tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211275347046586885.post2284265092775447214..comments2022-06-02T07:53:36.319-07:00Comments on Quis est porcus?: The best cricket team of the noughtiesRobin Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09336670767745861874noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211275347046586885.post-78812076112571311212010-02-07T08:10:28.237-08:002010-02-07T08:10:28.237-08:00As always everyone forgets the start of the decade...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211275347046586885.post-49255799011410468442010-01-07T06:20:32.232-08:002010-01-07T06:20:32.232-08:00I'm going with Browny on this one for the most...I'm going with Browny on this one for the most part at least. For what's worth here's my team:<br /><br />Hayden<br />Sehwag<br />Ponting*<br />Tendulkar<br />Lara<br />Kallis<br />Gilchrist<br />Flintoff<br />Warne<br />Murali<br />McGrath<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Jamie Bowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03442994967525189730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211275347046586885.post-18849878793435271682010-01-05T04:14:48.882-08:002010-01-05T04:14:48.882-08:00Warne may have been shrewd, but he was also an idi...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.<br /><br />Comparing 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.<br /><br />Largely on Kallis, he's doesn't get the blood pumping does he? Another argument for getting Flintoff in!Robin Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09336670767745861874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211275347046586885.post-15592354334007400502010-01-05T03:42:19.305-08:002010-01-05T03:42:19.305-08:00I agree with most of the names mentioned above but...I agree with most of the names mentioned above but would have to pick you up on three things. <br /> <br />1- 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. <br />I am not criticising the guy's numbers, just the way he has acquired them.<br /> <br />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.<br />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.<br /> <br />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.Chris Breretonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211275347046586885.post-41486670375746356012010-01-04T05:21:57.631-08:002010-01-04T05:21:57.631-08:00I'm certainly not decrying Pollock's abili...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.<br /><br />I 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.Robin Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09336670767745861874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211275347046586885.post-66558681140264884302010-01-04T02:36:22.711-08:002010-01-04T02:36:22.711-08:00Can't understand a) Smith's inclusion in s...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. <br />And 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<br /><br />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.northersnoreply@blogger.com