combined XI

[bunsen burner]

Whilst on the subject of the Daily Telegraph, this is an outrageous statement that I found on p55:

"....England's Ashes party after a they went within 5 runs of an upset victory over WA yesterday"

Upset??????? I don't know who wrote this, but it is fair to say that they don't know too much about cricket.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Brett Li


None of these Batters are as good as

Tresco
Hussain
Vaughan

Or Bowlers as good as:

Caddick
Gough

and maybe at a push Hoggard

I just don't see the backbone. IMHO

Whilst its difficult to compare regular Test players (in England's case) to first class players who can't get into a Test side due to simple lack of opportunities (Australia's 2nd tier players), I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest the likes of Katich, Maher, Love, Hodge etc. are better batsmen than the likes of Vaughan and Trescothick.

Whilst Vaughan and Trescothick are proving their worth for the English Test side, their first-class record make rather modest reading, averaging 37 and 34 respectively. Compare this to the aforementioned Australian batsmen who have first-class averages well into the 40s. This despite the fact they play in a much tougher domestic competition (in fact every season we see a whole handful of Australian batsman dominating in county cricket, even a guy like Murray Goodwin who struggles at shield level). If Vaughan and Trescothick played in Australia they would be much lower down in the pecking order, and IMO would be struggling to get a game for a state side.

 

[larrikin]

Originally posted by Eago77


Agree 100%.

My team would be:

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Hussain
Waugh
Martyn
Gilchrist
Warne
Gough
Gillespie
McGrath

Martyn would be the only player out of this XI that would maybe be questioned IMO. The rest pick themselves.

Martyn has a higher test average than Langer, Ponting, Hussain and I think Waugh. His record over the past 18 months is amongst the best of all the Aussie batters (5 centuries), and all of this from number 6.

 

[Kenny_01]

Originally posted by larrikin

Martyn has a higher test average than Langer, Ponting, Hussain and I think Waugh. His record over the past 18 months is amongst the best of all the Aussie batters (5 centuries), and all of this from number 6.

Spot on.

 

[bunsen burner]

I really have to question people who have put Hussein into the side?????

He is an excellent captain and is IMO the biggest contribution to the rise if English cricket. BUT, as Steve Waugh would be captain, and with the rest of the side not needing a figure like Hussein to motivate them, we could only assume he would be picked on his batting ability.

Hussein has an average of 37! Surely he would not be worthy of a spot in a combined XI? Especially when Vaughan has an average that is 10 better.

 

[bunsen burner]

Just out of interest, here are the batting averages of the current test players from either side with Thorpe added in. The English batsmen have asterisks in front of them so they can be distinguished easily. Batting averages aren't everything when picking a test side, but there are gaps big enough to just about leave it in no doubt who would make the team.


Gilchrist 58.51
Hayden 50.00
Waugh 49.91
Martyn 48.00
* Vaughan 47.50
Ponting 47.49
Langer 43.50
* Trescothick 43.37
* Thorpe 41.87
* Stewart 39.99
* Hussain 37.15
* Crawley 34.12
* Butcher 33.13
Lehmann 28.50

I would say from the figures that the only English batsman guarunteed of a spot is Vaughan. Langer and Trescothick have almost identical averages, but at this stage you would have to give langer the nod because often the opening pairing is more important than the individuals on their own.

This is my combined XI:

1) Hayden
2) Langer
3) Ponting
4) Martyn
5) Waugh (c)
6) Vaughan
7) Gilchrist
8) Warne
9) Gillespie
10) Gough
11) McGrath

Here are the bowling averages. Bowling averages don't measure performance as well as batting averages, but once again, when you have a look at them, the 4 bowlers with the best averages pretty much pick themselves.

McGrath 21.52
Warne 25.73
Gillespie 26.36
* Gough 27.57
Lee 27.94
* Caddick 29.48
Bichel 29.66
* Hoggard 31.43
* White 37.15
* Flintoff 47.15

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by bunsen burner


You've been rumbled mate. It seems you do read the Tele:



It seems you preached something in your past debate that you didn't practice yourself. If you're going to debate something, you should at least make statements that you believe in.

i sometimes visit www.news.com.au if you are suggesting i read piers ackerman, robert craddock, jon pierek, peter frilingos etc... guess again. but i will read articles from steve waugh, glenn mcgrath and shane warne.

im not sure if you occasionally pick up the SMH, but i think if you give it a try for about a week, you will really notice the difference.

i only started buying the SMH since just before the bulldogs scandal, and the difference in their jounalism is marked. far less opinionated, and a LOT more factual. though i did take notice in one daily telegraph poll "should mark waugh have been dropped??" Yes 8%, No 92% (or something like that, but it is a NSW paper )

 

[bunsen burner]

I don't buy SMH because it is a broadsheet (sizewise). To much of a pain in the a ss to open it up. Stuff drops out everywhere.

I don't read any of the crap from the journos that you mentioned. I'm after news and facts, not opinion. I perfectly understand that SMH is much more factful than the Tele. But, I take what I read in the Tele with a pinch of salt. I am aware that their articles are biased. I quite often read the Tele and pick up on stuff they have written that is either wrong, uninformed, or shamelessly biased. I think I posted one such thing a few posts ago.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by nicko18


i sometimes visit www.news.com.au if you are suggesting i read piers ackerman, robert craddock, jon pierek, peter frilingos etc... guess again. but i will read articles from steve waugh, glenn mcgrath and shane warne.

wouldn't the former lot be the likely ghosts of the latter lot?

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by DaveW


wouldn't the former lot be the likely ghosts of the latter lot?

they probably are, but that doesnt stop them from writing sensationalist speculative dribble.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
I don't buy SMH because it is a broadsheet (sizewise). To much of a pain in the a ss to open it up. Stuff drops out everywhere.

I don't read any of the crap from the journos that you mentioned. I'm after news and facts, not opinion. I perfectly understand that SMH is much more factful than the Tele. But, I take what I read in the Tele with a pinch of salt. I am aware that their articles are biased. I quite often read the Tele and pick up on stuff they have written that is either wrong, uninformed, or shamelessly biased. I think I posted one such thing a few posts ago.

i must admit that is by far the biggest disadvantage of the herald. there is no way you can open it up and read it on a bus.
i think a lot of the tele journos have their own agendas to push. the baseless fudging of statistics and slander that has been used to promote rugby league is beyond belief, and i have noticed that the level of uninformed commentary is rampant. i cant recall distinct examples, but many a time i have i have known far more about a particular sport than the journalists that are paid to cover it.

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by hourn

I also think that in general he is not far from, maybe even better than Gillespie. Caddick is one of the most underrated cricketers going around i reckon. He has a great run up and a nice high action, plenty of bounce. Good solid bowler, who doesn't get the credit he deserves.

Caddick is underrated somewhat but he let himself down badly in the last Ashes contest. It seemed that this was the perfect setting for him to finally show his wares against Australia and he didn't do it, Australians were simply too good for him.

 

[wagstaff]

Not so sure why Langer is considered to be automatically ahead of Trescothick and Vaughan. Statistically speaking, his Test record isn't clearly better then either of the two English openers.

And I know that Langer and Hayden have been bracketed together as a successful opening partnership but for me Hayden has been the far more impressive one of the two. It's easily forgotten that Langer had a few slices of luck early in his career as an opener:

- He should've been out LBW for 0 of the Brisbane Test against New Zealand last summer in one of the more notorious decisions of the season. Langer went on to score a century.

- Was dropped (an easy one) when on 0 against New Zealand in Hobart last summer. He went on to score a century.

- Was dropped first ball in the first Test of the recent series against Pakistan. Went on to score 72.

And apart from these incidents, Hayden has overall looked far more impressive then Langer, certainly worthy of his status as the world's best batsman. To use one example, compare the sweep shots of Hayden and Langer. Hayden's sweep shot has become one of the best in world cricket - safe and a potent run-scorer. Langer's sweep shot never convinces and he has been out plenty of times playing the shot.

 

[dr nick]

after a bit more research and watching some of the poms in action... here is my amended team

Marcus Trescothick
Matthew Hayden
Ricky Ponting
Mark Butcher
Nasser Hussain
Michael Vaughan
Adam Gilchrist
Shane Warne
Andrew Caddick
Matthew Hoggard
Glenn McGrath

had to fiddle with the batting line-up, coz i think that both england openers would be good enough to make the side, but we have hayden. from the look of him, vaughan wouldnt go too badly down at #6. captain of this team would be a toss up between ponting and gilchrist.

unlucky players to miss out include langer and gillespie (his injury influenced my decision here). to be frank, our middle order looks a bit weak at the moment, hence why the english are filling up most of the batting line-up.

 

[Zombie]

Some of you people have absolutely no clue when it comes to cricket, no English player would fit into the Australian side, none. Australia have probably about 10 batsmen better than the best English batsman (Thorpe) and 5 pace bowlers better than the best English pace bowler (Gough).

Only a couple of player from the English side would get into the Australian A side, absolutely none would make it into the Australian side and wouldn't even be close.

It may make a combined team a bit boring, but that is the way it is.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by nicko18
after a bit more research and watching some of the poms in action... here is my amended team

Marcus Trescothick
Matthew Hayden
Ricky Ponting
Mark Butcher
Nasser Hussain
Michael Vaughan
Adam Gilchrist
Shane Warne
Andrew Caddick
Matthew Hoggard
Glenn McGrath

had to fiddle with the batting line-up, coz i think that both england openers would be good enough to make the side, but we have hayden. from the look of him, vaughan wouldnt go too badly down at #6. captain of this team would be a toss up between ponting and gilchrist.

unlucky players to miss out include langer and gillespie (his injury influenced my decision here). to be frank, our middle order looks a bit weak at the moment, hence why the english are filling up most of the batting line-up.

Seriously, you no nothing about cricket and shouldn't comment on it.

Butcher 38 (first class average)
Hussain 42
Vaugh 37
Trescothick 34

The following players would easily get a game before any of those 4:

Langer 51
M.Waugh 53
S.Waugh 52
Lehmann 57
Martyn 49
Bevan 56
Hussey 50
Katich 49
Love 49

The following players would also be selected ahead of them:

Elliot 49
Slater 42
Cox 45
DiVenuto 42
Blewett 47
Maher 44
Law 50


The 3 players you mentioned would struggle to make a 3rd string Australian side.

 

[clucas91]

I would pick Darren Gough over Brett Lee any day.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by Zombie


Seriously, you no nothing about cricket and shouldn't comment on it.

Butcher 38 (first class average)
Hussain 42
Vaugh 37
Trescothick 34

The following players would easily get a game before any of those 4:

Langer 51
M.Waugh 53
S.Waugh 52
Lehmann 57
Martyn 49
Bevan 56
Hussey 50
Katich 49
Love 49

The following players would also be selected ahead of them:

Elliot 49
Slater 42
Cox 45
DiVenuto 42
Blewett 47
Maher 44
Law 50


The 3 players you mentioned would struggle to make a 3rd string Australian side.

you are embarrasing yourself.

according to you, allan border would make the side. he has a higher first class average too.

and putting mark waugh and darren gough in the mix was just the bomb.

vaughan and trescothick are in much better form than langer.

it is plainly obvious that you didnt hear about the recent india series.


i would have to suggest you are the one who knows nothing about the game, and are an embarrasement to yourself

 

[dr nick]

last 10 matches:

M Trescothick - 881 runs @ 55.06
J Langer - 730 runs @ 45.62

N Hussain - 758 runs @ 50.53
D Martyn - 656 runs @ 50.46

M Butcher - 727 runs @ 45.43
S Waugh - 445 runs @ 31.78

M Vaughan - 1031 runs @ 64.43
D Lehmann - not even close, barely can make our current side, let alone a combined side, head to head against england's best batter.





A Caddick - 37 wickets @ 33.81
J Gillespie - 26 wickets @ 42.46

M Hoggard - 45 wickets @ 30.75
B Lee - 32 wickets @ 35.78

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by nicko18
last 10 matches:

M Trescothick - 881 runs @ 55.06
J Langer - 730 runs @ 45.62

N Hussain - 758 runs @ 50.53
D Martyn - 656 runs @ 50.46

M Butcher - 727 runs @ 45.43
S Waugh - 445 runs @ 31.78

M Vaughan - 1031 runs @ 64.43
D Lehmann - not even close, barely can make our current side, let alone a combined side, head to head against england's best batter.

A Caddick - 37 wickets @ 33.81
J Gillespie - 26 wickets @ 42.46

M Hoggard - 45 wickets @ 30.75
B Lee - 32 wickets @ 35.78

Who cares???? Put them up against quality opposition and they crumble, all out for 79!!! Australia are that much better than England that alot of players that can't make the Australian side would easily be the best players if they played for England. Alot of the English team would find it hard to get a game for Australian State sides let alone a combined Aus-Eng side.

There is not one player that would fit into the Australian side if they were Australian citizens, not one, and not by a long way either.

 

[bunsen burner]

As often the case in debates, there seems to be a discrepency about time.

Are we talking about hypothetical combined side that would play 1 test match tomorrow against a hypothetical rest of the world XI?

or

Are we talking about a hypothetical combined side that we would have as a test side for a length of time?


I picked my side on the second option as selectors pick sides with a foresight of more than the next test. If I had used the first option, my side would have been slightly different.

 

[larrikin]

Originally posted by nicko18
last 10 matches:
D Martyn - 656 runs @ 50.46
M Butcher - 727 runs @ 45.43

So on what basis did you pick Butcher over Martyn?

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Brett Li


None of these Batters are as good as

Tresco
Hussain
Vaughan

Or Bowlers as good as:

Caddick
Gough

and maybe at a push Hoggard

I just don't see the backbone. IMHO

Thoughts anyone?

 

[bunsen burner]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: combined XI

Originally posted by Brett Li



Now if you'll be a good bloke and answer me the following question:

what do you honestly (putting aside your anti-pom hat) think the result of a aussie/england clash, if England had Gough back and no other injuries.. and an aussie side without:

McGrath
Hayden
Ponting
Gilchrist

Would that alter the complexion of the series?

Do you still think that England are better than Australia's second team?

Any thoughts Brett?