Richie Benaud XI Draft
- Thread starter shravi
- Start date
shravi
National Board President
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Profile Flag
- India
Alrighty thenI'll give him up. But just in case, what if no one picks him as an AR?
Doubtful
.
shravi
National Board President
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Profile Flag
- India
Jacques Kallis. A batsman of the highest class and a very helpful bowler. He bats as though he values his wicket more than his life. In 145 matches (246 innings) he has scored 11947 runs at a quite amazing average of 57.43 with 40 centuries (2nd only to Sachin) and 54 fifties. Scoring a century every six (6.15) innings and a fifty every four/five (4.5) shows that this man is a run machine. He is arguably South Africa's greatest ever cricketer. At his best, he has been the 6th best bowler in the world- pretty impressive for a batting all rounder, don't you think? In 240 innings as a bowler he has taken 270 wickets at an average of 32 with 7 four-fors and 5 five-fors.
ICC Test Player of the Year 2005
ICC Player of the Year 2005
Wisden Leading Cricketer, 2007
Test Batting: career best 1st; career high points 935
Test Bowling: career best 6th; career high points 742
Test All-rounders: career best 1st; career high points 615
For Sir Richard Hadlee, I'll just copy sifter's post
(adding a few bits here and there of course). 
New Zealand's best cricketer ever. He started as an express paceman, but turned into one of cricket's shrewdest bowlers, and one of the best users of the new ball in history. He was NZs only true threat with the ball. To have a strike rate of 50.8 when you are the only threat is fantastic. Though he was the weakest batsman of the big four, he was without a doubt the strongest bowler. He was also a very respectable batsman who improved as his career when along. In his first 40 tests, he scored 1300 runs at an average of 22 with 1 century and 5 fifties. However, in his last 46 tests, he scored 1824 runs at an average of 33.16 with 1 century and 10 fifties. Between Jan 1978 and Dec 1988, he was cricket's highest wicket taker with 330 wickets in 60 matches, at a very impressive strike rate of 47. This included 32 five fors and 8WMs. Of bowlers who took 150 wickets during this period, he held the 2nd highest average, 19.57, just higher than Imran's 19.39. His influence in New Zealand victories is quite startling. He holds the lowest average of any bowler to take 150 wickets in wins. In 22 wins he took 173 wicket at an average of 13.06 with a strike rate of 33.5, including 17 five-fors and 8 four-fors.
Tests: 86
Wickets: 431 - retired as the leading wicket taker in Tests
Average: 22.29
S/Rate: 50.8
BB: 9/52 vs Australia, 'Gabba, 1985/86
5wi/10wm: 36/9 - still the most by a fast bowler in both categories
- Appointed MBE for services to New Zealand sport in 1981.
- Awarded a Knighthood for services to cricket in 1990.
- Winner of the Winsor Cup on 13 occasions, including 12 consecutive years, for the most meritorious bowling performance of the season.
- New Zealand Sportsman of the Year 1980
- New Zealand Sportsman of the Year 1986
- New Zealand Sportsperson of the last 25 years 1987 (shared with runner, John Walker)
- New Zealand Sportsperson of the Decade 1987
- Inducted into the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame in 2009
- Awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Letters from Nottingham University.
Just goes to show how he single handedly lead New Zealand cricket.
He also came 12th Best Cricketer of all time in ESPN Legends Of Cricket.
Sir Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
3
Jacques Kallis
5
6
Sir Richard Hadlee (LHB)
9
Dennis Lillee
Allan Donald
I really wanted Imran, sifter! Damn you! But I guess those two were fairly obvious picks that anybody would have made. More than Sobers, Imran is the one I wanted as I have grown up hearing stories of his greatness and I have been inspired by him. Leave his batting and bowling talents aside, which were both quite amazing- it is his captaincy that caught my eye. A born leader.
Last edited:
For Sir Richard Hadlee, I'll just copy sifter's post
Oohh, ouch - now you're just rubbing it in
He's a top player Sir Richard, thankfully he didn't fall through the cracks of this draft. That's a nice little pace trio you've got there now. 3 very orthodox pace and swing bowlers - although that sounds a bit derogatory to call them that, they were a bit more than that, particularly Lillee and Hadlee.I'll be happy to keep Imran though
shravi
National Board President
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Profile Flag
- India
Stupid me, I actually forgot all about Kallis at first. In fact, I had a whole post for Botham lined up, and a whole argument (you could probably see it using your mod powers ). I guess it goes to show how he just slips past people's notice. One of the most underrated players ever.
----------
Think about the WK + Spinner round. You really lucked out there. There are 3 easy left hander picks, who are all good batsman and very decent wicket keepers as. Also, you get one of the two obvious picks from the spinner list. There are still some very high quality all rounders out there, especially those highly underrated South African ones from the past.
). I guess it goes to show how he just slips past people's notice. One of the most underrated players ever.----------
Think about the WK + Spinner round. You really lucked out there. There are 3 easy left hander picks, who are all good batsman and very decent wicket keepers as. Also, you get one of the two obvious picks from the spinner list. There are still some very high quality all rounders out there, especially those highly underrated South African ones from the past.
Last edited:
#4 --> Sachin Tendulkar
Pretty obvious really. 12 thousand runs @ 58.17, 44 centuries and 49 fifties batting at number 4. He also averages 64.52 against the best side of his generation (Australia) and over 50 against every nation apart from Pakistan (46.77 over 20 innings, 2 100s and 5 50s) and South Africa (36.91 over 39 innings, 5 100s and 4 50s.)
Not the most flawless record, but definitely the most impressive. A fact which most people don't realise is that Sachin averages more away (60.50) than at home (55.72)
Arguably the next best batsman ever after Don Bradman, and the finest Indian batsman ever, he pretty much just walks into the side at number 4.
As for number 5, it will be Steve Waugh
Tough as nails and as solid as a rock, Waugh wasn't the most elegant batsman going around, but he definitely was one of the finest. Averaging 56.28 with 6754 runs batting at number 5 (no one else has managed 5000), along with 24 centuries, Steve Waugh should definitely walk into this position. He was capable of playing all the shots in the book if needed, but shelved aggression for his own brand of risk-free cricket, choosing to grind down the opposition with patience, and be solid pillar around which a lineup full of stroke-makers (Hayden, Ponting, M.Waugh, Slater, Gilchrist) could play their shots.
He was also a pretty fine fielder and once upon a time was a more than useful medium pacer who was forced to stop bowling due to back problems.
He is also my captain for the time being, having been one of the most successful skippers of all time.
Zorax's XI
1. ------
2. ------
3. ------
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Steve Waugh
6. ------
7. ------
8. ------
9. ------
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Glenn McGrath
Pretty obvious really. 12 thousand runs @ 58.17, 44 centuries and 49 fifties batting at number 4. He also averages 64.52 against the best side of his generation (Australia) and over 50 against every nation apart from Pakistan (46.77 over 20 innings, 2 100s and 5 50s) and South Africa (36.91 over 39 innings, 5 100s and 4 50s.)
Not the most flawless record, but definitely the most impressive. A fact which most people don't realise is that Sachin averages more away (60.50) than at home (55.72)
Arguably the next best batsman ever after Don Bradman, and the finest Indian batsman ever, he pretty much just walks into the side at number 4.
As for number 5, it will be Steve Waugh
Tough as nails and as solid as a rock, Waugh wasn't the most elegant batsman going around, but he definitely was one of the finest. Averaging 56.28 with 6754 runs batting at number 5 (no one else has managed 5000), along with 24 centuries, Steve Waugh should definitely walk into this position. He was capable of playing all the shots in the book if needed, but shelved aggression for his own brand of risk-free cricket, choosing to grind down the opposition with patience, and be solid pillar around which a lineup full of stroke-makers (Hayden, Ponting, M.Waugh, Slater, Gilchrist) could play their shots.
He was also a pretty fine fielder and once upon a time was a more than useful medium pacer who was forced to stop bowling due to back problems.
He is also my captain for the time being, having been one of the most successful skippers of all time.
Zorax's XI
1. ------
2. ------
3. ------
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Steve Waugh
6. ------
7. ------
8. ------
9. ------
10. Curtly Ambrose
11. Glenn McGrath
Hmm Steve Waugh, nicely done. I was hoping he'd slide down through the cracks towards me. Once he got going in his career, he was a run machine and managed to outshine his 2 higher profile rivals for most of the 90s.
And shravi, I'm been doing some research on batsmen this afternoon and just want to clarify the rules - so I don't pick the wrong guy again
Example A: I'm looking at one of the greats here: #5 is the position he batted in most often (but it's very close, #5 is only a couple of innings ahead of #3). #3 is the position he scored the most runs in, by a fair way. So obviously he was a better #3 than #5. Rules say he shall be considered a #5 only, is that right? Or have you considered having guys available for more than one position?
Example B: another great player I found who would be a #4 under the most innings played rule, but he spent a good amount of time at #6 later in his career, and when I think of him I generally think of a lower order player because if you combined his #5 and #6 innings together, they would comfortably be higher than his number of innings at #4. We can't select him as a #6, but could he be a #5? I'll think of him as a #4 for now under the rules, but just something to think about
And shravi, I'm been doing some research on batsmen this afternoon and just want to clarify the rules - so I don't pick the wrong guy again
Example A: I'm looking at one of the greats here: #5 is the position he batted in most often (but it's very close, #5 is only a couple of innings ahead of #3). #3 is the position he scored the most runs in, by a fair way. So obviously he was a better #3 than #5. Rules say he shall be considered a #5 only, is that right? Or have you considered having guys available for more than one position?
Example B: another great player I found who would be a #4 under the most innings played rule, but he spent a good amount of time at #6 later in his career, and when I think of him I generally think of a lower order player because if you combined his #5 and #6 innings together, they would comfortably be higher than his number of innings at #4. We can't select him as a #6, but could he be a #5? I'll think of him as a #4 for now under the rules, but just something to think about
shravi
National Board President
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Profile Flag
- India
Hmm Steve Waugh, nicely done. I was hoping he'd slide down through the cracks towards me. Once he got going in his career, he was a run machine and managed to outshine his 2 higher profile rivals for most of the 90s.
And shravi, I'm been doing some research on batsmen this afternoon and just want to clarify the rules - so I don't pick the wrong guy again
Example A: I'm looking at one of the greats here: #5 is the position he batted in most often (but it's very close, #5 is only a couple of innings ahead of #3). #3 is the position he scored the most runs in, by a fair way. So obviously he was a better #3 than #5. Rules say he shall be considered a #5 only, is that right? Or have you considered having guys available for more than one position?
Example B: another great player I found who would be a #4 under the most innings played rule, but he spent a good amount of time at #6 later in his career, and when I think of him I generally think of a lower order player because if you combined his #5 and #6 innings together, they would comfortably be higher than his number of innings at #4. We can't select him as a #6, but could he be a #5? I'll think of him as a #4 for now under the rules, but just something to think about
a) Matter of a couple of innings is inconsequential. Go for it.
b) If there is a significant difference in the number of innings he spent between the two spots then it would make a difference. What do you say that difference/leeway should be? Since there's a 20 test match limit let's make it 20 innings.
Uptil #5 there's not much leeway due to Richie's perhaps unjustly rigid compartmentalization of player types and where he expects them to bat. However, you can shift the other 6 players as you like, I suppose.
In some ways, I don't agree with Richie's logic that all rounders should be placed at 5&6 or 6&7 because I have that same problem with Kallis in my XI. Is he really a #6?
The problem with making a draft format of this is that where do you draw the line? If you can pick Kallis as a batsman alone, then there must be someone else just like him, or someone who could be picked as a bowler alone. It's a bit of a grey area in the draft format because you can't just choose who you want to fill those gaps. You have to choose who others haven't. Richie didn't have that problem.
Do you consider #4 and #5 specialist positions? If not, we can remove that majority of innings rule and just keep it for the top 3? That also means that if a player has played the majority of his innings at #3 (or opening) you can't select him at #4 or #5, only #3 (or opening) (leeway of 20 innings max).
Last edited:
shravi
National Board President
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Profile Flag
- India
Haha no, I just picked my openers before you guys so it looks like that. I'm sure when you have 6 players your team will look just as good if not better
.Hmm yes it can end up being a bit of a muddle picking people for certain slots. I like the idea of a leeway, I'd say within 10 innings, 20 seems a lot.
I think there are quite a few specialist #4s, not so many #5s. I'd just say that if someone batted at #6 a fair bit, they should get the chance to add those innings to the #5 spot, because they are in the same area. Sometimes you'll get a nightwatchmen go ahead of you inflating your number of innings at #6 when you are really a #5. So my example B man, should be a #4 or #5 IMHO.
But...it's all getting a bit technical Mostly by some common sense we should be able to see who fits where. Some #4s have barely batted at #5 or lower, so combining those categories mightn't make sense. Some #4s have spent time all around the order and they probably deserve to get picked anywhere.
I think there are quite a few specialist #4s, not so many #5s. I'd just say that if someone batted at #6 a fair bit, they should get the chance to add those innings to the #5 spot, because they are in the same area. Sometimes you'll get a nightwatchmen go ahead of you inflating your number of innings at #6 when you are really a #5. So my example B man, should be a #4 or #5 IMHO.
But...it's all getting a bit technical
Mostly by some common sense we should be able to see who fits where. Some #4s have barely batted at #5 or lower, so combining those categories mightn't make sense. Some #4s have spent time all around the order and they probably deserve to get picked anywhere.
Gaurav_7
Executive member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Profile Flag
- India
Richie Benaud XI Draft
All Rounders
Keith Miller
(Writeup later)
Sir Ian Botham
Botham was the face of English sport during the 80s and with good reason. He was a very powerful batsman and an inspirational bowler. During his peak which lasted pretty much six years, between Jan 1977 and Dec 1982, he was definitely the best of the big four (Imran, Botham, Hadlee,____). He had the highest difference in average between his bowling and batting average- 12.59, 5 more than 2nd best Imran's 7.37. During this period, in which he played, 58 tests, he scored 3229 runs at an average of 37 with 11 centuries and 13 fifties. He also took 262 wickets at an average of 24.52, including 20 five-fors and 4 10WMs. During this period, he was England's 2nd highest run scorer and the world's highest wicket taker during this period. He was a wicket taking bowler of the highest quality, with a strike rate of 52.7 during this period.
Botham was the fastest to the double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets. He is also the highest wicket taker against Australia, with 148. Hence, at his best, Botham was a devastating all rounder and his best lasted virtually six years which is a pretty damn long time. He was superb both as a bowler and a batsman during this period and could win a match as both. Over the course of his career, he played 102 tests. In 161 innings, he scored 5200 runs, with a highest of 208, and at an average of 34. He scored 14 centuries and 22 fifties. In 168 innings as a bowler, he took 383 wickets, with a best of 8/34, at an average of 28, at a fairly miserly economy rate of 2.99. He struck often as shown by his career strike rate of 56.9 and his 14 four-fors and 27 five-fors. He also took 10 wickets in a match on 4 occasions. He was also a very good slip catcher and he remains England's leading catcher among non-wicketkeepers, with 120.
Credits to Shravi for that huge writeup, thanks man.
All Rounders
Keith Miller
(Writeup later)
Sir Ian Botham
Botham was the face of English sport during the 80s and with good reason. He was a very powerful batsman and an inspirational bowler. During his peak which lasted pretty much six years, between Jan 1977 and Dec 1982, he was definitely the best of the big four (Imran, Botham, Hadlee,____). He had the highest difference in average between his bowling and batting average- 12.59, 5 more than 2nd best Imran's 7.37. During this period, in which he played, 58 tests, he scored 3229 runs at an average of 37 with 11 centuries and 13 fifties. He also took 262 wickets at an average of 24.52, including 20 five-fors and 4 10WMs. During this period, he was England's 2nd highest run scorer and the world's highest wicket taker during this period. He was a wicket taking bowler of the highest quality, with a strike rate of 52.7 during this period.
Botham was the fastest to the double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets. He is also the highest wicket taker against Australia, with 148. Hence, at his best, Botham was a devastating all rounder and his best lasted virtually six years which is a pretty damn long time. He was superb both as a bowler and a batsman during this period and could win a match as both. Over the course of his career, he played 102 tests. In 161 innings, he scored 5200 runs, with a highest of 208, and at an average of 34. He scored 14 centuries and 22 fifties. In 168 innings as a bowler, he took 383 wickets, with a best of 8/34, at an average of 28, at a fairly miserly economy rate of 2.99. He struck often as shown by his career strike rate of 56.9 and his 14 four-fors and 27 five-fors. He also took 10 wickets in a match on 4 occasions. He was also a very good slip catcher and he remains England's leading catcher among non-wicketkeepers, with 120.
Credits to Shravi for that huge writeup, thanks man.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. Keith Miller
7. Sir Ian Botham
8.
9.
10. Wasim Akram
11. Malcolm Marshall
Last edited:
shravi
National Board President
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Profile Flag
- India
Hmm yes it can end up being a bit of a muddle picking people for certain slots. I like the idea of a leeway, I'd say within 10 innings, 20 seems a lot.
I think there are quite a few specialist #4s, not so many #5s. I'd just say that if someone batted at #6 a fair bit, they should get the chance to add those innings to the #5 spot, because they are in the same area. Sometimes you'll get a nightwatchmen go ahead of you inflating your number of innings at #6 when you are really a #5. So my example B man, should be a #4 or #5 IMHO.
But...it's all getting a bit technical
Ok, 10 innings it is. And the majority rule doesn't apply to #4 and #5 (since they are not as much "specialist" positions as number 3), unless they played the majority of their innigns opening or at number 3. That should make it a little simpler (simpler meaning less confusing, not easier). I shall rename the #4 and #5 round to "Middle Order". So those two batsman just need to have played the majority of their innings from 4-7. Is that ok?
Could you edit the first post to say that in better words and rename the #4 and #5 round? I'm off to bed.
----------
And if you feel that #4 is truly a specialist position then we can make it WK+Number 4 and Other batsman + Spinner but that is a bit much I think. Also, we'd have to make zorax pick again if we did that.
Last edited:
