All time Test & ODI XI

[silentstriker]

no' date=' not that. Bradman was never analyzed the way SRT or others are analyzed.. He played on mostly the same pitches all his life.. There was no technology to analyze his every stroke.. bowlers did not know how to get him out..[/quote'] That is patently false. Bradman was analyzed more than any other batsman in history, modern ones included. England had spies whose full time job was to report back with every single shot that he played, and did not play. They even divised bodyline just to thwart him. To say that the bowlers did not work out the weaknesses of the batsman before the modern era is completely false. Many of the players played with Bradman in FC cricket and watched him every day, and considering there were only two real full time countries, the players played and knew each other quite well. Larwood, one of the best bowlers to have ever walked this planet, would certainly disagree with that assertion. If you read any of Bradman's writing, and see the plans and thoughts that went into every single match, you will realize how wrong you have it. I dare say that even with the new advances in technology, many cricketers are far less prepared today than they were back then. Let me ask you, have you ever read 'The Art of Cricket' by Donald Bradman, or the 'Jubilee Book of Cricket' by none other than Ranjishinji? Read through it and tell me they did not analyze the game of cricket.

[silentstriker]

I would replace Sobers with Dravid... you are already bowling heavy....

Sobers, in my opinion, is the third best batsman of all time and strongly deserves a spot in batting alone (Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers).

[Lurker]

Sobers' date=' in my opinion, is the third best batsman of all time and strongly deserves a spot in batting alone (Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers).[/quote'] SS. You seem like a well-read cricket fan. How about some similar posts? I would be interested in seeing your great batsman and bowler selection. Or maybe you can do something different and pick all-time greatest left-hander XI and so on? You know something different. I would surely participate there but kinda want to see your list. xxx

[gator]

ur opinion is based more on nostalgia and romance rather than detailed analysis...

[King]

Sobers' date=' in my opinion, is the third best batsman of all time and strongly deserves a spot in batting alone (Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers).[/quote'] What are your yardstick to measure a player's ability? Is that a hearsay, statistics or have you watched him? Even I can say Jim Laker was the best ever spinner in the history of cricket. Without ground rules you can't just go around saying popular names as the best ever. Provide us some proof and back it up with some yardstick.

[silentstriker]

ur opinion is based more on nostalgia and romance rather than detailed analysis...

My Test XI has seven players who played after WWII, and only four that played before. How is this romantic? If anything, it might be biased towards recent cricketers. I hated to leave out Headley, for example.

[silentstriker]

What are your yardstick to measure a player's ability? Is that a hearsay' date=' statistics or have you watched him? Even I can say Jim Laker was the best ever spinner in the history of cricket. Without ground rules you can't just go around saying popular names as the best ever. Provide us some proof and back it up with some yardstick.[/quote'] Well, everyone I have in my list has exlempary statistics, whether it be bowling average and batting average. The difference is how do you discriminate between two players who have similar stats? You have to do two things: Compare them against their contemporaries. Watch film if available, or read about them, accounts of people you know understand cricket and their impressions in watching them. Have I ever watched Larwood live? No, but I have no doubts that he was one of the fastest bowlers to ever walk the planet.

[silentstriker]

SS. You seem like a well-read cricket fan. How about some similar posts? I would be interested in seeing your great batsman and bowler selection. Or maybe you can do something different and pick all-time greatest left-hander XI and so on? You know something different. I would surely participate there but kinda want to see your list. xxx

Sure, but I don't want it to be too contentious if I leave out a certain Indian or Pakistani or Englishman that everyone wants. I don't really care about teams when it comes to cricket, I just like watching all Test teams. Maybe I'll do a pre-war XI only, so people don't have an emotional connection to any of the players left out.

[MundaPakistani]

By the way Imran Khan is greatly overrated specially in LOI. xxx

Imran achieved every thing that a cricketer could ever dream of and i dare say that he is probably the greatest cricketer since Sobers.

[King]

Compare them against their contemporaries.

Have you compared Sobers with the contemporary greats before you called him the 3rd best batsman ever? I can prove you otherwise by going by numbers

Watch film if available, or read about them, accounts of people you know understand cricket and their impressions in watching them.

I have watched heaps of Sobers videos and I can post them here. You can make a judgement whether he was any better than the contemporary greats.

Have I ever watched Larwood live? No, but I have no doubts that he was one of the fastest bowlers to ever walk the planet.

Now again we are drifting away from the yardstick. We have to either stick to the yardstick or make assumptions. Larwood played about 20+ test matches against one opposition pre dominantly (has played 3 or 4 test matches against other opponents) with an average in high 20s. Also Larwood played in the days of uncovered pitches. He had four 5 fever and one 10 fer in the 21 test matches he played. How can he be great? I'm not comparing Bond with Larwood but just showing stats of a similar bowler. Bond plays on a lot of flat pitches and the pitches are covered these days. Bond plays against variety of opposition and has played about 5 test matches less than Larwood. Bond has an average of 22. Bond has 4 5 fer and 1 10 fer in a test match. Now what stops you from saying Bond is one of the greatest bowlers ever to walk the planet? Sorry your argument doesn't hold water. I wouldn't place Larwood in the great list. Larwood was a top class bowler sure but not great for me. The numbers just doesn't add up.

[King]

Sure' date=' but I don't want it to be too contentious if I leave out a certain Indian or Pakistani or Englishman that everyone wants. I don't really care about teams when it comes to cricket, I just like watching all Test teams. Maybe I'll do a pre-war XI only, so people don't have an emotional connection to any of the players left out.[/quote'] Of course you can't be bothered pleasing people of different origins. All I'm saying here is put down yardsticks to rate the players. With out clear cut yardsticks there is no way you can choose some. It is possible you are only aware of some players that are perceived great. There may be some that may not be popular but are truly great like say Dean Jones in ODIs.

[silentstriker]

Of course you can't be bothered pleasing people of different origins. All I'm saying here is put down yardsticks to rate the players. With out clear cut yardsticks there is no way you can choose some. It is possible you are only aware of some players that are perceived great. There may be some that may not be popular but are truly great like say Dean Jones in ODIs.

Absolutely, but every player in that list is good by any yardstick. The bowlers all have averages of mid twenties or lower, and the batsmen all have averages of 50 or higher (speaking of Tests of course). Beyond that, it has to have an element of subjectivity, in terms of who you think performed well against better attacks, how they performed on different pitches, and things of that nature.

[silentstriker]

Have you compared Sobers with the contemporary greats before you called him the 3rd best batsman ever? I can prove you otherwise by going by numbers

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Now again we are drifting away from the yardstick. We have to either stick to the yardstick or make assumptions. Larwood played about 20+ test matches against one opposition pre dominantly (has played 3 or 4 test matches against other opponents) with an average in high 20s. Also Larwood played in the days of uncovered pitches.

Actually, the 1930s were a time of extremely flat pitches, probably as bad as any since 200s. If you look at the global bowling average between the end of WWI and WWII, it was a pretty bad '33.33'. Compare that with the global bowling average of '26.15' pre WWI. The only era that the average goes above 33.33 is the 2000s, where it is 34.38. Uncovered or not, the pitches were flat as a road in the 1930s.

Sorry your argument doesn't hold water. I wouldn't place Larwood in the great list. Larwood was a top class bowler sure but not great for me. The numbers just doesn't add up.

Well, he wasn't good enough to make an all time XI, and he isn't in mine. I am not sure we disagree there. He wouldn't be in my 2nd or 3rd XI either, with likes of Ambrose, Donald, Imran, Lillee, Garner, Wasim, Holding, Trueman, Davidson to go. That doesn't mean he was a bad bowler by any means.

[King]

I have to agree Sobers is one of the most skilled cricketer and the best all rounders ever to have graced cricket. I'm awed at his ability to bowl fast, spin, bat in different modes and field well too. It's not common for a cricketer to be so versatile. If Tendulkar was about 6' he could have achieved what Sobers did. Tendulkar can spin the ball a mile, can swing the ball, top class fielder and no need to mention his batting ability. Unfortunately Sobers was far too serious bowler and a good one at that too.

[silentstriker]

I have to agree Sobers is one of the most skilled cricketer and the best all rounders ever to have graced cricket. I'm awed at his ability to bowl fast' date=' spin, bat in different modes and field well too. It's not common for a cricketer to be so versatile. If Tendulkar was about 6' he could have achieved what Sobers did. Tendulkar can spin the ball a mile, can swing the ball, top class fielder and no need to mention his batting ability. Unfortunately Sobers was far too serious bowler and a good one at that too.[/quote'] But Tendulkar may not have been as good a batsman if he was 6'0. Smaller stature helps batting (slightly), while taller stature helps fast bowling. Hayden is big and mighty, but Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Gavaskar, Bradman are all shorter than average. Most of the greatest of fast bowlers are 6'2 and above (Marshall notable exception at 5'11). It's not a hard and fast rule, but Sachin is very compact, and it helps him immensly. I am not sure if a larger frame would be as successful, though his technique would certainly make up for a large part of that. I would actually be interested to see what would happen if he were bigger, it would be very fascinating. I believe there was a show on ESPN that delved into the scientific reason for why short stature can help batting (I am afraid I can't recall the name of the show right now, but I'll look for it). For fast bowling, the reasons are obvious and self evident, that height tends to matter. You can overcome it, and still be fantastic, but natural height helps (bigger levers to propel the ball with, better bounce, etc).

[King]

Greg Chappell was a big man so was Lloyd. They both were excellent batters though. Greg Chappell was a fantastic bat, technically on par with the best and played with flair. Richards wasn't too short from what I know. He was about 5' 11" I think. He wasn't a bad bowler and catcher either. Richards was a fantastic fielder so was Gavaskar or say Greg Chappell. As for fast bowling height helps. The ability to make the ball bounce from fuller length gets them a lot of wickets. Walsh, Ambrose and McGrath were good exponents of that. The shorter ones have to thrive that much hard to get that kind of bounce.

[Lurker]

Imran achieved every thing that a cricketer could ever dream of and i dare say that he is probably the greatest cricketer since Sobers.

Not in One day. Did not have one single batting innings of note(and please don't give me the 1992 WC finals). He was the kind of player that ends his career and then you wonder just how in the world did he average 35 plus with the bat? Never won Pakistan any match with his batting. As a bowler he was super. As a fielder he was lousy. He would never make it to my LOI XI. xxx

[CC1981]

Alltime Test XI: Sunil Gavaskar : Arguably best opener ever Len Hutton : Boycs is better but needed a rapid scoring one. Better than Greenidge. Don Bradman (capt) : Anyone who doesnt include the Don is a fool Sachin Tendulkar : Narrowly edges out Lara Viv Richards : Narrowly edges out Greg Chappell Gary Sobers : Has to be in there. Imran Khan : Narrowly edges out Keith Miller Alan Knott(wkt) : Need a solid keeper first & foremost. Knotty could bat too.Hence Knotty > Gilly Malcolm Marshall : Greatest pacer ever Wasim Akram : One of the greatest pacers ever, plus left-armer. Muttiah Muralitharan : Edges out Warne and any other spinner. Alltime ODI XI : Sachin Tendulkar : ODI's Bradman gotto be. Adam Gillchrist : Perfect foil for Tendulkar, plus opens up middle order spot for better batsmen Viv Richards : Arguably best ODI batsman ever. Brian Lara : I'd rather have Lara than Ponting in my ODI squad Michael Bevan : Perfect middle-overs man Clive Lloyd : Super fielder, super cappo, super ODI bat for his position. Kapil Dev : Perfect #7, perfect ODI bowler. Wasim Akram : Greatest ODI pacer needs a spot Waqar Younis : Would rather have him than Lee/Bond as main strike weapon Joel Garner : Super economy, super yorkers ! Muralitharan : Edges out Warney

[King]

Alltime ODI XI : Sachin Tendulkar : ODI's Bradman gotto be. Adam Gillchrist : Perfect foil for Tendulkar, plus opens up middle order spot for better batsmen Viv Richards : Arguably best ODI batsman ever. Brian Lara : I'd rather have Lara than Ponting in my ODI squad Michael Bevan : Perfect middle-overs man Clive Lloyd : Super fielder, super cappo, super ODI bat for his position. Kapil Dev : Perfect #7, perfect ODI bowler. Wasim Akram : Greatest ODI pacer needs a spot Waqar Younis : Would rather have him than Lee/Bond as main strike weapon Joel Garner : Super economy, super yorkers ! Muralitharan : Edges out Warney

I'll go with the above XI in ODIs bar couple of changes. McGrath replaces Joel Garner and Donald replaces Waqar. I'll rather have Mark Waugh in place of Clive Lloyd and Viv Richards will captain the team. Sachin Tendulkar Adam Gillchrist Mark Waugh Viv Richards Brian Lara Michael Bevan Kapil Dev Wasim Akram Glen McGrath Allan Donald Muralitharan

[CC1981]

McGrath replaces Joel Garner and Donald replaces Waqar.

I don't see why/how. Garner could tie up one end and take wickets with his homing missile yorkers like no-one else. McGrath's job in the team - bowling an economical 10-1-35-1 kind of spell ( or take wickets when batsmen take unnecessary chances against the bowler) by Kapil. Garner is not the type of bowler to be replaced by McGrath. Donald..i dont see how Donald scores over Waqar...remember, for a strike bowler, i need someone who can take 3-4 wickets in 2-3 over spells to turn the match on its head in a few minutes. Waqar for ODIs suits the job better.

I'll rather have Mark Waugh in place of Clive Lloyd and Viv Richards will captain the team.

This is the most perpelexing change from you...Junior was an excellent ODI bat but 100 % of his reputation as an ODI bat is based on him being an opener and hitting over the top. Since opening spot is totally off Waugh's reach, i don't see how we can stick him in the middle...and Viv was a pretty horrible captain...his way of captaincy was to scare you into performing !