Nathan Bracken was a pretty good bowler, mate. I wish I was there at the SCG that day.

On a Tuesday.

I knew I’d posed an excellent discussion question.

Just see the quality of debate.

Exclusively, here on King Cricket.

Rohan was literally the next Gavaskar. You can’t argue with these things.

Yes – facial hair is an excellent criterion.

Tendulkar wouldn’t be in my World XI because he isn’t my kind of player. I’d fill mine with people like Jimmy Cook and Wayne Larkins. I don’t mind if others have Tendulkar in theirs.

Unnecessary runs – I see your point (sort of). Are Chris Lewis and Graeme Hick in your World XI?

I think it is a personal thing. I admire the kind of players (Gooch, Boon) who you would want to bat for your life.

Tendulkar has always struck me as a one-man cult, very much in keeping with how Indian fans want their cricketers. For his fans, Tendulkar succeeding was an end in itself, separate from how India did. I don’t like this.

Regarding who were the best matchwinners, you can’t prove or falsify this sort of thing with stats and it is a waste of time trying.

This also strengthens my feeling that India missed a trick by inviting the Windies, who didn’t seem to show any great interest in being there, rather than Bangladesh.

Sachin clearly still had a point to prove re the Banglas and getting that fifty. And it’s one of cricket’s greatest unfairnesses that Bangladesh have never been invited for a Test tour of India. They would have been well up for it, which improves the cricketing spectacle.

I figure a part of the Board’s calculus was “how to maximise the probability of a Sachin century, while retaining sufficient Brand Value of opponent to not demean any century so scored”. The Windies brought some rather legacy reputation, and a couple of players good enough to secure historic name-recognition (handily in the batting department, but not so threatening with the ball). But they’re a team for whom Test cricket looks on the way out, and I fear one day cricket statistics will get little stars by them in the manner of (*excluding Tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh) but with a more Caribbean flavour.

Bangladesh are a team on the up, have had some good results lately, and within a few decades their fever for the sport and sheer population will let them bed in as cricketing superpowers. In time, people will forget exactly when it was that they made the transition from hopeless to pretty good – similarly, plenty of English players have Test statistics flattered from playing the early South African teams, that we rarely bother mentally discounting. If Sachin had had the chance to terminate unfinished business with that farewell half-century against Bangladesh, maybe in 20 years time kids would look at the record books and say WOW, SACHIN WAS SO GOOD THAT HE EVEN STRUCK A FARWELL HALF-CENTURY AGAINST THE BANGLADESH TIGERS, OH HOW I WISH TO EMULATE SUCH FEATS.

Arjun Tendulkar is better.

He’s literally the next Tendulkar.

I’d actually completely forgotten Rohan Gavaskar existed. It’s as if a flesh-and-blood human being had been completely wiped off the face of the earth, or at least my recollection thereof.

In his magnificently underperforming ODI career for India he averaged 18.87 and took one wicket at 74. By this measure he even fails the Stuart Matsikenyeri Comparison Test (22.05 and 48.62 respectively).

Gavaskar, clearly.

And we mean Rohan Gavaskar.