View Full Version : whats the All Time Team??
of course been done but your damned if you bring up old threads anyway
errrrr i dont know, heres mine
Lara
Tendulkar
Bradman
Richards
Sobers
Botham
Gilchrist
Hadlee
Warne
Marshall
Lillee
ThePope
25 Oct 2004, 16:38
Considering that neither Lara nor Tendulkar ever open in test cricket, then, no... that isn't a good all time side. You'd only ever pick one of Botham, Khan (I assume you mean Imran) or Hadlee (not Hadley)... but probably none if you had Sobers in. Gilchrist is maybe the best ever batsmen who can wicketkeep, but is not the best ever wicket keeper. Is that Barry or Viv at 3?
Warne, Lillee, Bradman... 3 out 11 aint bad!
viv and imran, but yeah I'll still use this team vs your team
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman
Tendulkar
Pollock
Sobers
Gilchrist
Hadlee
Warne
Marshall
McGrath
I've probably forgotten someone. Meh.
Adelaide Hawk
25 Oct 2004, 18:30
Barry Richards is the best opening batsman I have seen, but for an all-time great team I would think Sunil Gavaskar would be there.
Adelaide Hawk
25 Oct 2004, 18:34
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman
Tendulkar
Pollock
Sobers
Gilchrist
Hadlee
Warne
Marshall
McGrath
I've probably forgotten someone. Meh.
Lillee maybe? Or do you rate McGrath ahead of him?
Black Thunder
25 Oct 2004, 19:36
my team:
Jack Hobbs
Herb Sutcliffe
Don Bradman
Graeme Pollock
Gary Sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Keith Miller
Malcolm Marshall
Joel Garner
Bill O'Reilly
Jim Laker
consider there to be better spinners than Laker (Grimmett and Warne) but want the leg spin-off spin combination, and i think O'Reilly is the best leggie ever.
Don't know why people always want Botham in there teams. Match winning at his best, but so often went missing.
Adelaide Hawk
25 Oct 2004, 20:03
JIm Laker was only good in England. His overseas record isn't all that impressive.
Lillee maybe? Or do you rate McGrath ahead of him?
On that team he's picked I don't think it's a case of McGrath neccessarily being better than Lillee, it's just that as he's already got Sobers, Hadlee & Marshall he's got 3 bowlers who all swing the ball but if he puts Lillee in as well & it's not swinging then it's not ideal.
HaveMcGrath in as the bloke who keeps it tight, gets big bounce & is a threat however flat the pitch.
Freo Big Fella
25 Oct 2004, 20:40
Jack Hobbs
Barry Richards
Don Bradman
Viv Richards
Gary Sobers
Adam Gilchrist/Alan Knott
Keith Miller
Shane Warne
Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Glenn McGrath/Dennis Lillee/Kapil Dev/Joel Garner
12th: Sachin Tendulkar
If I wanted a team to play in all conditions then I'd feel the need for 2 spinners:
Hutton*
Hobbs
Bradman
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist
Hadlee
Warne
Lillee
Ambrose
Murali
Reckon Murali & Warne in tandem would be frightening on a helpful pitch.
Personally I don't like having Sobers as an allrounder because I don't think his bowling is top top class (you've got to assume that your team is playing an equaly good one), if you want 2 spinners then having him at 6 means you've only got 2 pacemen.
I would always have Ambrose(or maybe McGrath or Garner) because he's a threat even on the flattest pitch & he was so hard to score off during his peak that he'll get you control in the field if the batsmen have got after your other bowlers.
If you get to see the pitch & realise that you don't need 2 spinners then I'd go
Hutton
Hobbs
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards Viv
Sobers
Gilchrist
Hadlee
Warne
Lillee
Ambrose
I'd have Jeff Thompson in the squad as well & if was a dry pitch(or a really fast one) & the conditions didn't look like helping swing or seam then I'd slip him in for Hadlee.He was the sort of bloke who could blast anyone out on his day & I think now that we know a bit about reverse swing he'd be even better, I don't think I've ever seen a bowler who looks more suited to using it with that slingy action, could you imagine him taking the old ball & firing in 100mph reverse inswinging yorkers, it'd be deadly.
*It's pretty much considered over here that Hutton was better than Suttcliffe despite having a lower average, could compare to Tendulkar/Dravid, gotta remember that he was injured in the war & ended up with one leg shorter than the other, he came back a more defensive player, but before the war he was the bloke who broke Bradman's Test record highest score as a 22 year old & was a real star.
Black Thunder
25 Oct 2004, 20:53
JIm Laker was only good in England. His overseas record isn't all that impressive.
yeah not great, but it was mainly in the west indies (i think) were he really struggled, and it wasn't exactly the most spin condusive region of the world if memory serves me right (could be wrong though)
In terms of off spinners, Laker is clearly the best.
Just went on to CricInfo to have a look at Murali v Laker (Laker also didn't have a great, although not a bad reord, against South Africa).
(Take out my bias againt Murali cause i believe he throws, Laker still beats him).
- Murali just wins on strike rates (58 to 62)
- Laker just wins on average (21.24 to 22.86)
- I always reckon wickets per test i believe is pretty irrelevant. Murali has no competition for wickets, and each team basically takes 20 wickets a test. Someone has to take those wickets. When his only competition for wickets is a reasonable test quickie in Vaas, of course Murali is gonna take 6 wickets a test, because he basically comes on after about 6 overs from the other opener, and bowls practically non stop to the end of an innings.
- take out 16 tests with 110 wickets at about 14 against Zim and Bangladesh, then suddenly they're practically even on strike rates, and Laker pretty much dominates him on average. Murali now has 425 wickets (5.66 wickets per test) at 24.68 with a strike rate of 60.85.
- Murali has also struggled against the best in the world Australia, and hasn't performed well at all in either Australia or New Zealand.
- Laker has only ever had two calendar years where has averaged over 30 (and another where he took 1 wicket @ 86 in 1 test).
- Murali really struggled in his first 4 to 6 years, before he really his strides.
Basically, i would just take Laker over Murali.
Black Thunder
25 Oct 2004, 21:04
*It's pretty much considered over here that Hutton was better than Suttcliffe despite having a lower average, could compare to Tendulkar/Dravid, gotta remember that he was injured in the war & ended up with one leg shorter than the other, he came back a more defensive player, but before the war he was the bloke who broke Bradman's Test record highest score as a 22 year old & was a real star.
yeah, you could make a case for either of two of Sutcliffe, Hobbs and Hutton, and you wouldn't lose a thing.
And i know a lot of tradionalists won't like this one, but if Hayden keeps going the way he is going, then there is a big argument for sticking him up there with those four. He may not bat anywhere close to the traditional opening batsmen style, and isn't techincally perfect, but when an opening batsmen averages close to 60 then they're pretty hard to go past.......
BTW, i'm suprised to see an Englishman not pick Laker??
Adelaide Hawk
25 Oct 2004, 21:39
I can't believe nobody's rating Sunil Gavaskar. He played in probably the toughest era in history for an opener with an abundance of quick bowlers all over the world. He faced Lillee, Thomson, the West Indian quick quartets, Snow, Imran, Hadlee, etc ... and still made plenty of big hundreds. For mine, one of the great openers of all time. Hobbs and Sutcliffe would never have faced bowlers of the quality Gavaskar did.
Nightwolf
25 Oct 2004, 21:46
I find it so funny that Murali is not in anyone's lists. He will be the best bowler of all time no doubt ( will play long after Warne retires), and all Aussies hate him coz he throws, pure gold!
Adelaide Hawk
25 Oct 2004, 21:57
I find it so funny that Murali is not in anyone's lists. He will be the best bowler of all time no doubt ( will play long after Warne retires), and all Aussies hate him coz he throws, pure gold!
Point taken, but just because someone takes the most wickets doesn't make him the best bowler, just the highest wicket taker. Allan Border made many more runs than Bradman but he's not a greater batsman.
Cooldude
25 Oct 2004, 22:01
Warne is a better bowler than Murali, period.
Black Thunder
25 Oct 2004, 22:04
I find it so funny that Murali is not in anyone's lists. He will be the best bowler of all time no doubt ( will play long after Warne retires), and all Aussies hate him coz he throws, pure gold!
well i've already gone through and shown what makes me believe Laker is a superior off spinner than Muralitharan???
yeah, you could make a case for either of two of Sutcliffe, Hobbs and Hutton, and you wouldn't lose a thing.
Agreed, although from reading a bit about them you get the impression that Sutcliffe was a bit dour, whilst Hutton had a bit of genius about him in the pre-war years.Also following up Adelaide Hawk's point, I guess playing a bit later he would have faced a higher quality of bowling than the other 2.
And i know a lot of tradionalists won't like this one, but if Hayden keeps going the way he is going, then there is a big argument for sticking him up there with those four. He may not bat anywhere close to the traditional opening batsmen style, and isn't techincally perfect, but when an opening batsmen averages close to 60 then they're pretty hard to go past.......
Wouldn't argue on that one, his record certainly puts him in the mix, it's tough today with so many batsmen averaging over 50 so really judge them in terms of the alltime greats.
Had this debate before on here, but there's a lot of batsmen who average in the 40s from the 80s who I'd back as being better than a lot of these blokes who average 50+ now.
BTW, i'm suprised to see an Englishman not pick Laker??
Yeah I had to think about that myself & wonder whether I'm being extra hard on one of my own, dunno if Laker gets his dues over here, maybe Aussies rate him higher for what he did against them (bit like Laxman maybe).
I admit that when you put his average up I was surprised, always figured it was higher, maybe he should get the nod.
I don't like Murali, I think his leggie is definitely illegal & probably his stock ball too.Know what you mean about taking loads of wickets per game, someone has to take them, but the flip side is that even for a spinner bowling 40 overs an innings regularly is bloody hard work on the arm & fingers, so he deserves some credit for the work he gets through.
Blue Boyz
27 Oct 2004, 02:29
How the majority of posters here could plum for Gilchrist as wicket keeper/batsman in their greatest team ever is unbelievable.
No argument here that statistically he is greatest batsman of all the keepers who have played over 30 tests, but as keeper he is only just competent at very best.
He is a spastic with the gloves compared with to modern day greats such as Knott, Taylor, Marsh and Healey let alone the legends of yester year such as Tallon, Evans, Oldfield, Ames and Grout. The harsh reality is that he just misses far too many chances to be even to talked about in the same breath as the above custodians.
It doesn't matter how good a bat you are, it doesn't help you take catches or make stumpings.
Greenidge
Haynes
Bradman
V Richards
SWaugh
Sobers
Gilchrist*
W.Akram
Warne
Ambrose
Lillee
* not saying he's the best keeper ever, but whatever chances he may hypothetically miss (which may not be any, he's by no means a bad keeper despite what Darren Berry might say), he more than makes up for by the way he can win matches off his own bat.
Greenidge
Haynes
Bradman
V Richards
SWaugh
Sobers
Gilchrist*
W.Akram
Warne
Ambrose
Lillee
* not saying he's the best keeper ever, but whatever chances he may hypothetically miss (which may not be any, he's by no means a bad keeper despite what Darren Berry might say), he more than makes up for by the way he can win matches off his own bat.
hmmmm all those windies and aussies...wasim might feel a tad out of place in that team!
Obi Crow Kenobi
27 Oct 2004, 10:10
W.G. Grace (Capt)
Barry Richards
Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Gary Sobers
Alan Knott
Richard Hadlee
Shane Warne
Dennis Lillee
Sydney Barnes
2nd XI
Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
George Headley
Graeme Pollock
Brian Lara
Ian Botham
Ian Healy
Wasim Akram
Clarrie Grimmett
Malcolm Marshall
Muttiah Muralitharan
I find it so funny that Murali is not in anyone's lists. He will be the best bowler of all time no doubt ( will play long after Warne retires), and all Aussies hate him coz he throws, pure gold!
He will never be rated as the best bowler of all time. Best chucker, he is a monty. I could think of ten bowlers of the top of my head who were/are better than the chucker.
ps. Why Ambrose hasn't been mentioned by hardly anyone is hard to believe. He would have too have been one of the most intimidating bowlers of all time. I remember many Aussies and Poms with terror on their faces.