Tendulkar only current player in ESPNcricinfo all-time World XI

[King Tendulkar]

The selection of Hobbs/Hutton and Lillee are cruel jokes. Or the old colonial bias kicking in!

[King Tendulkar]

Akram was a pc selection. Not picking pre historic players(sorry lohmann), only picking players who played in a competitive era. My 11 1. Gavaskar 2. Sehwag 3. Richards 4. Tendulkar 5. Kallis 6. Sobers 7. Gilchrist 8. Marshall 9. Holding 10. Mcgrath 11. Murali

[ravishingravi]

Sachin Tendulkar has described being voted into ESPNcricinfo's all-time World XI as "unreal", and the team as "extraordinary company to be in". Tendulkar is the only current player in the XI, the rest of whom are four Australians, three West Indians, two Englishmen and one Pakistani. Tendulkar said he would have loved to play, talk about the game, and pick the brains of his batting partners in the XI - especially Don Bradman, who once said Tendulkar reminded him of himself. "It would have been great to play in this dream team, to walk out with Bradman after lunch, or build a partnership with Viv Richards, and talk to Sobers about cricket," Tendulkar told ESPNcricinfo. "Just playing and having a conversation with them about cricket. I would liked to have asked Hobbs and Hutton what it was like to play on uncovered wickets, who were the best bowlers they had faced, and of course, the mental aspect of the game." Tendulkar, whose international career is now in its 21st year, was particularly pleased with the fact that he had played with or watched live nearly 60% of the side. "I played with Malcolm Marshall in county cricket, I played against Viv Richards in an exhibition game, and Lillee bowled to me at the nets at the MRF Pace Academy, when I was 15," he said. "It was such a thrill. I remember I called my brother and said to him that Dennis Lillee had bowled to me. So to now find myself in this company is unreal. I first met him when I was 12. Wasim Akram, one of three fast bowlers in the XI, described being picked in the team as one of his biggest achievements. "I never thought I would play for Pakistan, let alone be picked for an all-time World XI like this. It is a very special thing, to be picked by these judges and even more of an honour to be in the same team as guys like Sir Don Bradman, Sir Viv Richards, Sir Garry Sobers, Sachin and the others." Akram said he was happy to be named alongside his bowling hero, Malcolm Marshall. "A lot of people ask me who was the best bowler I ever saw. Imran was great, no doubt, very hardworking and shrewd. Dennis Lillee I never really saw, but people tell you obviously about how good he was. But when I rate a bowler, I look at how he did around the world, on different pitches in England, the subcontinent and Australia, and Malcolm Marshall, I feel, was the best of the lot. Adam Gilchrist, who is one of three players to make the XI who retired in the last decade (the others were Shane Warne and Akram) said many other wicketkeepers could have been picked instead of him. "To be one of only four Australian players to be chosen is an absolute honour, although I do think there were several other wicketkeepers, like Rod Marsh, Ian Healy, Mark Boucher or Alan Knott, who could have easily been picked ahead of me in this team," Gilchrist said. Knott came close to being picked: only eight points separated him and Gilchrist in the final reckoning. Lillee, who led the fast-bowling list in the votes, said it was an honour to be picked by a jury that was made up of eight Test captains as well as respected historians and writers. "Looking at the composition of the team, it's hard to question any of those selected. Though some great players have missed out, it would be interesting to pick another world team from those remaining, and I'm sure even that team would push the one that's been selected to the limit," he said. http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/483276.html Doesn't Sachin know that it was absolutely batting friendly conditions on uncovered tracks. Or is he being sarcastic about Hutton''s selection ? Highly doubt it. If only he could visit the ICB to get his fundas right.

[vaibhav_delhi]

Murali against non minnows 624 wickets 24.87 avge 58.6 Strike rate 55% of wickets top 6 batsmen Warne against non minnows 685 wickets 25.52 avge 57.9 Strike rate 56% of wickets top 6 batsmen. Basically they are the same. Murali had the advantage of bowling in subcontinent. This is theoritical argument. But i would rather have a leggie than 2 offies as they are genuine wicket taking options on all surfaces.

Lets accept it. If murli had a clean action, He would be in the XI hands down.

[putrevus]

Lets accept it. If murli had a clean action, He would be in the XI hands down.

If Murali had clean action he would never pick up so many wickets, it is his deformity which has helped him.

[vaibhav_delhi]

^Absolutely

[Sir john]

warne > murli :headshake:

[Raghav_12]

I genuinely don't think you can call him the greatest batsman of all time when his average against teams including Allan Donald and Glenn McGrath is 20 runs lower than his all time average.

There are few points. 1. He averages well in excess of 50 when played against combined strength of Ambrose (greatest fast bowler of last two decades IMHO) and Walsh (not only one of them). So what is your point there? 2. He played McGrath really well during India's tour of Australia in 99 averaging around 47-48 while having absolute no support from other end. McGrath was on peak of his powers at that point of time. So doesn't that mean that we was able to play McGrath very well? 3. He averages around 32.71 in the matches involving Pedro Collins. You can find 10 other players against whom Sachin averages in 30's or so. These are instances of statistical anamolies rather than being any established trends. 4. Finally, any batsman, however great he is, in general would score less against great bowlers. If you think he should have scored same against Donald and McGrath as he did against Ata-ur-rehmans and Sajid Mehmoods, then you are undermining greatness of Donald and McGrath, not of Sachin.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Raghav_12]

you forget Bishop.

Yes. He can be included as well.

[Andy]

Excellent Post Raghav agree with every word you spoke there.

[pensionplan]

Absolutely not. That just about sums up the feeling of most people about him. He was a demon in SL and just about a normal bowler in other parts of the world. This is besides the point that many people including me believe he bowled illegally to get a lot of his wickets.

What people feel about a player or a person are all subjective. That counts for little. What really counts are the facts and what he achieved as a bowler once ICC expert panel cleared him. It just does not matter what people believe in or what their personal take is. If that is the case nothing ever gets settled in life. Coming to the comparision with Warne if Murali was not at his menacing best in certain conditions so was Warne. What exactly did Warne do in the same favorable sub-continental conditions in India where Harbhajan for example wreaked havoc. When pitted against the best players of spin like VVS, SRT etc he looked clueless for most part. Hardly the sign of the all-time greatest spinner who got voted unanimously. Right there he is not an automatic pick especially when there is a history of Aussies and English spinners who had success more than Warne in India be it Mallet, Benaud or Underwood to name a few. No matter how once slices and dices Warne comes second best to Murali as a spinner personal preferrences and expert opinions notwithstanding but going by performances. What is more shameful is if few of the panelists thought that Murali is tainted then show the guts like Bedi and say as it is and abstain from voting for that category. But do not try to be politically correct say Murali is a champion bowler on many occasions and backstab him as it turned out to be. Who are they kidding? I am sure the 34 point margin between Murali and Warne surely has embarrased some of those on the panel who perhaps thought that the margin would not be as much as it turned out to be and thus will become a non-issue. Makes no sense whatsoever. What a travesty.

[daryl1985]

There are few points. 1. He averages well in excess of 50 when played against combined strength of Ambrose (greatest fast bowler of last two decades IMHO) and Walsh (not only one of them). So what is your point there? 2. He played McGrath really well during India's tour of Australia in 99 averaging around 47-48 while having absolute no support from other end. McGrath was on peak of his powers at that point of time. So doesn't that mean that we was able to play McGrath very well? 3. He averages around 32.71 in the matches involving Pedro Collins. You can find 10 other players against whom Sachin averages in 30's or so. These are instances of statistical anamolies rather than being any established trends. 4. Finally, any batsman, however great he is, in general would score less against great bowlers. If you think he should have scored same against Donald and McGrath as he did against Ata-ur-rehmans and Sajid Mehmoods, then you are undermining greatness of Donald and McGrath, not of Sachin.

Thanks Raghav. This is the best reply i have had and the most convincing argument to disprove my original statement. I think it is up for debate as to whether either Ambrose or McGrath were the greatest fast bowler in the last 20 years. I also think Allan Donald is also very underrated when people talk about the best fast bowler of recent times. I just wish we got to see more test matches where Sachin got to face McGrath.

[Raghav_12]

did you read any of the responses to your posts? No wonder people call you a troll. The low averages were not necessarily CAUSED because of the presence of those bowlers. Why is this so difficult to understand? Fleming got Sachin out on more occasions in those matches than McGrath. How do you conclude just because of a cricinfo search with X player than they are cause(the bowler) and effect(the low average)? I will repeat myself even though you will ignore. In those few matches he played against McGrath ot Donald, Sachin might have got out to a full toss from another bowler, he might have got run out, he might have been playing well and got a howler from the umpire. Just because a bowler's presence shows a low avergae doesnt mean it CAUSED the low average? Understood?

I came across a good example to support the point you making. Take pair of Hayden and Harbhajan. Hayden's average for test matches in which harbhajan played is 60, substantially higher from his overall 50. So he can claim that he dominated Harbhajan. Now other part of story is Harbhajan's bowling average goes down to 28 (from 32) for the test matches in which Hayden played. So Harbhajan can also claim that he dominated Hayden. So what is truth? It could be either way but point is you can not conclude any from these "player invoved" stats. Cricket is not Tennis where you provide head-to-head record like Rafa and Federer.

[Raghav_12]

Thanks Raghav. This is the best reply i have had and the most convincing argument to disprove my original statement. I think it is up for debate as to whether either Ambrose or McGrath were the greatest fast bowler in the last 20 years. I also think Allan Donald is also very underrated when people talk about the best fast bowler of recent times. I just wish we got to see more test matches where Sachin got to face McGrath.

You welcome man. I don't think that Allan Donald is underrated. In all kind of discussions he gets due credit and considered one of greatest fast bowlers of modern era. However, he would have had his reputation enhanced had he played for longer duration (though none of his fault).

[akshayxyz]

I came across a good example to support the point you making. Take pair of Hayden and Harbhajan. Hayden's average for test matches in which harbhajan played is 60, substantially higher from his overall 50. So he can claim that he dominated Harbhajan. Now other part of story is Harbhajan's bowling average goes down to 28 (from 32) for the test matches in which Hayden played. So Harbhajan can also claim that he dominated Hayden. So what is truth? It could be either way but point is you can not conclude any from these "player invoved" stats. Cricket is not Tennis where you provide head-to-head record like Rafa and Federer.

Good work to search such an example, I always had full faith in absurdity of such "player involved" argument, but never tried to dig out supporting stats. I vote this Post of the week. Also - can we have a sticky post of wiki/faq about other such examples of proven absurdity, esp the ones that get repeated a bit too often?

[yoda]

I came across a good example to support the point you making. Take pair of Hayden and Harbhajan. Hayden's average for test matches in which harbhajan played is 60, substantially higher from his overall 50. So he can claim that he dominated Harbhajan. Now other part of story is Harbhajan's bowling average goes down to 28 (from 32) for the test matches in which Hayden played. So Harbhajan can also claim that he dominated Hayden. So what is truth? It could be either way but point is you can not conclude any from these "player invoved" stats. Cricket is not Tennis where you provide head-to-head record like Rafa and Federer.

:nice:

[Sooda]

Another point on Sachin vs McGrath. You could take out the series in India in 06 (I think??) when he just got back from injury as he was called back too soon and struggled with pain. Only score of note was the 50 on a Mumbai minefield in the test we won. Take out that poor run of form then and he averages considerable higher

[daryl1985]

Another point on Sachin vs McGrath. You could take out the series in India in 06 (I think??) when he just got back from injury as he was called back too soon and struggled with pain. Only score of note was the 50 on a Mumbai minefield in the test we won. Take out that poor run of form then and he averages considerable higher

I think it was in 05 before the Ashes series. Yeah i read he was basically crippled by injuries in that series. It seems like all Indian batsman had a bad series then apart from Sehwag. Another good point. Looking at the stats it seems like Gillespie had a brilliant tour of India. I can't believe this was the same bowler who had a nightmare in the Ashes a few months later

[Mamu]

What people feel about a player or a person are all subjective. That counts for little. What really counts are the facts and what he achieved as a bowler once ICC expert panel cleared him. It just does not matter what people believe in or what their personal take is. If that is the case nothing ever gets settled in life. Coming to the comparision with Warne if Murali was not at his menacing best in certain conditions so was Warne. What exactly did Warne do in the same favorable sub-continental conditions in India where Harbhajan for example wreaked havoc. When pitted against the best players of spin like VVS, SRT etc he looked clueless for most part. Hardly the sign of the all-time greatest spinner who got voted unanimously. Right there he is not an automatic pick especially when there is a history of Aussies and English spinners who had success more than Warne in India be it Mallet, Benaud or Underwood to name a few. No matter how once slices and dices Warne comes second best to Murali as a spinner personal preferrences and expert opinions notwithstanding but going by performances. What is more shameful is if few of the panelists thought that Murali is tainted then show the guts like Bedi and say as it is and abstain from voting for that category. But do not try to be politically correct say Murali is a champion bowler on many occasions and backstab him as it turned out to be. Who are they kidding? I am sure the 34 point margin between Murali and Warne surely has embarrased some of those on the panel who perhaps thought that the margin would not be as much as it turned out to be and thus will become a non-issue. Makes no sense whatsoever. What a travesty.

1) What people think about Murali does count for a lot. After all what the 10 guys in jury thought about Murali was what counted the most, isn't it ? 2) If VVS and SRT are the benchmarks for good spinners, I will have Monty Panesar and if I do a little bit more research can find a host of other spinners -- to which you will ask me -- "Who the F is the this guy?" 3) If India is a benchmark to select spinners -- I will not have single one in the World XI. I don;t think that is possible. Speaking of which -- what has Murali done in India ? You do not have an iota of a chance when you are facing Dravid, Ganguly, VVS and SRT. It would be grossly unfair to measure spinners against these 4. 4) ICC never cleared Murali, they made more room for him to wiggle out of it. If they stuck to the original rule -- him along with Akhtar were doomed for ever. Anyways Chucking is a whole different ball game at which I laugh at.