Thread: Nixon & Foster
View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 31-12-2006, 04:05 PM in reply to KennyG's post starting "You like the debate between picking..."
Rachael Rachael is offline
Administrator
WAT selector
Selector-World XI (1980 onwards)
(ENG-captain) Passed Mike Atherton's 7728 Test runs
  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Norfolk
My main national team: None - I support cricket in general
Posts: 7,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by KennyG
We have had three greats in pretty quick succession(Marsh,Healy and Gilchrist) and if there was a poll/vote about which one would get picked for an all time best team,Gilchrist would romp it in.
That would surely depend on the make-up of your all time best team.

If you had the greatest six batsmen in Aussie test history... say from Border, Ponsford, Trumper, Chappel, Bradman, Ponting, Steve Waugh, Jones and Harvey.... what makes you think you'd need runs from the 'keeper? Surely an all-time Xi should get as close as possible to the veneration of specialists for specialist jobs... meaning batsmen to bat, bowlers to bowl and a 'keeper to 'keep.

If the best gloveman was a complete loser with the bat I'd even promote Warne to 7 for an all-time XI: it really wouldn't matter!

The case for compromise only comes in if you want two spinners and three seamers: in that case... play Gilchrist at 6 and Warne at 7... but otherwise let's please see Healy / Marsh get the nod!
Reply With Quote