Some Fun Cricket XIs

[Fenil]

To be fair @ddrap14 did say that he was factoring in both ODI and test records so I assume this is a lineup inclusive of both formats which is why Chandimal is opening.

Fair do then. That has me thinking about having Saeed Anwar in the name 'A' side. He was way too good to be ignored even from the reserves but then again there would be a lot of good players that would miss out from the sport that has been around for about 200 years.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

I'm looking forward to the X's

 

[ddrap14]

Oh well… might have to hasten that post I wanted to make for a long time on how stats can be misleading at times I suppose.

Chanderpaul’s test average is the perfect storm of him not batting in the top order (for his own selfish reasons despite batting in a weak lineup), feasting on the 2000s and early 2010s roads (he averaged just about 40 till like 2002 which includes fifty tests which is a significant sample size) and batting in a way that rarely ever protected or shepherded the tail (which resulted in the rather high number of not outs and a SR very low). His RPI for instance is 42, only one above Crowe who faced tougher bowling conditions at the least if not arguably better bowlers in a tougher role.

Chanderpaul is one of those who will always be ranked favourably on a statistical exercise but those who watched him did know that he was a selfish batter who could have been a lot more useful to his side in a different role where he would have averaged less and played a bit differently. That he didn’t and chose to continue being who he was is a huge strike against him especially when he did have the skill to do so. His crab technique was one that didn’t appeal to many of the purists either.

I honestly believe Clarke deserves his spot in the side, especially given that he can also bowl. If it were up to me I’d bring Cowper in for a specialist opener role, move Crowe or Chappell to three with the other one at four and have Chandimal at five or six. If Shiv has to be in the side I’d punt him up at three to be a blocker at the least so that his selfishness can be of some value to the side.

That is a fair evaluation. I don't have a ton of reference points given I'm one of the younger members on the forum (of the five we're talking about, I've only seen Pup and Shiv bat in a game), so I can be misled by the stats. I suspect Mohinder Amarnath may be another who's doing the same

Fair do then. That has me thinking about having Saeed Anwar in the name 'A' side. He was way too good to be ignored even from the reserves but then again there would be a lot of good players that would miss out from the sport that has been around for about 200 years.

Saeed is in the 'S' squad. Cricinfo lists every Pakistani player bar AH Kardar in alphabetical order, which I've followed as (I believe) it's the local naming convention. Believe me, if he'd been eligible under my constraints, he'd have been in - aside from Amla, it's a weak top order

 

[Bevab]

That is a fair evaluation. I don't have a ton of reference points given I'm one of the younger members on the forum (of the five we're talking about, I've only seen Pup and Shiv bat in a game), so I can be misled by the stats. I suspect Mohinder Amarnath may be another who's doing the same


Saeed is in the 'S' squad. Cricinfo lists every Pakistani player bar AH Kardar in alphabetical order, which I've followed as (I believe) it's the local naming convention. Believe me, if he'd been eligible under my constraints, he'd have been in - aside from Amla, it's a weak top order

I’m pretty young myself mate. I was guilty of rating Chanderpaul higher than he deserved until I delved into it more after a while. Amarnath’s rated above his station because of his excellent away record (averages 50+ in Australia, Pakistan and West Indies) in contrast to his home record (average of just 30). Indian fans have for a long time overrated performances against quality pace attacks on away grounds more in comparison to performances on dust bowls. It’s the reason why Rahane stayed in the team for so long despite being in terminal decline in the modern era. Amarnath’s not getting into any ATG discussions when Dravid’s around but he was still a very good top order bat.

If you do want another example of a famous and excellent cricketer with a Chanderpaul like record… my controversial pick would be Steve Waugh who batted behind his twin and has a similar RPI and an average boosted by not outs alongside being known for exposing the tail often. The difference with Waugh is that he’s got a much better record in the 90s with a few famous knocks, had a settled batting unit ahead of him (and even if Mark didn’t quite bring his LO form to test cricket he was still a very capable force who just lacked the concentration to make big scores), was clearly better suited to that middle order role and his intent of rotating strike with the tail was to force them to improve their own batting.

 

[ddrap14]

I’m pretty young myself mate. I was guilty of rating Chanderpaul higher than he deserved until I delved into it more after a while. Amarnath’s rated above his station because of his excellent away record (averages 50+ in Australia, Pakistan and West Indies) in contrast to his home record (average of just 30). Indian fans have for a long time overrated performances against quality pace attacks on away grounds more in comparison to performances on dust bowls. It’s the reason why Rahane stayed in the team for so long despite being in terminal decline in the modern era. Amarnath’s not getting into any ATG discussions when Dravid’s around but he was still a very good top order bat.

If you do want another example of a famous and excellent cricketer with a Chanderpaul like record… my controversial pick would be Steve Waugh who batted behind his twin and has a similar RPI and an average boosted by not outs alongside being known for exposing the tail often. The difference with Waugh is that he’s got a much better record in the 90s with a few famous knocks, had a settled batting unit ahead of him (and even if Mark didn’t quite bring his LO form to test cricket he was still a very capable force who just lacked the concentration to make big scores), was clearly better suited to that middle order role and his intent of rotating strike with the tail was to force them to improve their own batting.

I'm not sure I'm fully with you on Waugh - I don't think he's as bad as you say, but I also don't think that he's in the 1B group of all-time Aussie bats (Bradman being 1A of course) that he's often made out to be. I think he's a step behind the Chappell/Ponting/Smiths.

As for Amarnath, I wasn't intending to go that deep! I was solely meaning that he's someone whose average is possibly inflated compared to his skill. He'd make the A-team anyway, given his competition is Moeen Ali, but he probably isn't a batsman who'd actually average 43.

 

[Bevab]

I'm not sure I'm fully with you on Waugh - I don't think he's as bad as you say, but I also don't think that he's in the 1B group of all-time Aussie bats (Bradman being 1A of course) that he's often made out to be. I think he's a step behind the Chappell/Ponting/Smiths.

As for Amarnath, I wasn't intending to go that deep! I was solely meaning that he's someone whose average is possibly inflated compared to his skill. He'd make the A-team anyway, given his competition is Moeen Ali, but he probably isn't a batsman who'd actually average 43.

I don’t disagree on Waugh, I think he is a world class player in his right and I’d agree on him being a class below Ponting and Smith. Amarnath (with his father) is a bit of a legend in Indian cricket so I’m not the most objective when it comes to him in all fairness.

 

[Fenil]

Saeed is in the 'S' squad. Cricinfo lists every Pakistani player bar AH Kardar in alphabetical order, which I've followed as (I believe) it's the local naming convention. Believe me, if he'd been eligible under my constraints, he'd have been in - aside from Amla, it's a weak top order

Cool.

On a different note, if this would have been a draft with first letter of the maiden names, I can only imagine the team of the letter 'S'. Saeed Anwar, Sanath Jayasuriya, Sachin Tendulkar, Shane Warne, Shane Bond, Saeed Ajmal, Stephen Fleming, Stuart Broad, Shaun Pollock, Sarfaraz Nawaz...

Post automatically merged: Jan 11, 2023

Looking forward to seeing more XIs. This is very interesting.

 

[Na Maloom Afraad]

I'm looking forward to the X's

His or yours?

 

[CerealKiller]

10. Obed McCoy

No way he's in the Intent Merchants T20 XI ahead of Haris Rauf

 

[Aislabie]

If you do want another example of a famous and excellent cricketer with a Chanderpaul like record… my controversial pick would be Steve Waugh who batted behind his twin and has a similar RPI and an average boosted by not outs alongside being known for exposing the tail often.

The argument of "x player's average is boosted by not-outs" is common wisdom, but it is also flawed.

Every batter in the history of the game has averaged least when starting from 0. Once they get to 10, they are likely to make more runs. When 20, more still, because they have got through the most difficult phase of any batter's innings: the start. If a batter has lots of not-outs, then that means that rather than continuing to bat from (for example) 40, they will bat next starting from 0 again. This is more likely to result in a lower average, as opposed to a higher on.

The flipside of that is to ask why a batter has lots of not-outs. Chanderpaul stands accused of knocking a single when the field is back and then watching the tail-enders get out at the other end, as opposed to farming the strike or taking risks to score quicker, which is certainly an example of selfish batting and he may well have done a better job for his team by playing differently even if his average had ended up lower. It's also worth noting that more than half of Chanderpaul's not-outs occurred after he'd already scored more than 80. If you want to find fault in those batting performances, then perhaps it would be fairer to find fault in the (usually) ten other West Indian batters who did not make 80.

I also picked an innings of Chanderpaul's at total random (104 not out against Bangladesh from 2014, right towards the back-end of his career) and noticed that Sulieman Benn faced only 19 balls in a 54-minute partnership with Shiv. As so many West Indian lower-order players did at the time, he got out slogging:

Its a wonder how these rubbish deliveries get a wicket. Benn, enticed by the short ball on a leg-stump line, ends up hooking the fast bowler straight to deep fine leg, who takes the catch on the second chance after bobbling the initial take just in front of him. West Indies nine down, and Bangladesh look to wrap them up in a hurry

I guess I'm saying that while I see the merits of what you're saying, you're ascribing too much importance to it and underrating at least one top-quality Test batter as a result.

 

[Paranoid Kendroid]

No way he's in the Intent Merchants T20 XI ahead of Haris Rauf

tried to make a team based on strike rates.

 

[CerealKiller]

tried to make a team based on strike rates.

Oh alright. If you pick the bowlers based on bowling intent/aggression, then Haris definitely makes it

 

[Bevab]

Even among bowlers I don’t remember McCoy being particularly aggressive like Tye or Shami or Hasan Ali are known to be. Same goes for Nortje. Maybe I need to watch more of their batting in action.

 

[Paranoid Kendroid]

Even among bowlers I don’t remember McCoy being particularly aggressive like Tye or Shami or Hasan Ali are known to be. Same goes for Nortje. Maybe I need to watch more of their batting in action.

i meant bowling strike rates for bowlers and vice-versa.

 

[Bevab]

The argument of "x player's average is boosted by not-outs" is common wisdom, but it is also flawed.

Every batter in the history of the game has averaged least when starting from 0. Once they get to 10, they are likely to make more runs. When 20, more still, because they have got through the most difficult phase of any batter's innings: the start. If a batter has lots of not-outs, then that means that rather than continuing to bat from (for example) 40, they will bat next starting from 0 again. This is more likely to result in a lower average, as opposed to a higher on.

The flipside of that is to ask why a batter has lots of not-outs. Chanderpaul stands accused of knocking a single when the field is back and then watching the tail-enders get out at the other end, as opposed to farming the strike or taking risks to score quicker, which is certainly an example of selfish batting and he may well have done a better job for his team by playing differently even if his average had ended up lower. It's also worth noting that more than half of Chanderpaul's not-outs occurred after he'd already scored more than 80. If you want to find fault in those batting performances, then perhaps it would be fairer to find fault in the (usually) ten other West Indian batters who did not make 80.

I also picked an innings of Chanderpaul's at total random (104 not out against Bangladesh from 2014, right towards the back-end of his career) and noticed that Sulieman Benn faced only 19 balls in a 54-minute partnership with Shiv. As so many West Indian lower-order players did at the time, he got out slogging:


I guess I'm saying that while I see the merits of what you're saying, you're ascribing too much importance to it and underrating at least one top-quality Test batter as a result.

I’d say not outs boosting the average is an argument I’ve been on either side of given how central Dhoni was for a long time in Indian cricket and my favourite cricketer being the archetype of it. In LO cricket particularly I think the argument holds no water as these batters usually are not out due to them successfully finishing chases. In tests though I suspect there is some merit in that argument.

Lara for instance has an average merely 1.5 more than Chanderpaul and yet anyone who’s watched them both would know that they’re nowhere in the same class of batters (harsh comparison admittedly as few are in the class of Lara). Their RPI also differs by ten demonstrating said difference.

It isn’t just Chanderpaul’s lack of shepherding the tail either. As you’ve mentioned the lack of intent in his play when he was running out of partners is one thing as was his reluctance to bat higher up the order especially when the side could have used his talents in the top order a lot more than at five. Faf for instance pushed himself higher up the order despite being a middle order batter for most of his prior test career and despite being in terminal decline because he was still one of their best batsmen on paper. Shiv would have averaged lesser by perhaps five runs (which still is an extremely good number for a batter in that WI lineup) but he’d have likely led his side to more victories with more impactful knocks at important moments and dare I say, be remembered better rather than as an enigma? The man was capable of batting quickly if needed too as shown by his famous century against Australia with Jacobs alongside when the rest of the side collapsed.