• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Team of the World Cup

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Rik said:
When I saw him playing for Warwickshire 3 years ago he was batting at 3 in OD games and not as a pitch-hitter, he was playing really fine shots and propper innings...
That experiment did not last long at all, although it wasn't a major disaster.

Having said that, there is a huge difference between batting up the order in one day games, and doing it in proper cricket.
 

Eclipse

Well-known member
anilramavarma said:
IMO the best combo in this WC would be:

Tendulkar
Gilchrist
Ponting
Gibbs
Martyn
DeSilva
Bichel
Vaas
Lee
Murali
McGrath
I would Have Lee batting abouve Vaas he is more or less as good a batsman as Bichel and probably one of the best hitters in that team:O

Lee has been batting above Bichel for Australia for the most part over the last year.
 

Top_Cat

Well-known member
Lee has been batting above Bichel for Australia for the most part over the last year.
Yep and it's been a mistake the whole time. Lee is a great hitter of the ball and has a reasonable technique but Bichel has performance ahead of Lee, with two state/county level centuries.
 

Eclipse

Well-known member
I would agree with that too.

Never the Less when Lee getts himself well set he does not look troubeled by any sort of bowling at all as you said he is a great hitter and he has a very good eye but Bichel is better in the pressure situation because he has a better techneque and does not look as valnerable early on.

I would rather a well set Lee on 50* than Bichel tho.

I remember there have been a two times in test cricket were I really though lee was going to make a 100 once he was on about 60* and was looking really good better than Warne ever did and then he got a bad LBW when he clearly hit the ball before the ball hit pad.
 

Anil

Well-known member
marc71178 said:
Erm, Bichel at 7 is a tad weak!

Also, why are people putting Gibbs in their teams as a middle order player when he opens? Surely players should be judged on where they played in the WC?
I basically looked for the 5 best batsmen(IMO), 5 best bowlers(again IMO) and one best WK. That the WK happens to be an exceptional batsman is just a huge bonus. So, No: 7 was not supposed to be a batsman anyway. I put Bichel there because among the bowlers, he had played the most significant innings in the WC. Everything is based on players who played and performed in this WC. In any case, if Tendulkar, Gilchrist, Ponting, Gibbs, Martyn and DeSilva all fail and the No: 7 batsman is supposed to save this team, the whole purpose of this lineup is lost, isn't it?

Also, Gibbs was in excellent form throughout the group phase and IMO, one of the top batsmen in this WC. Since the top three spots were more or less reserved(again IMO), I had to put him at 4. The only other possible way would be to put Gibbs with Sachin and drop Gilchrist down to 4.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
I can see your point, but I think that one of those 3 would have to miss out.

Also, a line up with Bichel at 7 is way too weak, and needs at least one or 2 all rounders in it.
 

Anil

Well-known member
marc71178 said:
I can see your point, but I think that one of those 3 would have to miss out.

Also, a line up with Bichel at 7 is way too weak, and needs at least one or 2 all rounders in it.
Which all-rounder really merits a place in a best players' side based on the performances in this WC? Bichel is not really a genuine all-rounder(he is primarily a bowler who can bat a bit), but the best all-round performances in this tournament have come from him and a one-off from Flintoff(against India). Here, let me emphasise that I am talking about established all-rounders coming into the 'cup.

Also, if one of the three openers has to miss out, it has to be Gibbs and I would go with the introduction of Bevan in the middle order.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
If you can't find an All Rounder, then you have to play a batsman that can bowl, in which case Lehmann would take some beating on performance (although I still think Flintoff's appearances don't preclude him for recognition)
 

Rik

Well-known member
marc71178 said:
That experiment did not last long at all, although it wasn't a major disaster.

Having said that, there is a huge difference between batting up the order in one day games, and doing it in proper cricket.
When I saw him play he scored 80 and 101...

Also he batted at 6 or 7 for Wawickshire and scored hundreds...sound like a bowler to you?
 

Rik

Well-known member
anilramavarma said:
Also, if one of the three openers has to miss out, it has to be Gibbs
Why does it have to be Gibbs? He averaged 98 in the short time his team was in the World Cup...
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Rik said:
When I saw him play he scored 80 and 101...
You werre fortunate to only see the 2 times it really worked then! ;)

Rik said:
Also he batted at 6 or 7 for Wawickshire and scored hundreds...sound like a bowler to you? [/B]
In Test terms he's a number 9, for Warwickshire I would put him at number 8.

He has in the past batted higher, but there is no need for him to go any higher now because we have plenty of strong batsmen (to the extent that Penney cannot get in the team)
 

Anil

Well-known member
Rik said:
Why does it have to be Gibbs? He averaged 98 in the short time his team was in the World Cup...
Tendulkar has established himself as the best opener in this WC. Gilchrist gets the second opener nod because he is the best 'keeper, an exceptional batsman in good form and a one day opener. I am not saying Gibbs shouldn't be in the team, in fact I put him at No: 4 in my 11, but Marc was saying that Gibbs is an opener, so he should be opening or one of the three openers should be removed. So, an alternate solution would be replacing Gibbs with Bevan.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
My point is that there's a world of difference between batting at 4 and opening (major case in point being SRT), which is why I don'tsee you can put Gibbs in there.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
My point is that there's a world of difference between batting at 4 and opening (major case in point being SRT), which is why I don't see you can put Gibbs in there.
 

Rik

Well-known member
marc71178 said:
My point is that there's a world of difference between batting at 4 and opening (major case in point being SRT), which is why I don't see you can put Gibbs in there.
So obvious you had to say it twice? ;) :P
 
Top