've (from the players I've seen), have a strong fast bowling attack and an adaptable opening pair, yet everyone seems to think I'm being overrated.

Is it because I've got obvious choices, rather than 'unique' or 'clever' picks?

I don't think anyone is saying they're bad picks, I certainly don't think they are. My point was only that people will look at it and think oh shit because they remember all those guys dominating over say a lineup with dudes from pre 1980(which as I mentioned earlier and in the draft itself was something I realized I should of don). Also had no issue with your bowling attack or your team in general, I just didn't agree with those claiming your batting lineup owned everyone else's. Certainly no dig at you and sorry if that was how it came across.

 

[DrVanNostrand]

WARRRRRRRRRRNIE.

Thanks for playing, gents.

 

[Marklar_33]

Empire XI...I can't vote polls from Tapatalk...

 

[The Speaker]

I still vote my team the most underrated; I doubt as many votes as I feel it deserves will be received.

Can I ask how many votes you think your team deserves?

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Can I ask how many votes you think your team deserves?

How long is a piece of string?

Voted for you, don't get too technical with me haha.

 

[The Speaker]

How long is a piece of string?

Voted for you, don't get too technical with me haha.

You can't take your vote back though.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

You can't take your vote back though.

I was so close to voting for myself and claiming that I 'didn't read' the OP.

 

[The Speaker]

I was so close to voting for myself and claiming that I 'didn't read' the OP.

There was nothing in the OP about voting for yourself.

 

[The King!]

That was hard, i went mg mg for the sheer power of the bowling, wont be chasing much when they bat

 

[Carbine Chaos]

There was nothing in the OP about voting for yourself.

Right, it must have been established in the other thread then. Or maybe I'm just a hell modest person? Yeah nah.

 

[TassieSaint]

Went for Torz's although it may be influenced the large % of my favourite players in there (Ponting, Lara, Sehwag and DeVilliers).

Ponting/Lara/Tendulkar is ridiculous. Lillee, Bond (assuming he's fully fit for this hypothetical) and Trueman (obviously never saw him play but his record is outstanding) would be devastating, never really rated Kumble though.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

That was hard, i went mg mg for the sheer power of the bowling, wont be chasing much when they bat

It goes to show how subjective these things can be. My personal opinion is that only Murali is in the same class as a lot of the bowlers in the draft, and there are only really specialist batsmen down to number four. I actually rate MG MG's the weakest of the teams, apart from perhaps my own (which was selected with an additional handicap).

 

[The King!]

It goes to show how subjective these things can be. My personal opinion is that only Murali is in the same class as a lot of the bowlers in the draft, and there are only really specialist batsmen down to number four. I actually rate MG MG's the weakest of the teams, apart from perhaps my own (which was selected with an additional handicap).

I glanced through a bit quick, might change my vote, but now i have backed it in ill defend it

Yes lee and akthar are not all time greats but their best they were two of the quickest and deadliest bowlers then Ntini is underrated took 390 wickers.

Murali is one of the best spinners of all time and botham and flintoff are both excellent quicks, i am presuming they are fit and not fat and lazy.


Will back that team to keep the score low and hope the top 5 can get the runs, but it does have a weaker batting line up than some, McCullum hmm

Damn read more carefully next time, just wish id played great idea guys well dome

 

[Torz]

I still haven't voted, because I can't decide. The problem is I'm a fan of some teams bowlers and other teams batsmen.