Harmison alone in a World XI

[Rachael]

Mike Brierley, writing in yesterday's Observer, ended on the following note...

"For amusement, what would a World XI look like? I imagine the batsmen would be Hayden, Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid and Kallis (preferred, I think, to Flintoff). Then Gilchrist, Muralitharan, Warne, Harmison and Ntini (or Shoaib). Flintoff could be twelfth man, to come in if four seam bowlers and only one spinner are to be played."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport...237856,00.html

[Rachael]

Even leaving aside quibbles over the personel (we all have our preferences) I'm prompted to the following question: with players of the stature of Hayden, Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar and Dravid filling the top 5 (substitute in who you will: the argument will still stand).. and Gilchrist making, without doubt, a stronger case for inclusion at 6 than any other wicket-keeping all-rounder in world cricket... isn't a batting all-rounder like Kallis overkill?

An attack that read "Harmison, Ntini / Akhtar (or whoever else takes your fancy), Pollock, Warne, Muralitheran" would strike me as far, far more potent than one reading "Harmison, Ntini / Akhtar (etc), Kallis, Warne, Muralitheran"... and Pollock is more than strong enough to bat at 7 even in this illustrious company!

Seems to me that Brierley is not fielding a very balanced team there.

[Richard Jenkins]

Yes Intersting selection. A lot of batting and two spinners out of the four main line bowlers; I'd go with a bowling all rounder.

Four batsmen
1 wicket keeper all rounder/batsmen/just a keeper if it's all the same to you(you choose)
1 all rounder
four bowlers
1 fielding genius

so

1. Hayden
2. Ponting
3. Lara
4. Tendulkar
5. Flintoff
6. Gilchrist
7. Murilitheran
8. Warne
9. harminson
10. Ntini
11. your fielding genius

[Rachael]

You suggest a bowling all rounder.. of which I guess Pollock is arguably the best the world has ever seen... and then omit him: curious. Glad to see you stick with the two spinners though: I'm not sure there's one seam bowler in world cricket today who could displace Warne or Murali from a side.. let alone the 3-4 who could force you to choose between them. Credit where it's due: they are THE clas acts in the world today.

Not sure where you are coming from on the "fielding genius" front either: I'd have loved to have had Johnty Rhodes in a world Xi a few years back simply because he was a joy to behold in the field and a fantastic ambassador for the sport.. but not even as an unapologetic enthusiast could I have fully defended the selection... and I've certainly never seen anyone else who comes close.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

You suggest a bowling all rounder.. of which I guess Pollock is arguably the best the world has ever seen...

Sorry Rachael - "the best the world has ever seen" - I can think of many others, Hadlee, Botham, Khan, and that's before I reach for my History books...

[Rachael]

Depends a lot on how you rate Pollock as a bowler I guess: I think most players would say that Pollock has been a finer bowler than Botham... who was certainly very good.. but perhaps not ever quite as special as his brief heady peak in the PWC ratings might suggest. Khan would clearly be the leading rival.. but I'm not sure even he'd actually out-do Pollock as a bowling all-rounder: suspect they'd both be in with a shout at an all time world XI.

Point is.. Pollock's stil around today.. and still pretty well the best seam bowler in the world.. and a very, very respectable no 7 bat.

[Richard Jenkins]

Yes I didn't pick Pollock as I feel he is now bowling well within himslf. Freddy really gives a 'lionhearted' go and i reackon his bowling has come on.Fielding genius eh, Oh well at least I keep you all entertained!!

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

I would go for Hadlee above Pollock I must admit. To my mind Pollock has benefitted from playing in a team which is stronger in both batting and bowling than that in which Hadlee played.

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Mike Brierley, writing in yesterday's Observer, ended on the following note...

"For amusement, what would a World XI look like? I imagine the batsmen would be Hayden, Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid and Kallis (preferred, I think, to Flintoff). Then Gilchrist, Muralitharan, Warne, Harmison and Ntini (or Shoaib). Flintoff could be twelfth man, to come in if four seam bowlers and only one spinner are to be played."

PwC do this exercise regularly and Harmison would currently be in the World XI. However, the basis of England's recent success has been team work, not outstanding individual stars. Mike Brearley may just be making this point. Certainly it is a well-balanced team: two spinners who can bowl batsmen out on glass and who are of different types; two good quicks; and an all-rounder who can also bowl pretty fast; not to mention a wicket-keeper who is a top-class bat. A lot of Indians and Australians, but that does reflect the PwC ratings right now. This side would probably beat any Test side in history and do it comfortably.

Harmison though, with Muralitharan out of the Australian series, is very close to topping the bowling ratings. PwC suggests that with 4 cheap wickets in the 1st Test against the Windies Harmison will go top.

One cannot argue with the selection of the all-rounder. PwC has Kallis top, followed by Pollock. Flintoff will rise to 3rd in July barring a disaster against the Windies, but he's not Kallis.

I must challenge one very very odd statement. Pollock is not the best all-rounder of all time, nor is he close. For what it's worth, PwC has two players (those that 90% of us would pick) way ahead in its all-time list:

Gary Sobers - 651
Ian Botham - 647

Jacques Kallis is rated the 3rd best of ALL TIME at 604.

Numbers 4, 5 and 6 are more surprising: Keith Miller, 569; Richie Benaud, 528; and Imran Khan, 518 (surprising that he is not higher).

I also repeat my challenge. If India are currently so strong, why are they languishing so low in the ICC Test championship (and the answer is not that the ICC has got it wrong - it's based on form over 3 years with recent results getting the highest weight and gives far more credit to good results against strong teams than weak ones)?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

I must challenge one very very odd statement. Pollock is not the best all-rounder of all time, nor is he close. For what it's worth, PwC has two players (those that 90% of us would pick) way ahead in its all-time list: Gary Sobers - 651... Ian Botham - 647... Jacques Kallis is rated the 3rd best of ALL TIME at 604. Numbers 4, 5 and 6 are more surprising: Keith Miller, 569; Richie Benaud, 528; and Imran Khan, 518 (surprising that he is not higher).

Mark: the suggestion was that Pollock might be the best BOWLING all-rounder of all time (by which I mean the best bowler who could also be rated as a Test class batsman). I trust that on those grounds, Kallis is out of the running: he is perhaps the greatest ever Batting all-rounder (the best batsman who's also been a Test class bowler) but his bowling strikes me as a step down from that of Imran Khan and Shaun Pollock.

The PWC peak ratings might initially suggest that Khan was a better bowler than Pollock.. but his peak of 922 (only 12 points up from Pollock, so not much in it) was very short lived (though not as short-lived as Botham's)... and he never consistently sustained a position around the 900 point mark in quite the way Pollock has been doing: in his best 5-6 years Khan was more consistently around the 800 mark than the 850-900 mark.

Hadlee is the more genuine contender for all time bowling all-rounder: took a while to reach his peak but was then so consistently on or around the 900 mark that he deserves a much higher profile in the all time bowling lists.

The initial point was that with Hayden, Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Tendulkar and Gilchrist as your top 6... and with Muralitheran, Warne, Harmison and one other specialist seam bowler as your attack... the world XI side would be better balanced with a bowling all-rounder like Pollock than with a batting all-rounder like Kallis: that initial ten players is not going to be short on runs.. and is possibly going to be short on seam bowling - Pollock more closely fits the bill.

That said.. I'd have Pollock in for his bowling alone before I'd consider Akhtar, Ntini and the rest: Harmison and Pollock sounds by far the more devastating combination.