CricInfo Alltime World XI [Archive]

Phone

1 Oct 2010, 17:59

Let's go mofos.

Backstory including Jury and eligibility (http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/478566.html)
Pick yr team (http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/magazine/world_alltime.html)

Went with 3 middle order, 2 all-rounders, 3 bowlers

Sir Jack Hobbs
Sir Leonard Hutton (Barry Richards & Trumper the others considered)

Don
Viv
Pollock (First two easy; Sachin and Hammond were seriously considered. I like Pollock the most.

Sobers
Imran Khan (Miller seriously considered)

Gilly (duh)

Warne
Marshall
McGrath (First two were easy; Lillee, Waqar, Barnes and Ambrose considered)

I presume the jury will go with the basic 3 mo, 1 a/r, 4 bowlers but Imran Khan would have been a serious contender for a bowling spot anyway so.

Escobar123

1 Oct 2010, 18:51

http://oi52.tinypic.com/2nlfnmf.jpg

Would have gone with Hadlee over McGrath if it wasn't for the rubbish 2 all-rounder limit.

Just for fun, here is a second world XI who will hopefully provide a good contest to the first team

http://oi51.tinypic.com/oanebq.jpg

lemmon

1 Oct 2010, 19:00

OPENERS
Barry Richards
Gordon Greenidge

MIDDLE ORDER
Sachin Tendulkar
Sir Donald Bradman
Sir Viv Richards

ALLROUNDERS
Sir Garry Sobers

WICKETKEEPER
Adam Gilchrist

BOWLERS
Dennis Lillee
Muttiah Muralitharan
Shane Warne
Wasim Akram

Ill Chicken

1 Oct 2010, 19:23

Fairly poor range of options. I didn't put the Don in, completely forgot about him.

Dixie Flatline

1 Oct 2010, 22:19

Cannot believe that Ricky Ponting is not included in the list. Regardless of what you might think about his captaincy, surely he warrants consideration in the top order.

I've gone with:

Victor Trumper
Sir Leonard Hutton
Sir Donald Bradman (c)
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Sir Vivian Richards
Adam Gilchrist (wk)
Shane Warne
Malcolm Marshall
Michael Holding
Curtly Ambrose

Phone

1 Oct 2010, 22:37

didn't make the australian world xi....

Ill Chicken

1 Oct 2010, 23:45

stmookeyj

2 Oct 2010, 00:05

B.Richards
Gavaskar
Tendulkar
Bradman
V.Richards
Imran Khan
Gilchrist
Wasim Akram
Warne
Lillee
Muralitharan

jiphoc

2 Oct 2010, 00:25

Cannot believe that Ricky Ponting is not included in the list. Regardless of what you might think about his captaincy, surely he warrants consideration in the top order.

Surely that has to be a joke. Punter has no chance in hell of making it anywhere near that list. Great player and one of the better players of all time. However for the roll he plays I could name about 10 players I would have over him.

Ill Chicken

2 Oct 2010, 00:48

He has scored the second most tons in test cricket of all time. He has to be there as an option at least..

Phone

2 Oct 2010, 01:00

Still it is your World XI. The option should be available, to nominate the players you think, not from the few players they think and it shouldn't be restricted to the all-rounder bullshit. You should be able to pick as many all-rounders as you want or batsmen or bowlers. The fact is they're pre-selecting the side for you.

It's the ultimate conclusion of the all-time country XI's they've been doing for the past year. Of course the players we - and the panel - can choose come from that bunch rather than everyone ever being eligible.

Do agree that the team options should be more flexible though.

jiphoc

2 Oct 2010, 01:45

He has scored the second most tons in test cricket of all time. He has to be there as an option at least..
That after playing just a tad under 150 tests. After that many tests you come to expect those type of statistics. Fact is there are any number of players who would make the side before him. Namely some random player who went by the name of Bradman might keep him out for starters. Then you have players such as Graham Pollock, Tendulkar, WG Grace, Hammond would all be streaks ahead of Punter and that is just off the top of my head.

legend166

2 Oct 2010, 11:18

Punter wouldn't make the all time, but considering Pietersen is a choice, it's pretty stupid Ponting is not.

Guess it shows the strength of Australian cricket compared to English cricket.

Phone

2 Oct 2010, 11:25

pretty funny reading their list of possible openers (http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/416505.html) which is pretty ****ing great, and then their list of middle order batsmen (http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/417311.html) which after Ken Barrington and Hammond is shit.

Ill Chicken

2 Oct 2010, 18:18

That after playing just a tad under 150 tests. After that many tests you come to expect those type of statistics. Fact is there are any number of players who would make the side before him. Namely some random player who went by the name of Bradman might keep him out for starters. Then you have players such as Graham Pollock, Tendulkar, WG Grace, Hammond would all be streaks ahead of Punter and that is just off the top of my head.

How can you use those blokes as an example and not expect Ponting to be there. Off the top of my head, Tendulkar isn't a match winner.

whats_at_stake

2 Oct 2010, 19:02

There was a criteria- you had to be in the countries all time 11- ponting was not hence not in the options

Ill Chicken

2 Oct 2010, 19:07

There was a criteria- you had to be in the countries all time 11- ponting was not hence not in the options

Considering that, they should have also had the readers options.

courtjester

3 Oct 2010, 09:25

Sir Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
Don Bradman
Brian Lara
Viv Richards
Garry Sobers
Imran Khan
Allan Knott
Richard Hadlee
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose

I love this team!

jiphoc

3 Oct 2010, 18:36

How can you use those blokes as an example and not expect Ponting to be there. Off the top of my head, Tendulkar isn't a match winner.
Thanks for showing us how little you know about international cricket. Also how many of those players do you actually know anything about? All of those players are/ where once in a lifetime players and all would get into the team before Punter. This is almost as bad as people playing McGrath is the side above players such as Akram, Marshall, Hadlee and Spofforth.

Just because players are very good players at the moment is does not mean they are better then players who have played the game for the 150 or so years it has been around for (in the modern format).

Ill Chicken

3 Oct 2010, 19:21

Thanks for showing us how little you know about international cricket. Also how many of those players do you actually know anything about? All of those players are/ where once in a lifetime players and all would get into the team before Punter. This is almost as bad as people playing McGrath is the side above players such as Akram, Marshall, Hadlee and Spofforth.

Just because players are very good players at the moment is does not mean they are better then players who have played the game for the 150 or so years it has been around for (in the modern format).

Haha. Suggesting that I think Ponting should be in the side when all I've said is he should be option and given an example why. Your knowledge of comprehension leaves much to be desired. I'm not claiming my knowledge is greater than anyone on here, as you seem to be.

If a player is very good at the moment, during the most competitive and developed period of the game, one would assume that they then would be just as good in any other era.

jiphoc

3 Oct 2010, 19:51

Haha. Suggesting that I think Ponting should be in the side when all I've said is he should be option and given an example why. Your knowledge of comprehension leaves much to be desired. I'm not claiming my knowledge is greater than anyone on here, as you seem to be.

If a player is very good at the moment, during the most competitive and developed period of the game, one would assume that they then would be just as good in any other era.
What I am saying is that if you think Punter should even be concidered then you are a bit off the mark. The only place in the world where someone would concider Punter for a spot int he world XI is in Aus.

If you look into the past there are many players who have dominated a lot more then what Punter has done. They have also dominated without the support around them of what Punter has had. It is a lot easier to bat when you have players such as Martyn, Hayden, Langer, Mark and Steve Waugh. This does not say you should eliminate him, just saying it is a concideration. Tendulkar for example played a lot of his career when he held the team together pretty much on his own and scored at an average of about 54 and rarely any less.

As for my all time XI. I have posted on here enough so that I should add my opinion.

WG Grace
Jack Hobbs
Don Bradman
Graeme Pollock
Sachin Tendulkar
Richard Hadlee
Adam Gilchrist
Wasim Akram
Muttiah Muralitharan
Fred Spofforth
Dennis Lillee

Unluky: Wally Hammond, Len Hutton, Ian Botham, Viv Richards, Marshall, Barnes and a few others

Ill Chicken

3 Oct 2010, 21:01

What I am saying is that if you think Punter should even be concidered then you are a bit off the mark. The only place in the world where someone would concider Punter for a spot int he world XI is in Aus.

You're a bit off the mark if you think he shouldn't be considered. He was in the Australian XI as voted by the readers at Cricinfo. This would suggest he should be considered for the readers all time World XI.

If you look into the past there are many players who have dominated a lot more then what Punter has done. They have also dominated without the support around them of what Punter has had. It is a lot easier to bat when you have players such as Martyn, Hayden, Langer, Mark and Steve Waugh. This does not say you should eliminate him, just saying it is a concideration. Tendulkar for example played a lot of his career when he held the team together pretty much on his own and scored at an average of about 54 and rarely any less.

Tendulkar is in exactly the same boat as Ponting. He is surrounded by strong batsmen has been for the last 10 to 15 years and India has never struggled making runs at home. There is no difference between him and Ponting in that regard.

Escobar123

3 Oct 2010, 21:07

Sir Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
Don Bradman
Brian Lara
Viv Richards
Garry Sobers
Imran Khan
Allan Knott
Richard Hadlee
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose

I love this team!

1 too many all-rounders though..maybe replace Sobers with someone like Kallis/Tendulkar?

jiphoc

3 Oct 2010, 21:50

You're a bit off the mark if you think he shouldn't be considered. He was in the Australian XI as voted by the readers at Cricinfo. This would suggest he should be considered for the readers all time World XI.

Tendulkar is in exactly the same boat as Ponting. He is surrounded by strong batsmen has been for the last 10 to 15 years and India has never struggled making runs at home. There is no difference between him and Ponting in that regard.
... and yet the people in the know did not have him in the Aussie world XI which was made up of:
Victor Trumper (http://www.bigfooty.com/australia/content/player/7980.html)

Arthur Morris (http://www.bigfooty.com/australia/content/player/6644.html)

Don Bradman (http://www.bigfooty.com/australia/content/player/4188.html)

Greg Chappell (http://www.bigfooty.com/australia/content/player/4558.html)

Allan Border (http://www.bigfooty.com/australia/content/player/4174.html)

Keith Miller (http://www.bigfooty.com/australia/content/player/6612.html)

Adam Gilchrist (http://www.bigfooty.com/australia/content/player/5390.html)

Shane Warne (http://www.bigfooty.com/australia/content/player/8166.html)

Bill O'Reilly (http://www.bigfooty.com/australia/content/player/7020.html)

Dennis Lillee (http://www.bigfooty.com/australia/content/player/6295.html)

Glenn McGrath (http://www.bigfooty.com/australia/content/player/6565.html)
Source: http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/magazine/alltime.html?site_area=1929 (http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/magazine/alltime.html?site_area=1929)

So naturally when they named the world XI shortlist of players he has no chance of making it.

Arguing against you in this seams to be mindless and when you follow the link above you will understand why you are mistaken in thinking Punter is anywhere near good enough to be put within that company. Have a look at the selection panel being used and some of the names and you tell me why you think your opinion is better then theirs, because effectively that is what you are saying.

Ill Chicken

3 Oct 2010, 22:45

Again, where did I say my opinion was better than any one else? You are the one saying that and that I know nothing about cricket, that my opinion is wrong. I'll say it again, Ponting deserves to be included as an option and the readers agreed.

The selection panel is shit, Peter Roebuck and Christian Ryan are two of the most biased journalists on Cricinfo. Chloe Saltau is a token female gesture and should play no part. Most of the selectors are subservient to a bygone era when there was less competition, less cricket, less professionalism and the aura of the Invincibles and everything was better in my day.

You want a true selection panel, then get the remaining living Australian Test Cricket Captains to do it. Not journalists and writers with grudges to bare, still clinging on to the dream that they could've played cricket for Australia had things gone their way.

courtjester

5 Oct 2010, 05:41

1 too many all-rounders though..maybe replace Sobers with someone like Kallis/Tendulkar?

Reasonable observation. However considering Sobers averages MORE with the bat than both Kallis and Tendulkar, I will keep him!

My rationale is that Sobers is playing as a batsman who can bowl as well, and Hadlee is a bowler who can bat. Imran is my true all-rounder.

I like the attack variation of

Ambrose
Hadlee
Imran
Wasim
Warne
Sobers

krisholio14

5 Oct 2010, 05:54

I might come back for a crack at this later :D

Belnakor

5 Oct 2010, 09:45

This is almost as bad as people playing McGrath is the side above players such as Akram, Marshall, Hadlee and Spofforth.
.

You need to go through and look at Mcgrath's record over the journey. He played at a time when Bat was dominating Ball and his stats are head and shoulders above anyone in his era, and are superior to all those you list except Marshall.

jiphoc

5 Oct 2010, 12:05

You need to go through and look at Mcgrath's record over the journey. He played at a time when Bat was dominating Ball and his stats are head and shoulders above anyone in his era, and are superior to all those you list except Marshall.
I never said he was not. He was a brilliant bowler and one of the better bowlers of modern times. Using stats though is being a bit single minded as stats can deceive. For example in the case of McGrath how many of his wickets do you put down to Warne bowling up the other end? You cannot ignore that may have helped to some extent. Then even in modern times keeping that in mind you have guys like Shaun Pollock and Allan Donnald as 2 randoms who would have scored buck loads more wickets with Warne down the other end.

As I said though I am not saying he was not brilliant. Just your arguement of using stats to justify is being a bit single minded.

King Elvis

5 Oct 2010, 12:41

How did McGrath go when Warne was injured or suspended?

Shithouse?

Belnakor

5 Oct 2010, 13:44

I never said he was not. He was a brilliant bowler and one of the better bowlers of modern times. Using stats though is being a bit single minded as stats can deceive. For example in the case of McGrath how many of his wickets do you put down to Warne bowling up the other end? You cannot ignore that may have helped to some extent. Then even in modern times keeping that in mind you have guys like Shaun Pollock and Allan Donnald as 2 randoms who would have scored buck loads more wickets with Warne down the other end.

As I said though I am not saying he was not brilliant. Just your arguement of using stats to justify is being a bit single minded.

I dispute this partly because Mcgrath and Warne didn't bowl that many overs with the other working the other end - Mcgrath took many more higher order wickets which he got working with Gillepse and co.

He only played 20 tests without Warne, his stats are roughly comparible.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/6565.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;player_inv olve=2000;player_involve_type=none;template=results;type=bow ling

added to this, you list Marshall as one of the greats... its fair to say he played with a reasonably good attack during his times!

jiphoc

5 Oct 2010, 13:57

How did McGrath go when Warne was injured or suspended?

Shithouse?
As I said I am not a stats man but to please the masses I looked this up on cricketinfo. McGrath finished his career with the superb average of 21.64. However during the period Warne was suspended his bowling average was 35.25. He then went back to averaging about 19 as soon as Warne came back into the side.

Phone

5 Oct 2010, 14:09

1. Marshall
2. Hadlee
3. McGrath

simple as

Ill Chicken

5 Oct 2010, 14:22

1. Mcgrath
2. Marshall
3. Ambrose

ftfy

Belnakor

6 Oct 2010, 09:57

As I said I am not a stats man but to please the masses I looked this up on cricketinfo. McGrath finished his career with the superb average of 21.64. However during the period Warne was suspended his bowling average was 35.25. He then went back to averaging about 19 as soon as Warne came back into the side.

stats disagree with you.

Juddism

7 Oct 2010, 06:55

YOUR TEAM
OPENERS
Gordon Greenidge
Virender Sehwag

MIDDLE ORDER
Sachin Tendulkar
Sir Donald Bradman
Sir Viv Richards

ALLROUNDERS
Imran Khan
Sir Garry Sobers

WICKETKEEPER
Adam Gilchrist

BOWLERS
Curtly Ambrose
Shane Warne
Wasim Akram

tomemy

15 Oct 2010, 09:33

Jack Hobbs
Herb Sutcliffe
Don Bradman
Viv Richards
Sachin Tendulkar
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Wasim Akram
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Glenn McGrath

dan warna

16 Oct 2010, 13:08

Miller > imran khan.

as a bowler and a batsman IMO.

Besides if khan is selected miller would probably come down in his mosquito and bomb the bejesus out of khan with cricket balls :D

THe brits had to make up people in their adventure war comics because they had no one as big as miller :thumbsu:

bomb berlin, opera with the princess, poker with the boys, dine and a tumble with the duchess before midnight, and up in time to bowl the imperial XI out for under a 100 :thumbsu:

whats_at_stake

16 Oct 2010, 15:09

Wasim Akram- that was what true swing bowling was about. The closest "swing" I have seen is from Zaheer Khan but he does not swing it anywhere near as much as Wasim did and its more reverse swing.

If only there were more genuine swing bowlers in world cricket.

Phone

16 Oct 2010, 15:12

imran khan gets bonus points for captaining pakistan for like 10 years and leading them to success though.

whats_at_stake

25 Oct 2010, 14:12

Phone

25 Oct 2010, 14:31

can only presume wasim made it because they were stupid and didn't go with 2 all-rounders.

Don Draper

25 Oct 2010, 14:46

can only presume wasim made it because they were stupid and didn't go with 2 all-rounders.

not sure I understand.

was a genuine allrounder, 3 test tons says so. And the man could swing it both ways without a change of action.

A freakshow

Phone

25 Oct 2010, 14:49

wasim wasn't a genuine allrounder. he was a great great bowler who massivly underachieved with the bat. if he's a genuine allrounder so is Mitchell Johnson.

tomemy

25 Oct 2010, 15:26

Team just announced on Cricinfo:

"The World XI: Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton, Don Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Malcolm Marshall, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram, Dennis Lillee"

http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/482936.html

I can never understand why Herb Sutcliffe never seems to get a gig in these best 11 sides, the bloke averaged 60+ as an opening batsman, a figure that has never been matched by any opener ever.
As for Wasim, he surely has to be an automatic selection, his career figures prove that. How much batting would he have to do in this lineup anyway?

Bomber Bears

25 Oct 2010, 15:27

I never said he was not. He was a brilliant bowler and one of the better bowlers of modern times. Using stats though is being a bit single minded as stats can deceive. For example in the case of McGrath how many of his wickets do you put down to Warne bowling up the other end? You cannot ignore that may have helped to some extent. Then even in modern times keeping that in mind you have guys like Shaun Pollock and Allan Donnald as 2 randoms who would have scored buck loads more wickets with Warne down the other end.

As I said though I am not saying he was not brilliant. Just your arguement of using stats to justify is being a bit single minded.How did Warne go when he didnt have McGrath putting the pressure on down the other end?

How did our other quicks go when McGrath wasnt there?

McGrath set the standard for our dominant period, held the attack together for years. That his averaged peaked at about 21 after the first Ashes test of 05 says alot about his durability. He didnt ever really fully recover after stepping on that ball IMO, wasnt the same bowler afterwards, but his performances for years were brilliant.

I think Lillie is pretty lucky to make the side, when the likes of Hadlee and Ambrose in particular, and also McGrath, miss out.

Phone

25 Oct 2010, 15:30

hadlee got screwed over by being classed as an allrounder. he's an automatic selection as a bowler but he's behind sobers, imran, miller, botham etc as an all-rounder

Indian_Hotdog

25 Oct 2010, 16:16

jesus christ , how did Lillee get in there ?? :eek:

holybishop

25 Oct 2010, 16:33

tomemy

25 Oct 2010, 16:38

jesus christ , how did Lillee get in there ?? :eek:

I would've thought Glenn McGrath would get a game ahead of Lillee, although Lillee averaged 23.9 McGrath managed to average 21.6 playing at a time where batsman and flat pitches reigned supreme.

tomemy

25 Oct 2010, 16:42

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/video_audio/480528.html

Agree with Chappell that Knott should have been included ahead of Gilly. When you're picking a keeper for a best XI it should be the best wicketkeeper, not the keeper with the best batting record.

Knott wasn't even the best keeper for England at the time, Bob Taylor was. Knott played more test matches than Taylor because he was the far superior batsmen of the two. If you were going to pick the best keeper ever then Ian Healy should have been the man.

Crickfan

25 Oct 2010, 16:53

Escobar123

25 Oct 2010, 17:33

McGrath, Barnes, Hadlee, Imran, Ambrose all deserved to be picked ahead of Lillee imo

courtjester

25 Oct 2010, 19:54

McGrath, Barnes, Hadlee, Imran, Ambrose all deserved to be picked ahead of Lillee imo

That reader's XI isnt too flash. Lillee would be in my team, as he is a matchwinner. His stats mightn't match up with some others but he was awesome when a game was on the line. Like Warne.

FWIW, my team would be:

Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Imran Khan
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose
Dennis Lillee

sherb

25 Oct 2010, 20:42

jesus christ , how did Lillee get in there ?? :eek:
A not too shabby 355 test wickets at an average of precisely 5 wickets a test probably helped.

He could bowl a bit you know.

Phone

25 Oct 2010, 21:30

McGrath, Barnes, Hadlee, Imran, Ambrose all deserved to be picked ahead of Lillee imo

he's in front of mcgrath and imran - only counting imran's bowling - and probably Ambrose too.

And Barnes is impossible to compare with.

Cousin Jed

25 Oct 2010, 21:36

Readers' XI: Sunil Gavaskar, Virender Sehwag, Don Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram, Muttiah Muralitharan, Glenn McGrath

Haha.

I wonder who the main voters were....

Don Draper

25 Oct 2010, 21:42

wasim wasn't a genuine allrounder. he was a great great bowler who massivly underachieved with the bat. if he's a genuine allrounder so is Mitchell Johnson.

massivly underacheived? 7 fifties and 3 tons? a score of 270 odd. please.

Comparing Mitchell Johnson and Wasim Akram, is like comparing a datsun and a ferrari.

Phone

25 Oct 2010, 21:48

as you point out, he has a test match 250 - albeit against zimbabwe - yet in his other 146 innings he passed 50 nine times. in the end he averages 22 but it could have been so much better. he could have been a genuine allrounder - he had the potential - but in the end he's the greatest left arm bowler who could handle the bat too, but not reliably.

The Falcon Strike

25 Oct 2010, 21:54

My Test X1

Gilchrist
Akram
Khan
Marshall
Ambrose
Lillee
Spofforth
Harwood
Snow
Holding
Thomson

Just rotate the bowlers in 1 over spells.

They might not win - but they'd be the most feared :D

The Falcon Strike

25 Oct 2010, 21:59

A not too shabby 355 test wickets at an average of precisely 5 wickets a test probably helped.

He could bowl a bit you know.

add another 46 wickets at 22 against the best in the world in the super tests.

was the bowler of his generation and is comfortably in the best bowlers

personally 3 through 7 was a lock for me - though i would have had viv before sachin

Escobar123

25 Oct 2010, 22:27

crownie

25 Oct 2010, 23:01

A not too shabby 355 test wickets at an average of precisely 5 wickets a test probably helped.

He could bowl a bit you know.

quite remarkable seeing he had stress fractures in a era where sports science didnt exist and players rarely performed again after those type of injuries.

i dare say his Average would of probaly been as good as McGraths if he didn't get those injuries.

courtjester

26 Oct 2010, 04:55

Ian Chappell rates Lillee (and I'm aware he may be biased) so highly for his ability to consistently get out the good top order opposition players, which puts your team in a position to win a test.

Adelaide Hawk

26 Oct 2010, 05:26

I am not convinced that Lillee deserves a place in the Alltime World XI. Main reason being his record in the subcontinent and West Indies. Barely played any tests there and when he did, the results weren't pretty. Averages over 100 in Pakistan. Any one of the bowlers I mentioned would be more deserving. imo anyway.

If you use that theory, then Bradman and Hobbs shouldn't be in either. I've follwed Test cricket for 50 years and never seen a better quick bowler than Dennis Lillee.

Cricinfo has it absolutely spot on, I couldn't have selected a better team.

sherb

26 Oct 2010, 08:00

add another 46 wickets at 22 against the best in the world in the super tests.

was the bowler of his generation and is comfortably in the best bowlers

If he hadn't have gone to WSC, off the top of my head he would have played 18 tests (5 vs India 77-78, 5 in the WI 78, 6 vs England 78-79 and 2 vs Pakistan 78-79) instead.

In addition to the WSC wickets, he took 24 wickets in four matches vs Rest of the World in 71/72 before he had established himself on the scene.

Plus he missed 10 tests over the West Indies 73 tour and the 73/74 Australian season (vs NZ at home and in NZ) due to the stress fractures in his back.

He was the one who broke Gibbs' test record of 309 wickets (in other words his tally of wickets was big for its time) and would have easily become the first bowler to hit 400 Test wickets if not for the above.

western royboy

26 Oct 2010, 09:49

I can't argue with any of the selections, plenty unlucky but they got it right in my book.

Belnakor

26 Oct 2010, 09:53

I would've thought Glenn McGrath would get a game ahead of Lillee, although Lillee averaged 23.9 McGrath managed to average 21.6 playing at a time where batsman and flat pitches reigned supreme.

plus you need to look at Mcgrath's averages on every different surface, even dead pitches in India he absolutely thrived. Lillee was a good quick, but i'd take Mcgrath anyday.

Also roped off fields + more powerful bats in the modern era

Black Thunder

26 Oct 2010, 12:08

My candidates

Openers: Two of Len Hutton, Herb Sutcliffe, Jack Hobbs, Sunil Gavaskar, Matt Hayden, Bill Ponsford, Arthur Morris

3: Don Bradman

4: Graeme Pollock, Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Wally Hammond or Everton Weekes

5: Garfield Sobers or Jacques Kallis

6: Adam Gilchrist

7: Keith Miller or Imran Khan

Opening Bowler: Malcolm Marshall

Other quick: one of Dennis Lillee, Joel Garner, Curtly Ambrose, Glenn McGrath, Wasim Akram, Richard Hadlee or whoever misses out of Miller and Imran Khan

Spinner: Bill O'Reilly

Other spinner: Shane Warne, Jim Laker or Muttiah Murilatharan

Possibly overlooked some candidates

So only 4 garuanteed spots who i believe are the four best at their particular roles, but for the others off the top of my head i would be leaning towards Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Pollock, Sobers, Miller, Ambrose, Warne but would have to look at them all

I don't think i've the same team set up as CricInfo allows, but i prefer this team:

short batting line up but with Gilly at 6 and Bradman available then you eseentially have a standard 7-man batting line up plus this allows you to have 5 genuine front line bowlers, at least one of whom (Miller or Imran) who is a genuine quality bat to come in at number 7. As shown above not getting picked in that number 7 role doesn't exclude Miller or Imran getting in as second opening bowler, although they probably wouldn't.

Also allows two top line spinners. People probably can't believe i don't have Warne at number 1, but you only have to look at Bill O'Reilly's performances for Australia. In fairness they'd probably both get in, but i would definately consider an off spinner to balance with a leg spinner.

ThomasR

26 Oct 2010, 12:17

Harwood

Shane Harwood is a handy bowler but I would like to see him at least make his Test debut before he is mentioned in this company

The Falcon Strike

26 Oct 2010, 16:05

Shane Harwood is a handy bowler but I would like to see him at least make his Test debut before he is mentioned in this company

Lol - good get

I meant Harold Larwood

japaljarri

26 Oct 2010, 21:07

I can't argue with any of the selections, plenty unlucky but they got it right in my book.

Yep. Picked a bloody good side.

aflcliche

26 Oct 2010, 22:38

The World XI: Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton, Don Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Malcolm Marshall, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram, Dennis Lillee

The Second XI: Sunil Gavaskar, Barry Richards, George Headley, Brian Lara, Wally Hammond, Imran Khan, Alan Knott, Bill O'Reilly, Fred Trueman, Muttiah Muralitharan, SF Barnes

Readers' XI: Sunil Gavaskar, Virender Sehwag, Don Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram, Muttiah Muralitharan, Glenn McGrath

They've got the world XI pretty right I think. Some notable omissions unlucky or very close I would say to make at least 1 of the 3 sides - Hadlee, Botham, Dev, Ambrose, Chappell, Graham Pollock, Miller, Kallis. I understand a lot are allrounders and they only pick one. One of Wisden cricketers of the century - Botham was overlooked. Also I don't see why Barry Richards is there ahead of Graham Pollock.

My third XI - Greenidge, Hayden, Pollock, Chappell, Kallis, Sangakara (keeper), Botham, Dev, Hadlee, Benaud, Ambrose,

Would beat the second XI chosen. Border / Dravid / Miandad / Ponting / Compton / G Smith / Healy strongly considered, but couldn't fit them in. I may be a fast out right strike bowler short and too many alrounders. Either Younis / Donald / Roberts as 12th man