World test team of the decade

[Celeste]

Laxman in team of decade :WTF: Sangakara,Younis & Pieterson are better options than him.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

for sehwag it's quite ok that you guys put him in the team, hayden is a sure in, then there is battle between smith and sehwag, that's quite a 50-50 one. But can anyone hereexplain me how on earth TENDULKAR is in????????? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: You just can't accept facts guys... Tendulkar was a good batsman in this decade, not even great....... He averages 47 with 15 centuries... If you make a World XI it's to play agaisnt strong teams not agaisnt bengalis and zimbabwe.... I will love that one people here prove me the presence of tendulkar in the world XI..... Dravid is debatable, but if yousuf can't make it with 23 hundreds in 119innings i don't think dravid will make it with 22 hundreds in 176 innings. 60 inniings more I will give my world XI a litle bit later, but it's true that it's very hard in the midle order...

Yousuf is the biggest FTB and minnow basher of this decade....... Australia avg in australia 33 overall aaginist australia 29 SA avg in SA 26 over all avg againist SA 29 SL avg in SL 33 over all avg againist SL 29 Indian avg in India 32 overall avg 49 His avg againist top 4 test teams AUS,SA,SL,INDIA is 39 with Tendulkars Avg in same againist the same teams,India replaced with Pakistan is 47 and tendulkar struggled with injuries and had a year or 2 of bad form while Yousuf was in his best form still he is outstripped by tendulkar......... Yousuf is no where near tendulkar......not even in the same street

[yoda]

Sehwag Hayden RD SRT Lara Ponting Gilly Fintoff Mcgrath Warne Murali

[The Outsider]

I would still take Kallis over VVS or Ponting here. I feel he would add more balance to the side from the standpoint of a second 'solid' player in the order to anchor things around the strokeplayers (Smith, Sehwag, SRT, Ponting and Gilchrist). In the event of a green track or some early wickets, I would feel a lot more comfortable watching him come in rather than seeing Ponting and VVS padded up. And his bowling these days is only useful for when the quicks are tired, but there were periods earlier in the decade when he was a VERY handy bowler and could really bring a lot to the table on that front as a genuine bowling option. I'm thinking of games like Leeds in 2003, where he ended up being the best bowler in the SAF side (outbowling even an on-form Ntini) with some vicious swing and very intelligent variation to run through the England top and middle order. Not to mention that with his control, on flat tracks he could be a very handy option especially if one of the strike guys had an off-day or were in the field for a bit. (Bridgetown '03, where Pollock and Donald went wicketless in the 2nd dig in the face of a fine Lara/Hooper partnership, and Kallis shouldered much of the bowling burden with 36 overs and a 6/for going at less than 2 an over). Re. your point about VVS being at number 6 and doing well in a difficult position - very fair logic that I did not consider, although I don't think it really applies in this scenario much. Laxman's skills at 6 batting with the tail are a lot more valuable when there is a real tail to handle - in this, we're talking about a batting lineup going down to 10 effectively as Pollock was a pretty damn good batsman, Warne could handle a bat very well and Gillespie by the end of his career was incredibly handy with the willow. So in this case is a specialist #6 record really all that crucial when we're talking about batsmen who could work with the tail?

You've made an excellent case for Kallis, particularly regarding the bowling part. Batting wise I am still not convinced how he can contribute more at number 5 and 6 more than Laxman and Ponting - both of whom have excellent and proven records in the lower middle order. I concede his bowling can give a very nice balance to the side, given that there is no one in the batting line up even remotely capable of doing a fifth bowlers' job and that 6 for was top notch bowling. His earlier exploits with the ball have indeed faded out of memory over the last 4-5 years. To reconcile, I would play him over Laxman and move Ponting down to 6 on certain pitches and have Laxman get in on others. So yeah, despite the confusion - thank you - I have more or less arrived at a pretty damn good XII for the decade!

[vicks]

Ive got two numbers for you 53.65 and 22

The numbers from statsguru are actually 53.20 and 21 - but close enough. Since you brought up the numbers - of all batsmen who scored more than 5000 runs during the decade, Tendulkar is #9 in averages and #7 in hundreds. And it gets worse if you exclude minnows. There is no way he makes the team of the decade by any stretch of imagination. Even at #4, which is really the only place SRT ever bats in tests, he is comfortably behind Kallis, Moyo and Jayawardene. Look, I am not bagging Tendulkar. I am hugely disappointed at his output this decade, especially after 2002. A combination of injuries, slowing reflexes and continued bad luck with umpiring (that is a separate discussion - IMO Tendulkar is the unluckiest batsman ever when it comes to the balance of umpiring decisions over one's career). For another data point, consider this. IIRC the ICC awards were instituted in 2003. For test player of the year, I don't think Tendulkar has even been nominated in any year, let alone winning it. And I don't think he made the ICC Test team of the year more than once in the 6 (?) years the awards have been around. So how does he make the test team of the decade? Tendulkar is still probably the best batsman of the last 20 years, but many other have been better in the last 10. Yes he has been unlucky, but you can't argue with the numbers other have put up.

[vicks]

4.SRT:There hasnt been a greater batsman at no.4 or for that matter ever. .

Over a career, you are probably correct. But in the last 10 years, which this discussion is about, Kallis, Moyo and Jayawardene have all been better - by runs, by average and by centuries.

[Celeste]

Over a career' date=' you are probably correct. But in the last 10 years, which this discussion is about, Kallis, Moyo and Jayawardene have all been better - by runs, by average and by centuries.[/quote'] Sachin in this decade http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2009;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround Dravid in this decade http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/28114.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2009;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround Yousuf in this decade http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/43650.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2009;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

[The Outsider]

^ If you guys want to select a team based purely on stats why start a discussion thread - just post stats guru links as Celeste has done. At least he is being honest about him being clueless.

[Laaloo]

Sachin in this decade http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sikh-youth-brutally-assaulted-in-US-/articleshow/5357530.cms Dravid in this decade http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/28114.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2009;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround Yousuf in this decade http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/43650.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2009;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

:hmmmm:

[vicks]

^ If you guys want to select a team based purely on stats why start a discussion thread - just post stats guru links as Celeste has done. At least he is being honest about him being clueless.

If you are referring to me, I only brought up numbers because Sooda threw 53.xx and 22 at me. Anyway, stats have to form a significant component of the decision, otherwise there really is no point in having this discussion in an Indian form (or Pakistani or any other country specific one). People are going to have their biases, and at the end of the day, with most things equal, the sheer weight of the numbers a player has put up (or not) influences most real-life selection decisions, whether you are selecting a Ranji team or the national one. As an example, although I have been arguing against Tendulkar in the world team of the decade, I would secretly love to have him in it batting at #4. But I know I can't justify it in an objective discussion - the sheer weight of the numbers others have put up make this a no-brainer. So while stats aren't everything, you can't ignore them altogether either.

[vicks]

Sachin in this decade http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sikh-youth-brutally-assaulted-in-US-/articleshow/5357530.cms Dravid in this decade http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/28114.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2009;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround Yousuf in this decade http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/43650.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2009;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

Not sure what your point is. You are responding to my post, where I clearly acknowledged that Yousuf has put up better numbers than Sachin in this decade. And we were talking #4 batsmen, so what does Dravid have to do with it?

[Clarke]

Sehwag Smith Kallis Lara/Dravid Ponting Flintoff Gilly Warne Murali Mcgrath Steyn Big on bowling, but thats my squad.

[The Outsider]

If you are referring to me, I only brought up numbers because Sooda threw 53.xx and 22 at me. Anyway, stats have to form a significant component of the decision, otherwise there really is no point in having this discussion in an Indian form (or Pakistani or any other country specific one). People are going to have their biases, and at the end of the day, with most things equal, the sheer weight of the numbers a player has put up (or not) influences most real-life selection decisions, whether you are selecting a Ranji team or the national one. As an example, although I have been arguing against Tendulkar in the world team of the decade, I would secretly love to have him in it batting at #4. But I know I can't justify it in an objective discussion - the sheer weight of the numbers others have put up make this a no-brainer. So while stats aren't everything, you can't ignore them altogether either.

Not specifically to you. Stats can be used to bolster an argument in cricket, not form an argument as a lot of people have done in this thread. Let's compare the number 4 slot for instance where Tendulkar is competing for - I would say his competition is Kallis and Yousuf, more or less? Now look at some of the influential innings the trio has played over the past decade - Tendulkar has a double hundred at Sydney, a hundred at the same venue, and another century at Adelaide. Kallis has been nothing but a run off the mill performer against Australia, neither does he have any match turning innings on turning tracks like Tendulkar's 55 at Bombay. The lesser said about Yousuf in tough batting conditions, the better. Tendulkar formed the pivot on which by far the highest score in India was chased down against a more than decent spin attack on a pitch offering more than something. He denied the offer of light to bash the English attack to smithereens at Headingly. You would be hard pressed to find any instance of a batsman denying an offer of bad light in this decade, except the Karachi match, let alone from Kallis and Yousuf. It's true his numbers don't rack up to Kallis and Yousuf, but the influence of his innings against quality opposition has been more than enough to tide over that. How many head turning innings can you remember from the blade of Kallis and Yousuf over the last decade? Yousuf had a couple of brilliant innings in England, Kallis had a couple here and there, and they in no way can compare to the mastery Tendulkar imposed at the crease for example at Chennai in '01 with the series on the line against perhaps the best cricket team ever assembled on the planet. Tendulkar might give me 5-7 runs less on average compared to Kallis and Yousuf but I can bank on him to deliver in tough conditions against the best where one of the other challengers is mediocre and the other pathetic.

[EnterTheVoid]

^ If you guys want to select a team based purely on stats why start a discussion thread - just post stats guru links as Celeste has done. At least he is being honest about him being clueless.

[vicks]

Not specifically to you. Stats can be used to bolster an argument in cricket, not form an argument as a lot of people have done in this thread. Let's compare the number 4 slot for instance where Tendulkar is competing for - I would say his competition is Kallis and Yousuf, more or less? Now look at some of the influential innings the trio has played over the past decade - Tendulkar has a double hundred at Sydney, a hundred at the same venue, and another century at Adelaide. Kallis has been nothing but a run off the mill performer against Australia, neither does he have any match turning innings on turning tracks like Tendulkar's 55 at Bombay. The lesser said about Yousuf in tough batting conditions, the better. Tendulkar formed the pivot on which by far the highest score in India was chased down against a more than decent spin attack on a pitch offering more than something. He denied the offer of light to bash the English attack to smithereens at Headingly. You would be hard pressed to find any instance of a batsman denying an offer of bad light in this decade, except the Karachi match, let alone from Kallis and Yousuf. It's true his numbers don't rack up to Kallis and Yousuf, but the influence of his innings against quality opposition has been more than enough to tide over that. How many head turning innings can you remember from the blade of Kallis and Yousuf over the last decade? Yousuf had a couple of brilliant innings in England, Kallis had a couple here and there, and they in no way can compare to the mastery Tendulkar imposed at the crease for example at Chennai in '01 with the series on the line against perhaps the best cricket team ever assembled on the planet. Tendulkar might give me 5-7 runs less on average compared to Kallis and Yousuf but I can bank on him to deliver in tough conditions against the best where one of the other challengers is mediocre and the other pathetic.

Look - you are preaching to the choir here. There is no denying Tendulkar's special knocks and his influence. However, there are two holes in your argument. First, you give Kallis and Yousuf (and I'd add Jaywardene to the list for #4 batsmen) too little credit - fans who have followed their careers and every knock as closely as you and I have followed Tendulkar's can certainly come up with 4-5 very special knocks over the last 10 years - that would be dead easy. In fact, just as you claim Tendulkar's greatness in tough conditions, I have seen people make reasonable arguments that other players mentioned here are greater matchwinners than him (but let's not get into that argument - it has been beaten to death). The point here is the same I mentioned in my previous post - in an Indian form, with die-hard Tendulkar fans, you will always come up with 4-5 magical moments - but we do not have enough representation from fans of Kallis/Yousuf/Jaya to hear their side of the argument. Second, what really made Tendulkar the best player in the world in the 90s was his consistency - the failures were very few, the strike rate was excellent and there was a sense of anticipation when he came out to bat. But in this decade (post 2002), that consistency is gone - there are several failures on either side of a special knock. True - he did well in Australia in the last tour, but he also failed in all 4 second innings. In nine innings after that Adelaide hundred, his highest score was 31. He started 2004 with a bang, scoring that Sydney double hundred and the 194* against Pak, but that was followed by six single digit scores, leading up to the 55 in Bombay. And his highest score in the last 5 years, universally acknowledged as the best of batting, has been 160 odd. He really hasn't seemed capable of a big innings, when many other top order batsmen have been churning out doubles and triples. Sorry, but Sachin has been too inconsistent over this period to warrant a spot in the World team of the decade. Also see my point in a previous posting about ICC awards. I know people laughed at Kapil Dev recently when he said that Tendulkar had underachieved in his carrer, but IMO he was spot on. In totality, post-2002 Sachin has been distinctly mediocre - given how batsmen have made hay in the last 5-6 years, Sachin should have had 15,000 runs and 50 test hundreds by now. His productivity over this period has been sub-par, not only by his own standards but also the ones others have set.

[EnterTheVoid]

But in this decade (post 2002)' date= that consistency is gone - there are several failures on either side of a special knock.

Sorry, come again ? How is the consistency gone ? You expect a special knock everytime he comes out to bat ? Please explain this: Sachin should have had 15,000 runs and 50 test hundreds by now. His productivity over this period has been sub-par, not only by his own standards but also the ones others have set.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Over a career' date=' you are probably correct. But in the last 10 years, which this discussion is about, Kallis, Moyo and Jayawardene have all been better - by runs, by average and by centuries.[/quote'] Kallis is already in my team but at a different no. Yousuf and Jayawardene are FTBs......Yousufs record i have already shown in one of my post......if you want jayawardene's stat He avgs in the 30s in pakistan SA and Australia who had good pace attacks...he avgs 27 againist a shane bond led NZ his home avg is 65 and away avg 43.......and outside the subcontinent he avgs 39 as you see yousuf and jayawardene cannot play in tough batting conditions.....so i would rather have tendulkar then these flat track home track minnow bullies

[S.Bond]

Yousuf is the biggest FTB and minnow basher of this decade....... Australia avg in australia 33 overall aaginist australia 29 SA avg in SA 26 over all avg againist SA 29 SL avg in SL 33 over all avg againist SL 29 Indian avg in India 32 overall avg 49 His avg againist top 4 test teams AUS,SA,SL,INDIA is 39 with Tendulkars Avg in same againist the same teams,India replaced with Pakistan is 47 and tendulkar struggled with injuries and had a year or 2 of bad form while Yousuf was in his best form still he is outstripped by tendulkar......... Yousuf is no where near tendulkar......not even in the same street

This is the reason i didnt put Moyo in my team... But I don't want to ebate with fool people including laxman in their team... I still just want someone to explain me WHY IS SACHIN TENDULKAR IN THEIR TEAM OF THE DECADE??????? Brian lara, kallis, ponting, sangakarra, pietersen, moyo, inzi, dravid are alllargeley better than him..... The guy averages 47.......... He jut can't be inn the team... Anyone putting him in the team is just prving that he is a stupid fan of sachin. Lara has 4 centuries more than him with about 40 innings less..... That is about 10 centuries difference in same number of innnings.... Same things apply to kallis, sanaga, moyo, ricky.... As you play with just three mile order batsman SACHIN CAN'T BE IN........ If we playd with 11 midle order batsmen then maybe he can......

[Malcolm Merlyn]

This is the reason i didnt put Moyo in my team... But I don't want to ebate with fool people including laxman in their team... I still just want someone to explain me WHY IS SACHIN TENDULKAR IN THEIR TEAM OF THE DECADE??????? Brian lara, kallis, ponting, sangakarra, pietersen, moyo, inzi, dravid are alllargeley better than him..... The guy averages 47.......... He jut can't be inn the team... Anyone putting him in the team is just prving that he is a stupid fan of sachin. Lara has 4 centuries more than him with about 40 innings less..... That is about 10 centuries difference in same number of innnings.... Same things apply to kallis, sanaga, moyo, ricky.... As you play with just three mile order batsman SACHIN CAN'T BE IN........ If we playd with 11 midle order batsmen then maybe he can......

Tendulkar plays at no.4 ponting,sanga dravid all play at no.3 and so does lara.........at no.4 sachim is miles better then anyone else and please stop mentioning Moyo again and again

[S.Bond]

Tendulkar plays at no.4 ponting' date='sanga dravid all play at no.3 and so does lara.........at no.4 sachim is miles better then anyone else and please stop mentioning Moyo again and again[/quote'] hmmmm ok, Lara at number 4 in this decade excluding minnows, 90 innings, 16 centuries at 52.73, at what positionn do lara bat? sachin has played 121 innings (31 more) has 14 centuries (2 less) with an average of 46.75 (6 less)... tendulkar averages is also boosted with 9 not outs (that is normla every normla batsmen have as many not outs) but as biran charles lara is a SPECIAL batsman, his average is boosted with only 1 not out.... We can go one like this... so for the moment i wil like you to tell me lara or tendulkar at 4 in this decade??