Sky's famously terrible commentary team has unveiled its picks for the team of the decade, echoing a rather heated discussion that took place at Sefton Park's club house a few weeks ago.
The Sefton members were pretty much universal on their choices of Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, Kallis, Murali, McGrath and Warne – leaving few other places up for grabs.
Both opener spots were heavily debated, with Hayden and Sehwag most frequently mentioned.
Trescothick, Dravid and Jayasuriya were also mentioned in despatches, but Hayden's brutality and Sehwag's sheer speed and weight of run-scoring won out. I think Tresco would have won one of the spots if he'd continued to play test cricket though.
The only other bone of contention were the all-rounder/second seamer spots. I think Kallis has to take the all-rounder spot, but I think there's room to slot in Flintoff as the second seamer to McGrath.
His ability to raise his game, inspire sides to victory through sheer force of will and destructive ability with bat and ball makes him a better choice than Pollock for me. It's not an obviously snug fit in the team, but I don't see how you can leave Flintoff out.
Picking Murali and Warne as spin twins may be controversial, but they're the best bowlers of the last ten years for me, along with McGrath.
Finally, I suppose I'd have Ponting as skipper, though I've always doubted how effective he'd be with an inferior team, something which was borne out – to my mind at least – this summer.
Below are the Sky commentators' picks, along with some thoughts of my own on the respective teams.
Hussain
Hussain indicates that he struggled over including Pollock, which may be a touch of the tedious matey banter that Sky reeks of, or may indicate that that's one of the most contentious spots.
Hussain's choice of Dravid says rather more about Hussain, I think, than Dravid.
Hayden
Dravid
Ponting*
Tendulkar
Lara
Kallis
Gilchrist
Pollock
Warne
Murali
McGrath
Pollock
"I've got for entertainers," says Pollock, which obviously explains why he's picked Kallis – perhaps the most stolid test batsmen since Sir Geoff hung up him broom handle – at number six.
Smith and Steyn also seem rather parochial choices.
Smith
Hayden
Ponting*
Lara
Tendulkar
Kallis
Gilchrist
Warne
Steyn
Murali
McGrath
Bumble
Trescothick's inclusion is an interesting one. It seems certain to me that if Tresco had kept playing test cricket he would have eclipsed Sehwag and Hayden.
Wasim seemed a spent force for most of this decade, and I don't see how you could leave out Murali.
Similarly doubtful about Steve Waugh as he wasn't one of the ten best batsmen of this decade.
Trescothick
Sehwag
Ponting
Tendulkar
Lara
Waugh*
Gilchrist
Pollock
Warne
Wasim Akram
McGrath
Sir Beef
Sir Ian proves what a hopeless administrator/manager/captain he always was, or would have been, by picking his big mate Warne as skipper.
Donald was a much better bowler in the 90s for my money.
Smith
Sehwag
Ponting
Tendulkar
Lara
Kallis
Gilchrist
Pollock
Warne*
Donald
McGrath
Athers
Athers has gone for a more mercurial team, with the likes of Jayasuriya, Flintoff and Zaheer potential match-winners in their own right.
Atherton's explanations show what a more astute skipper he made than most of the others, to my mind.
Sehwag
Jayasuriya
Ponting
Lara
Tendulkar
Flintoff
Gilchrist
Warne*
Zaheer Khan
Murali
McGrath
Gower
Rather more by-the-book, though the inclusion of Donald and Akram is suspect by virtue of them hardly playing in this decade, and certainly not to the height of their powers in the noughties.
Smith*
Sehwag
Ponting
Lara
Tendulkar
Kallis
Gilchrist
Warne
Wasim Akram
Donald
McGrath
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Can't understand a) Smith's inclusion in several teams. Surely made on the basis of his two big double tons v England in 03. Over the second half of the decade Strauss was a better player - and neither are at the same level as Sehwag, Hayden or for that matter Jayasuriya.
ReplyDeleteAnd b) Murali's exlusion from several teams. It can only be because of his action. Look, he chucks it, he's medically allowed to chuck it, others chuck it, end of story
After a night of 'healthy debate' at Sefton CC, I've come round a bit to Flintoff but would still go for Pollock. Yes he's similar to McGrath...so wouldn't that be absolute hell, those two nagging away at you from either end? Pollock's 16 Test fifers to Freddie's three are, as far as I'm concerned, the last word in the bowling argument. And Pollock's batting average was higher than Fred's too.
I'm certainly not decrying Pollock's ability, I just think you must have Flintoff – probably The big name in the game for most of the decade – in that side, and either Kallis or Pollock must make way.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a spot of British inferiority about his absence in those lists. I'm not the big man's greatest fan, but for sheer X-Factor Freddie has to be somewhere in that side.
I agree with most of the names mentioned above but would have to pick you up on three things.
ReplyDelete1- Firstly, Jacques Kallis leaves me completely cold. You would think that somebody who is currently playing in their 133rd Test, with over 10,000 runs to their name along with 258 wickets and 150 catches would somehow have made an inprint on cricket's consciousness (aside from in South Africa of course) but the man is the posterboy for those who think Test match cricket is still a strike-rate-of-40/ two runs an over type of sport. It blatantly is not. Think of the most memorable cricketing moments of the past decade (from a world point of view rather than an England fan). Does a single Kallis shot/wicket/catch/sledge feature in it or even in the top 10? It is only a personal call but I watch cricket for the tension, the drama, the sheer unpredicatability and the thrilling what-will-bloody-well-happen-next factor. Kallis does not, and has never, aided or abetted any of these elements of the game and that is why he does not deserve inclusion.
I am not criticising the guy's numbers, just the way he has acquired them.
2 - To include Flintoff is lunacy. It would be like including Darren Anderton in an 1990s footballing World XI. To have been as injured as often as he has means he cannot possibly be classed as even a 'very good' player rather than a great. He never did it for long enough and consistently enough to merit inclusion.
Freddie was a player of immense charisma and potential but while he still has buckets of the former, too much of the latter drip-drip-dripped away in physio rooms and under surgeon's knives. Not for me.
3 - You may scoff at this one Brownie but I agree that Warne should have been captain. And let's face it, if he wasn't a king-shagger off the field, the ACB would have given him the job without a moment's hesitation. Despite their larrikin reputation, Aussies can be terribly stuffy about these things, much more so than even the pink gin brigade at Lord's, and it was his off-the-field indiscretions that cost him. Having watched Warne live at Melbourne and Sydney in 2006, it was crystal clear that he essentially ran the team from the backseat. Ponting consulted him after every over, without fail, and while he may well be a beach bum from St Kilda, Warney has proven many times that there is an astonishing cricket computer inside his head. The way Ponting chose to bat this week at Sydney on the kind of English green-topper that makes seamers weep with happiness proves he is still sorely lacking in the tactics and knowledge department.
Warne may have been shrewd, but he was also an idiot - which is why he never got the nod. I don't think he would command respect in the same way that Ponting did, though Ponting may have been tactically inferior.
ReplyDeleteComparing Flintoff to Anderton is muddled, Gazza would have been a better choice, and while we chose to take Rob Lee and David Batty to the World Cup in 98 instead of Gascoigne, to overlook Flintoff would be similarly short-sighted.
Largely on Kallis, he's doesn't get the blood pumping does he? Another argument for getting Flintoff in!
I'm going with Browny on this one for the most part at least. For what's worth here's my team:
ReplyDeleteHayden
Sehwag
Ponting*
Tendulkar
Lara
Kallis
Gilchrist
Flintoff
Warne
Murali
McGrath
The arguments about Kalis are to my mind largely irrelevant as the facts speak for themselves. His reputation as a blocker is a bit unfair - in 2005 he scored the fastest test half century and the fact he's only the third player in history to make a century in 5 consecutive matches is quite a feat. At the end of the day he is the only man in history to have scored over 1000 runs and take over 200 wickets in Tests - the majority of these have come in the last decade.
As for Flintoff I agree it's a tricky debate but for his moments of inspiration, fielding and iconic status I'd go for Flintoff. England became quite a team with him in it and I think that has to be reflected.
As always everyone forgets the start of the decade. Vaughan as captain and to open the batting or, at worst, first drop (though this might put Ricky's nose out of joint). No ifs or buts. Gets in on the Brearley vote without thinking of that Ashes tour, or the sheer aesthetics of his batting.
ReplyDelete