Your World XI

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Captain

its surprising that we haven' t seen Kamran Akmal mentioned anywhere when lately he is beginning to blossom into a good player

I've mentioned him at least once in this thread (two posts before the one you replied to) and at least once in another thread... and he is clearly being watched pretty closely by several of our Pakistan-oriented contributers. I'd love to see him discussed in this context.. but there's an entire crew of young, promising players who are just going to have to wait there turn...

Not one is likely to figure from DeVilliers, Butt, Bell, Kamran Akmal (wk), Gul, Pathan, Kaneria and so on - but their turn will come!

ps. good to see Ern is as predictable as ever: no place for Pollock (despite him being rated 5 in the world right now) and both Harmison (no ODI pedigree whatsoever) and Akhtar (not even in the world top 30 right now) in as speedsters (bit hard, that, on Oram, Gough, Naved-ul-Hasan, Zoysa, Streak, Anderson, Tuffey, Pathan, Styris, Khan, Cairns, Nel and so on who've all done enough to get better ratings).

Also Strauss in (with no ODI reputation whatsoever), Tresco in (credible, but not at the expense of Smith) and no place for ODI giants like Inzi, Youhana and (ever more arguably now he seemsto be solidly in the world's top 10) Sangakkara. To cap it all.. Read in ahead of Kamran Akmal: I can really see the hundreds of millions of ODI cricket nuts on the sub-continent understanding that one!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

ps. good to see Ern is as predictable as ever: no place for Pollock (despite him being rated 5 in the world right now) and both Harmison (no ODI pedigree whatsoever) and Akhtar (not even in the world top 30 right now) in as speeds.

That's right but they are in a squad, and playing Australia they could be used as shock troops.and Pollock is going back in time, as is Gough.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Also Strauss in (with no ODI reputation whatsoever), Tresco in (credible, but not at the expense of Smith)

Strauss is a good pick, I think he will be dependable in all types of cricket.

Originally Posted by Rachael

To cap it all.. Read in ahead of Kamran Akmal: I can really see the hundreds of millions of ODI cricket nuts on the sub-continent understanding that one!

Yes well I have picked a fair quota of sub-continent players, but don't forget (with all due respect to India/Pakistan) players they not long ago had a good drubbing at the hands of Australia,so confidence may be low, so Read as my 2nd choice bowler may not be such a bad pick.

Strauss is young and hungry to keep his place on the international stage, and Read has all the incentive in the world to do well, he would give 110%, he wants his England place back.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

If we are talking ODIs I'd actually agree with Ern on the keeper thang. Read is sharper behind the stumps and finished on or two ODIs in convincing style chipping in with 20s and 30s at the death. besides given the batting before him, should he even be out in the middle with a bat in his hand ?

[Rachael]

Ernest, the Aussies have to be played fairly soon.. not several years down the road.. and right NOW Pollock's no5 in the world and Gough's 9 in the world (one ahead of Flintoff). If they are not acceptable then try any one from Oram, Naved-ul-Hasan, Zoysa, Streak, Anderson, Tuffey, Pathan, Styris, Khan, Cairns, Nel: [b]each and every one of these seamers has managed to establish a more impressive ODI rating than Harmison and Akhtar!

Ntini as a shock trooper has credibility: he's ranked 7th and has a career best that surpasses anything Gough ever achieved. Harmison, thus far, has a career bewt that's yet to threaten Dillon, Collymore and Klusenor. To be honest I'd not guarantee Harmison in the England ODI squad let alone a world version.

As for Strauss.. he's currently ranked 57th.. just behind Taibu and Solanki.. and just ahead of Khaled Masud and Shaun Pollock. Not impressive.. especially when you consider that Pietersen is already in there at 27th (one place behind Sehwag, who has also, rather curiously, made your cut).

If you were a selector for real for this squad you'd have an obligation to pick on behalf of the entire world of cricket... and to justify your selection accordingly. I'm not saying that means you HAVE to pick the top ranked players in each discipline.. but it does mean that exceptions need to have impeccable pedigree: Lara (22nd) has that... Tresco (21st) doesn't, but is still credible... but Strauss isn't even on he fringes (especially when Smith is 4th ranked, Tendlkar's available to open and you've also got the choice of Gibbs, Jayasuria, Fleming and Gayle).

Look at it this way.. if all the England players you listed demanded inclusion then England wouldn't be pretty well bottom of the senior ODI cricketing nations!

ps. I'm a big Read enthusiast.. and would have him in for England .. but the young lad now keeping for Pakistan {a} is first choice for his country; {b} is getting great plaudits for his glovework; and {c} is scoring runs. There's also the small matter of Sangakkara (top 10 bat), DeVilliers, Taibu and McCullum all plying their trade well on the international stage right now - Read jumping tht lot would take some justifying.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael 48164

I think Inzi's potentially a better "finsher" (at 6) than Kallis.. but equally.. if the wheels fell off and the side were 85/4 after 25 overs I'd rather have Kallis walking to the crease!

I think you will find that over their respective careers, Inzi has done much better than Kallis when coming in at 10/2 or 20/4 in Tests, the true pressure environment (link to Milo's post on Inzi). Sure, he has had much more practice than most others, batting as he does after Pakistan's brittle top-order; however, by nature and temperament, Inzi probably responds to pressure better than most cricketers, and is ideally suited to come in at 85/4 of 25/4, in ODIs or Tests. Kallis is a pretty one-dimensional batsman, similar to Dravid; supremely effective at Tests, but that does not make him a good ODI player, anymore than Afridi's slogging makes him a good Test opener. Players such as Inzi, Ponting, SRT and Lara are the true rarities; supremely talented batsmen who are equally adept at all forms of the game and are at home whether blocking or scoring heavily.

Originally Posted by Rachael 48231

ps. good to see Ern is as predictable as ever: no place for Pollock (despite him being rated 5 in the world right now) and both Harmison (no ODI pedigree whatsoever) and Akhtar (not even in the world top 30 right now) in as speedsters (bit hard, that, on Oram, Gough, Naved-ul-Hasan, Zoysa, Streak, Anderson, Tuffey, Pathan, Styris, Khan, Cairns, Nel and so on who've all done enough to get better ratings).

Rachael, ratings are not the be-all and end-all of these analyses. I find your complete reliance and almost blind faith in the ODI ratings when choosing a team quite perplexing, and contrary to your generally common sensical approach to such matters.

I do refer to the Test ratings as a matter of interest and debate every now and then. However, I generally find the ODI ratings to be as good as meaningless; having studied them in detail in the past, I have no hesitation in saying they are an inherently flawed measure in how they are computed, give credence to the wrong metrics and ignore too many important variables. As such, to base a World XI selection solely on these error-strewn ratings is somewhat disingenuous. I find that the balance of an ODI team and all its disciplines is a far more pertinent matter; an attack comprising Donald, Waqar and Akhtar would be pointless, regardless of ratings. However, one which was led by McGrath and Gillespie could do someone such as Shoaib as the first change bowler, something which your current ratings-obsession seems to bafflingly rule out. Apart from balance, pitch conditions, stadium and the nature of opposition are crucial factors.

Originally Posted by Ernest 48256

Yes well I have picked a fair quota of sub-continent players, but don't forget (with all due respect to India/Pakistan) players they not long ago had a good drubbing at the hands of Australia.

Pakistan came very close to beating Australia in both the VB series finals, and actually lost both games in the last stages. Prior to that, Australia won two of the league matches, and Pakistan won the third; hardly qualifies as a drubbing.

Originally Posted by Ernest 48256

Read has all the incentive in the world to do well, he would give 110%, he wants his England place back.

I think there is a long queue of more able and better qualified candidates for the wicket-keeping slot in a World ODI XI; Read, to my mind, is behind Sangakkara, Boucher, De Villiers and Kamran Akmal. However, Sangakkara brings so much to the party as a top-class batsman that all others will have to wait out.

[Captain]

I don't know if anyone has noticed that when Sangakara keeps his batting average goes down but when he plays as a batsman it goes up, so it could be argued that he be played as a batsman and a new keeper be brought in, it could help SL in the log run.

[Ernest]

Rachael,

I am bearing in mind that here that my ROTW is playing Australia.
Now Australia have been on top that long, they can be excused the fact that they are probably arragant, and maybe underestimate players.
That is why I picked Harmison -Akhta-Ntini, I must say amoungst others, I have edged my bets.
But if the Aussie's were to take liberties with this trio, at their pace, they may well be induced into making mistakes, not much time to adjust at 90mph+.
The stats mean nothing in a one off, but even so, you are saying the stats say Gough is better one better than Flintoff, well that says it all, he is not near Flintoff's standard these days.

Strauss is ony part of my squad, but I would be tempted to play him, for these reasons,

he is reliable-he can attack or defend, he is young and hungry to get on in all forms of cricket I should think, well worth a gamble.

Originally Posted by RBLC

If we are talking ODIs I'd actually agree with Ern on the keeper thang. Read is sharper behind the stumps and finished on or two ODIs in convincing style chipping in with 20s and 30s at the death. besides given the batting before him, should he even be out in the middle with a bat in his hand ?

Rich has got it spot on, if you take his keeping, as good as any, then his 30 or so runs, then you have a player fit to play in any lower middle order.

Originally Posted by Maranello

I think there is a long queue of more able and better qualified candidates for the wicket-keeping slot in a World ODI XI; Read, to my mind, is behind Sangakkara, Boucher, De Villiers and Kamran Akmal. However, Sangakkara brings so much to the party as a top-class batsman that all others will have to wait out.

Hard one this, I know Read, and I know he is a good keeper who will score some runs at ODI level, and as catches dropped, stumpings missed, and byes conceded is a minus to any runs scored, I picked Read who I know is reliable. along with Boucher I might add.
No way am I degrading the players you mentioned, but you can't pick em all, I would have liked Nel in my squad as well.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Maranello

I do refer to the Test ratings as a matter of interest and debate every now and then. However, I generally find the ODI ratings to be as good as meaningless

I trust I'm a fairly discriminating user of ratings.. understanding what distorts them and how to "read" points of discrepancy between "received wisdom" and the stats.. but I dispute, entirely, that the ODI ratings are seriousy dubious: there's no way on earth that McGrath, Vaas, Muralitheran, Lee and Pollock are at the top of the ODI bowling ratings by chance (and are the only players with 800+ ratings) and there's equally little question about the batting ratings so long as one recognises that merely 74 rating points seperates Chanderpaul in 24th from Gilchrist in 2nd on the ranking list).

I think it's fairly true to say that sustaining a position of 750 rating points in either discipline takes something very, very special.. and sustaining 700+ is tough. The fact that Tendulkar and Lara have both fallen from grace in the batting ratings (to 692 and 656 from 884 and a stunning 921, the latter two being figures that no "ordinary" ODI bat will ever approach) emphasises that point.. and serves to remind us just what has been managed by those who are recurrant "top dogs".

The thing with some of the players Ernest mentions is that they are so far down (and are so consistently so far down, with so little ODI pedigree to their name) that anyone coming across his list should feel fully entitled to demand a pretty exceptional justification. I included Lara and I think I can justfy that. Ernest includes Strauss and frankly can't.

Rankings alone may not be enough but if you were in the position of selecting this team and justifying your selection to the world they don't hurt.. and in cases like Sehwag vs Sarwan, or Ntini vs. Akhtar, they are very telling.

With regard to "balance", though, are there any glaring ommisions or odd selections in the entirity of my 20 man squad? Is it a squad that makes choosing a balanced final XI difficult? I think the answer on both counts is "no": those ommitted would not need anyone to explain to them WHY they missed out.. and no one would be left feeling slighted by a selector letting hunches, personal preferences or anything else sway things - it's a pretty balanced line up.. and it's no co-incidence that those included are all pretty much consistently figuring at the top of the ratings tables.

Selecting a squad like this leaves no place for Ernest's "gambles": you can't just throw in largely unproven England players ahead of proven performers like Smith and Pollock just because you've some curious notion that it might work out for the best.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The thing with some of the players Ernest mentions is that they are so far down (and are so consistently so far down, with so little ODI pedigree to their name) that anyone coming across his list should feel fully entitled to demand a pretty exceptional justification. I included Lara and I think I can justfy that. Ernest includes Strauss and frankly can't.

Well would you agree Rachael that Strauss is a good Test cricketer, because I remember in threads moaning because Flintoff was picked for the one day side, and you said England needed him in the one day team, well some would say Strauss is a better batsman than Flintoff.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Selecting a squad like this leaves no place for Ernest's "gambles": you can't just throw in largely unproven England players ahead of proven performers like Smith and Pollock just because you've some curious notion that it might work out for the best.

Well Rachael is my gamble any worse than you picking pollock, he is getting on, and lets face it, he broke no eggs when England toured south Africa.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Well would you agree Rachael that Strauss is a good Test cricketer [...] some would say Strauss is a better batsman than Flintoff.

Surely too soon to say, Ernest. I hope he cuts the grade.. but as many have pointed out.... Test cricket can look awfully easy when you are seeing the ball well, timing the ball well and very confident.. and the real Test only comes when you have to play a "normal" season where you're having to bat from memory, scratch around and get by without being "in the zone": we've yet to see Strauss in that position.

As for the Flintoff comparison: no contest. Strauss is a genuine top order bat with superb judgement regarding the location of his outside stump, beautiful touch, soft hands, great placement and a rare ability to take the ball exceedingly late. No one is too sure of his front foot play yet (which may see him undone this summer).. but off the back foot he's got it all.

Flintoff, by contrast, is weak in ALL the above areas. He'll never be agreat backfoot player as he's too cumbersome at the crease and doesn't get himself into position quickly to be entirely convincing and hasn't the soft hands and touch to play as late as Strauss does or use the pace of the ball as effectively as Strauss does. As a front foot player his strength is a clumsy orthodoxy allied to height and power: so long as he sticks to what he does best (front foot straight and cover drives) he's the eye for the ball and strength to build big innings... but it's only by playing a very limited game.

THe right player playing a limited but effective game can, of course, be hugely effective.. as Richardson was.. but let's please not confuse that with what Strauss and the other top order guys can do!