f.b.m Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 I've been posting in or going through cricket forums for cricket for a couple of years and there's something I've never gotten my head around. Its not a recent craze. Its not something that stupid people do. And it happens in just about every cricket website. I'm sure if I print out these things they'd fill up zillions of libraries. People stay up till the morning just sorting these out, many of them I'm sure at the cost of watching a movie, having friends or generally doing something more worthwhile. Sorry to sound so pig-headed but what pleasure does anyone find in putting up an alltime XI team with half of its players being players that they never saw and barely heard of? Of course, these teams seem to come up in various shapes and colours; All-time Indian, Australian or English XIs, All-time Left handed XIs, All time graceful XI, etc, etc. All for no purpose at all from what I can see. Its fair enough if you make a XI just to prove a point like making a South african English XI or try and fail to come up with a Pak Phasht Baller/Mash Winna XI who wasnt ball tampering or wasnt Amy Winehouse. You can have a queer XI just so that Ian Bell can get into it but after a point, doesn't it get a bit tiring? A few weeks ago I saw a forum debate between two, who after admitting that they were in their late teens went on for 4 pages debating why Vengsarkar would have been a better middle order batsman than Azhar in their all time Indian XIs. Do these guys get a special kick from knowing they look like more knowledgeable cricket fans or do they simply have nothing better to do? Maybe its just the attention span of me but I'm sure this (and every) forum is full of people who make these teams and go on to argue about it. Just what is it that you guys find in making imaginary teams and discussing something? Am I missing something or am I just that thick? [/rant] Discuss..
vvvslaxman Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 I am not a huge fan of coming up with XIs. But no problem with others doing it. The idea of coming up with such XIs will give an opening to discuss about past and present cricketers and lot of their achievements along the way. If the group of people who are involved in debate are intelligent bunch, the discussions can be interesting. Even one half-baked clown can ruin the discussion.It all depends on the participants. It is very hard to be present in every era to discuss about past players. You just have to go by what their contemporaries have to say about them. In this Azhar vs Vengsarkar case, both of their playing career heavily overlapped. I think they played together atleast for 8 years. So it is not that hard to seperate them.
Dinx - the Jinx Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 interesting though f.b.m.. even i'm not a big fan of these all time xis etc.. funny how ppl pick players whom they have never seen play not even video footage.. its a waste of time really...
bunny Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 Yeah I myself dont like the idea of rating players who I have never seen. But I definitely do like to figure out stuff like, which of Mcgrath or Ambrose was better? And for that purposes I tend to use both stats and my recollection of them. (And while having my usual session of stats digging I do learn some things. For eg, if as a parent you want to turn your child into a world-beating batsman, the least you should do is make him hold bat left-handed). I guess really knowledgeable fans would actually try to figure out what makes Ambrose so much greater than Walsh? Or for that matter how did McGrath transform himself into a really great bowler? But I suppose very few here understand cricket that well. So, the next best thing to do is just state that based on their impression and stats.
Shane Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 Sorry to sound so pig-headed but what pleasure does anyone find in putting up an alltime XI team with half of its players being players that they never saw and barely heard of? Thank You msb, echoed my point, how exactly can you comment on a player or team you havent even seen play, ofcourse your POV is swayed by stats or others. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=872301&postcount=10
Lurker Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 Sorry to sound so pig-headed but what pleasure does anyone find in putting up an alltime XI team with half of its players being players that they never saw and barely heard of? Because that is the correct way of doing the compilation. If you choose to select people who have only watched yourself you should classify it as "The XI that I have personally seen". Why would you select only players of a certain era and then classify it as an All time XI?? Now a question for you. Cricket fans have watched cricket only since late 70s when tv became the big thing. Still it is extremely difficult to get tapes/videos of games into 80s(you would be pressed to find videos of 83 and 87 world cup for example). For practical purposes TV is a 90s phenomenon, and recently internet. Cricket has been around since 1880. Do you want to miss out on 100 years of history? xxx
The Outsider Posted December 11, 2009 Posted December 11, 2009 It's very much possible to comment on players we have not seen and not just on the basis of statistics. Cricket, as a sport, is full of some wonderful literature and history as well as some very keen observers of the game who have transcended generations and have seen players from different eras. Keen followers of the game will pick up a book from the Guhas and the Fingletons to learn about how cricket was played when they were not around to watch an innings and how the best in the business fared then. If you restrict yourself to rating only the ones you have watched the list would be very limited. Even the likes of Gavaskar and Richards would be ruled out in the strict sense of the word because even the few who were around at that time would have watched no more than a handful of series of them - foreign series were not televised in India till the early 80s and that too only India's series and matches. And you can forget about the likes of Chappell etc. Yes, you can watch a lot of these on older highlights now, but how can you justifiably compress a five day long sport into a one hour package to make judgments exclusively by viewing on the quality of the players.
vvvslaxman Posted December 11, 2009 Posted December 11, 2009 Someone like Richie Benaud who has been commentating over 50 years, Tony Cozier who is doing it for nearly 50 years are reliable judges of players. Tony might be a bit biased. But overall you can trust their words.
f.b.m Posted December 23, 2009 Author Posted December 23, 2009 I think I have come across the wrong way in the (rather poorly written) opening post. My problem isn't just with including players who you didn't see (live or on tv). Its that I don't see the point of making these XIs (even with players who you did/do see) in the first place, even a 'this decade's XI'. Why make a list in the first place? Having players from decades ago in an all-time XIs just increases its ridiculousness somewhat. Are these teams just random, pointless exercises in cricketing imagination? Are they brought about by boredom? I really don't know the answers and am genuinely curious. I think shwetabh just made a point in another thread where he/she said that while Steve Waugh wouldn't be in the league of the best batsmen in isolation he would be among the first for a team role. It seemed that some people took a "best XI individuals" team and some took a "cohesive unit XI". I think it raises some of the kind of questions that I've been wanting to ask: What exactly are these teams? Would you need pressure players in these teams if those who are surrounding you are terrific players anyway? Does performing against the best matter in these teams? (since the best eleven are in your team anyway) Who exactly is the opposition to these teams? Why are these teams made in the first place? This extends to player comparison and forum ranking to an extent as well. What exactly is the point in arguing about whether batsman x is greater than batsman y when you could just as well enjoy (or hate) them for what they are? I dont want to sound too demeaning but a lot of forumers seem to spend a lot of time on these things and I'm curious to know a reason why.
OriginalCopy Posted December 23, 2009 Posted December 23, 2009 I think the point is to marvel on the quality of players all in one team, and to think about what would/could have been. I remember while growing up my dad used to tell me India and Pakistan used to be one country. And I immediately used to dream of a cricket team that one country would have produced. Imagine Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Kapil, Imran, Qadir etc all in one team. So I believe this All Time XI and World XI is an extension of the same thought process. It is more about people having a dream team and going nuts about the quality that would aggregate.
achilles Posted December 23, 2009 Posted December 23, 2009 Haha. The young ones these days like them.
Sooda Posted December 23, 2009 Posted December 23, 2009 I think I have come across the wrong way in the (rather poorly written) opening post. My problem isn't just with including players who you didn't see (live or on tv). Its that I don't see the point of making these XIs (even with players who you did/do see) in the first place, even a 'this decade's XI'. Why make a list in the first place? Having players from decades ago in an all-time XIs just increases its ridiculousness somewhat. Are these teams just random, pointless exercises in cricketing imagination? Are they brought about by boredom? I really don't know the answers and am genuinely curious. I think shwetabh just made a point in another thread where he/she said that while Steve Waugh wouldn't be in the league of the best batsmen in isolation he would be among the first for a team role. It seemed that some people took a "best XI individuals" team and some took a "cohesive unit XI". I think it raises some of the kind of questions that I've been wanting to ask: What exactly are these teams? Would you need pressure players in these teams if those who are surrounding you are terrific players anyway? Does performing against the best matter in these teams? (since the best eleven are in your team anyway) Who exactly is the opposition to these teams? Why are these teams made in the first place? This extends to player comparison and forum ranking to an extent as well. What exactly is the point in arguing about whether batsman x is greater than batsman y when you could just as well enjoy (or hate) them for what they are? I dont want to sound too demeaning but a lot of forumers seem to spend a lot of time on these things and I'm curious to know a reason why. Personally I find making 'all time XI's' great fun. I love it. Its not limited to cricket, football/soccer is a good candidate for all time team-making. As Original Copy says- its imagining just HOW good these guys could be in tandem/facing off against each other- thats what makes it so exciting. Usually its all time XIs of a nation which means that youre playing other all time nations teams- in that sceanrio youd need the 'best' players from your country and guys who could handle that pressue. This idea fascinated me loads as a teenager. I had a little diary with 'scorecards' written out of 'dream teams' playing each other in an 'all time test championship'. Yep, I was that sad. Id also say that normally it is a 'talented individuals' XI... the only reason why id think it may not be is when I guess you could you put (say) a defensive batsman in BECAUSE he is defensive and can anchor strokeplayers. Surely the best part about following any sport is debating the goods and bads of your favourite team/player etc. And not all of us are fortunate to have seen these players play so we have to rely on hearsay and books For an outright all time XI.. well the opposition could a Mars XI :P Also Azhar >>>> home track bully Vengsarkar anyday.
vvvslaxman Posted December 23, 2009 Posted December 23, 2009 Also Azhar >>>> home track bully Vengsarkar anyday. Err He has scored 3 consecutive Test hundreds at Lords. Tendulkar and Sunil Gavaskar never got a 100 there.
Sooda Posted December 23, 2009 Posted December 23, 2009 Of his 17 test hundreds those are the ONLY he scored overseas His average away from home is low 30's. From what Ie read/heard he was pretty good and it was a difficult era to score runs but he wouldnt merit a place in my all time India team. In fact in the all time india thread Ive picked TWO dream teams and he's in neither.
thevortex Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Cricket is all about romance. Nostalgia is a big part of romance. And imagination is needed for nostalgia. There you go. That should explain why a lot of cricket fans love to think about, compare past players with present ones and cook up mythical elevens. :) By the way I am not kidding. Honest and serious.
coffee_rules Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Err He has scored 3 consecutive Test hundreds at Lords. Tendulkar and Sunil Gavaskar never got a 100 there. But for a push from Gavaskar this colonel would have been dropped long way early in his career. Somebody looked at him in the initial career could have called him Lance Naik instead of Colonel.
Serani Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Dont even enter the best XI threads, waste of time.
f.b.m Posted March 25, 2010 Author Posted March 25, 2010 Cricket is all about romance. Nostalgia is a big part of romance. And imagination is needed for nostalgia. There you go. That should explain why a lot of cricket fans love to think about, compare past players with present ones and cook up mythical elevens. :) By the way I am not kidding. Honest and serious. I suppose this answers my question perfectly. Nostalgia is something I could never relate to and as a 19 year old, I dont have any rose tinted memories of players or the patience to read other peoples rambles about how great these other players were and how they're so much better than today's players... etc, etc
Lurker Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Cricket is all about romance. Nostalgia is a big part of romance. And imagination is needed for nostalgia. There you go. That should explain why a lot of cricket fans love to think about, compare past players with present ones and cook up mythical elevens. :) Fair assessment there. Yes cricket is much more than simply following the game, watching the scores and deducing from the stats(thats what stock exchange is for). It has shades of romance to it, and nostalgia indeed plays a role there. The thing with romance,or even nostalgia for that matter, is either you have it or you dont. xxx
CSK Fan Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Fair assessment there. Yes cricket is much more than simply following the game, watching the scores and deducing from the stats(thats what stock exchange is for). It has shades of romance to it, and nostalgia indeed plays a role there. The thing with romance,or even nostalgia for that matter, is either you have it or you dont. xxx You mean 'they' are right when they call Afridi a legend :omg:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now