best ASIA X1

armughal · January 26, 2002, 9:38am

i never said tendulkar was the worst batsman in the wolrd....
sad to know asif that u think he is....

and if u say that i dont like sachin cuz he is indian, than let me INFORM u that ganguly and azharuddin r also no pakistanis....
and neither did i ask anyone to replace sachin with any pakistani....
even azharuddin has a GOOD average, a very good one infact....

but i guess some ppl just cant see someone arguing against them....

just that i think azharuddin is a stronger middle-order batsman than sachin....

the rest of the above team is fine with me....

and hey did anyone ever hear the BIG NAMES IN CRICKET saying that BRADMAN's best XI (in which he selected sachin) was not the right choice????

andha_qanoon · January 27, 2002, 9:08am

And who arethose big names????

and also post the links

Jiyo Aur Jeene Do!!!

[This message has been edited by ehsan (edited January 27, 2002).]

armughal · January 27, 2002, 9:19am

and does ur believing mater to me ????
belive or dont believe, i am least concerned....

[This message has been edited by ehsan (edited January 27, 2002).]

andha_qanoon · January 27, 2002, 6:56pm

another excuse....ha ha ha

Jiyo Aur Jeene Do!!!

[This message has been edited by ehsan (edited January 27, 2002).]

UMAIR316 · January 27, 2002, 10:22pm

I think Bradman also picked Wasim Akram as one of his bowlers, the only active player to be picked.

Thank you, come again

andha_qanoon · January 27, 2002, 11:28pm

Well,Akram was in his probable list.
But his final Eleven has only Tendulkar among Active players.And also tendular was only player from Asia.

refer this link
http://www.fsvo.com/zulus/donbradmansworldxi/

Jiyo Aur Jeene Do!!!

a1shah · January 30, 2002, 2:24am

Who Bradman chooses is of no consequence.

And whether SRT is the best or not has not helped India with their overseas losing streak.

Personally, I find players like Steve Waugh, Ponting, and Gilcrist much better than SRT, because of their sheer power, determination, and thrive for challenges.

In the end, its the best team the counts. SRT's averages mean nothing when compared to India's number of defeats, of which SRT was a part of.

I think its because of the poor records of the other indian players rather than SRT's brilliance that has thrown this lime light on him.

Let's be serious and ask yourselves - do u really think he is the BEST or is it just an in-thing to say ?

ZZ · January 30, 2002, 2:41am

Originally posted by a1shah:
Who Bradman chooses is of no consequence.

Why? I used to think that Bradman knows a thing or two about cricket.

**And whether SRT is the best or not has not helped India with their overseas losing streak.

Personally, I find players like Steve Waugh, Ponting, and Gilcrist much better than SRT, because of their sheer power, determination, and thrive for challenges.**

How many matches would Steve win for Aussies if he had to do with Agarkar in stead of McGrath, Dasgupta in stead of Gilchrist and so on. The whole team is outstanding.

Take another example. Lara scored century and double century in a match against Lanka. Windies lost the match.

How many matches would have Viv won for Windies in absence of Haynes, Greenidge, Lloyd, Holding, Marshall etc.

In the end, its the best team the counts. SRT's averages mean nothing when compared to India's number of defeats, of which SRT was a part of.

Let us consider loss in Chennai by 12 runs to Pak. If last 4 wickets can not do that much, does not mean SRT's century should be forgotten.

I think its because of the poor records of the other indian players rather than SRT's brilliance that has thrown this lime light on him.

Please tell a single non-Indian/ Indian player with an equivalent record.

*Let's be serious and ask yourselves - do u really think he is the BEST or is it just an in-thing to say ? *

Get serious and ask urself. Is there anyone comparable to Sachin or it is Paki thing to say.

andha_qanoon · January 30, 2002, 2:44am

hey I agree many of Indian Players but how it helps his record.I guess it should make him even worst player. Instead only thing that I see is that he cannot enjoy the luxury of batting agaisnt poor Indian bowling.

Test Average of 58(with more than 7000 run) and oneday average of 44 ( withh more than 11000 runs) could have been better If he has played against India.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

Or
Did u meant that Indian batting is so poor that he gets most of the BALLS to play !!! ha ha ha ha

Jiyo Aur Jeene Do!!!

a1shah · January 30, 2002, 3:32am

Guys;

You missed my point.

Rather than concentrating on a single player, it is the team's performance that is critical.

This is not a pakistani vs indian issue.

Its easy to get lost in flattering SRT's achievements but the real issue is where India stands in the world rankings.

Getting one SRT out of a billion people vs getting 11 great Australian players out of 20 million ppl says alot about Australia's indineous skills as well as team management and country infrastructure.

Pakistan losing to England is not England's brilliance, but Pakistan's poor performance.

Similarly, India playing well against an underrated British team should be seen in that same perspective.

The same applies to Pakistan's win over Bangladesh.

ZZ · January 30, 2002, 4:36am

[quote]
Originally posted by a1shah:
**Guys;

You missed my point.

Rather than concentrating on a single player, it is the team's performance that is critical.

This is not a pakistani vs indian issue.

Its easy to get lost in flattering SRT's achievements but the real issue is where India stands in the world rankings.

Getting one SRT out of a billion people vs getting 11 great Australian players out of 20 million ppl says alot about Australia's indineous skills as well as team management and country infrastructure.

Pakistan losing to England is not England's brilliance, but Pakistan's poor performance.

Similarly, India playing well against an underrated British team should be seen in that same perspective.

The same applies to Pakistan's win over Bangladesh. **
[/quote]

but then shah, u missed everybody's point.
who is saying india is a good cricket team. it is mediocre team. we accept it.
but here we are finding best asia XI not best teams, so naturally people will discuss players rather than teams they were in.
hope issue is clear.
coming back to teams, u manage to contradict urself in not time. pak loses to britain, that is not because Brits are good, but pak played badly. so no credit to brits. india wins against brits. anyway brits are bad as bad as nepal according to u (though they won against pak, which is a good team in ur opinion)

[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited January 29, 2002).]

a1shah · January 30, 2002, 5:51am

[quote]
Originally posted by ZZ:
** but then shah, u missed everybody's point.
who is saying india is a good cricket team. it is mediocre team. we accept it.
but here we are finding best asia XI not best teams, so naturally people will discuss players rather than teams they were in.
hope issue is clear.
coming back to teams, u manage to contradict urself in not time. pak loses to britain, that is not because Brits are good, but pak played badly. so no credit to brits. india wins against brits. anyway brits are bad as bad as nepal according to u (though they won against pak, which is a good team in ur opinion)

[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited January 29, 2002).]**
[/quote]

ZZ;

I understand that this is not the right thread to discuss this topic so I will limit my views on this issue.

I give credit for England's improved performance against Pakistan, yet, I critize Pakistan's poor play for this result. I think that they could do better.

Similarly, I find Pak's win over Bangladesh very un-impressive.

Likewise, India's win over England in India should not be read more than what it is.

Pakistan is better than India, statistic-wise. Is this still the case in reality ? I don't know. Personally, I don't like the Pakistan team composition but fellow guppies with more experience and knowledge may see it the other way.

And does it matter if Pak is better than India or India better than Pakistan - when we are both languishing near the bottom of the world rankings table ?

Just my thoughts.

ZZ · January 30, 2002, 7:18am

whole talk of which team is better is irrelevant. we r discussing individual players, not teams in Best Asia XI. bad team can have outstanding player. andy flower is great irrespective of where zimbabwe stands. that is about it.
why u find win of india over england unimpressive. england has better ranking than india. comparing it with pak win over BD is ridiculous. it would make sense only if pak won over england.
so the point is simply that india might be a bad team. but SRT is a great player and more than deserves to be in best Asia XI.
the whole thing started due to mughal's claim that azhar is better than SRT. azhar was good. but he wont find place in best india XI either.

andha_qanoon · January 30, 2002, 7:20pm

I agree...I have been a great fan of Azhar whole my life but still I think it will be difficult for him to get chance in India eleven when you have to choose 3 batsmen out of Sachin,Vengsarkar,Vishwanatch,Dravid,Mohinder Amarnatch etc.

whole discussion started when a guy said Steve Waugh is better batsman than SRT and his reason was success of AUS.

Jiyo Aur Jeene Do!!!

[This message has been edited by ehsan (edited January 30, 2002).]