A) Why's that a good reason for picking him? I thought the premise of a World XI is that they are playing today, so the score of 220 isn't enough, and De Silva would just be slowing the run rate. His record just has nothing on KP.
B) Pietersen plays for England. We're rubbish. Pietersen made his debut in a series we got whitewashed in, and still scored 3 hundreds. That's poor reasoning for picking De Silva.
C) Maybe, but with England, if Pietersen fails, we lose. The stats tell this, Pietersen's average in losses is 38, his average in win's is 73. If Pietersen scores well, we generally win, if he fails, we lose.
Also, this is an All-time XI, meaning that you pick 4 bowlers and an all-rounder who are capable of bowling 10 overs a piece to win a game, you shouldn't need part-time off-spin from your batsmen. Again, awful reasoning for denying someone who's 3rd on the all-time ODI batting averages list. Just seems to me that alot of you are just picking players from the past generations for the sake of it. If a modern player is better than one from the past, then he gets in the side, and Pietersen is a fantastic player, and deserves at least consideration, and is definitely far better than De Silva.
a) If de Silva were playing in this day and age, I'm pretty sure he'd adapt. He was a class act. I've actually seen several videos of him bat, and he's really good. 220 was a standard score there with more bowler friendly pitches and some real quality bowlers, he'd do well nowdays.
b) Silva couldn't afford to attack and dominate, and would often had to bat for time in order to let his team build, hence several slow and long knocks that bring his stats down. Plus the conditions didn't help. KP's done well, but I'm sure the current England side is better than the Sri Lanka side back then. Sri Lanka back then were the Kenya of now. The likes of De Silva, Ranatunga, Murali, Vaas, Jayasuriya, have made them what they are today.
c) So he's the same as KP in this regard.
de Silva played in a time of less professionalism. Lower fitness levels, less intensity, less pressure. It's hard to compare him with KP cause someone like KP would have worked much harder and would be far more well rounded than almost any player back 10-20 years ago. The difference is, I've seen both, and de Silva is full of class and would be impossible to dismiss when the others around him fell. He would keep strike, hit boundaries, and bat long. Atleast in the matches I saw him in he did. He failed against weaker sides or when his team was set, but he was a match-winner through and through. A man you need in a pressure situation. He would play like a God when his side were in trouble, and considering he would have had very little coaching, lower fitness levels, and a possibly less-rounded game, it was all through his fight and determination. And I like that. And it's not like he had a bad technique either.
de Silva might not be an ODI legend, but he fits into my team very nicely. Comes in at 6 when the side is either in trouble, or needs some big hits, both which he could provide. He could bat as the situation required, and had more than enough skill to score 100s from 6. Adds a very neat spin option to keep Murali in company if need be, and is a safe pair of hands in the slips. Also very experienced. KP isn't a legend yet, he still has a long way to go. Also, I doubt he'd have the same flexibility Silva did.
And the offspin comment was a joke...but yes, it would help. I've got 5 bowlers, but if the pitch is turning, I'm only with Warne as the spinner. Could use some of his offbreaks.
