All time Test & ODI XI

[Predator_05]

Glad to see you back silentstriker !! Stick around 'bro. I'd rather just limit this selection to cricketers who i've actually SEEN. Tests; 1) Anwar 2) Slater 3) Dravid 4) Tendulkar 5) Lara 6) Flower (Andy) 7) Gilchrist+ 8) Warne 9) Ambrose (sorry Wasim...) 10) Donald 11) McGrath ODI's; 1) Ganguly 2) Tendulkar 3) Sangakkara+ 4) Lara 5) Symonds 6) Bevan 7) Klusener 8) Warne 9) Saqlain 10) Bond 11) Donald

[MundaPakistani]

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

actually i think Imran did a fair job at his #6 position and he won games against some of the best bowling attacks http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1988-89/OD_TOURNEYS/WSC/PAK_WI_WSC_ODI9_07JAN1989.html http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1989-90/OD_TOURNEYS/CHT/PAK_WI_CHT_ODI5_17OCT1989.html http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1989-90/OD_TOURNEYS/NEHRU/WI_PAK_NEHRU_ODI-FINAL_01NOV1989.html You probably don't rate him because his batting against IND was below par. Having said he would probably not make my ODI team either.

[King]

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.

McGrath not only ties up one end but takes wicket. If any captain wants a crucial wicket, in that team the first person he will throw the ball to is McGrath. McGrath is there to take wickets and keep the run rate down. McGrath's yorkers, short of good length and bouncers are stuff of legends. I can't see how you can doubt the quality of a bowler like McGrath that time and again has proved none can dominate him even the best in the world.

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.

Remember Waqar of 1996 quarter finals against India (Jadega taking him apart) or the game against India in the world cup 2003? I don't need say anything more. If you doubt Donald's credentials you should look up at his performances.

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

Mark Waugh was one of the best players against spin. Mark Waugh did not excel just by opening. Flexible is the key here, you can move Gilly where you like and if need be Waugh can bat at the top. Make no mistake M.Waugh was one of the best in the business in the ODIs. His fielding and catching is on par with Jonty. There is absolutely no comparison between Mark Waugh and Clive Lloyd in ODIs. It is insane to even think Junior is inferior to Clive Lloyd.

Viv was a pretty horrible captain...his way of captaincy was to scare you into performing !

I wouldn't care the least about captains. A team good enough will win despite whoever the captain is. You think Taylor, Waugh and Ponting are all great captains? They are made to look great because of a great team. A captain doesn't make a team great but a great team makes the captain look great. I wouldn't worry even if Wasim Akram captained this side.

[silentstriker]

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.

Don't care about the ODIs, but there is no conceivable way you can have Hutton and Gavaskar and not have Hobbs. It is literally impossible to believe. All he did was score 60,000+ First Class runs with 197 centuries.... Hutton deserves to be here too...unfortunately, Gavaskar has to go. But either way, Hobbs has to be there even if it means its at the expense of the amazing Hutton.

[MundaPakistani]

Glad to see you back silentstriker !! Stick around 'bro. I'd rather just limit this selection to cricketers who i've actually SEEN. Tests; 1) Anwar 2) Slater 3) Dravid 4) Tendulkar 5) Lara 6) Flower (Andy) 7) Gilchrist+ 8) Warne 9) Ambrose (sorry Wasim...) 10) Donald 11) McGrath ODI's; 1) Ganguly 2) Tendulkar 3) Sangakkara+ 4) Lara 5) Symonds 6) Bevan 7) Klusener 8) Warne 9) Saqlain 10) Bond 11) Donald

1- Flower over Waugh in tests? 2- Bond over Wasim? especially considering the fact that you already have Donald.

[Lurker]

actually i think Imran did a fair job at his #6 position and he won games against some of the best bowling attacks http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1988-89/OD_TOURNEYS/WSC/PAK_WI_WSC_ODI9_07JAN1989.html http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1989-90/OD_TOURNEYS/CHT/PAK_WI_CHT_ODI5_17OCT1989.html http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1989-90/OD_TOURNEYS/NEHRU/WI_PAK_NEHRU_ODI-FINAL_01NOV1989.html You probably don't rate him because his batting against IND was below par. Having said he would probably not make my ODI team either.

MP. Thanks for those links. If you look at those games they were all played in 1989, practically at the end of Imran's cricketing career. I tried to look up all the innings(in LOI) where Imran has scored 40 plus runs(50 plus being a rather unfair comparison in my opinion) and while Imran has about 32 such innings, more than 2/3(if not more) came around or after 1987 WC. My point is that this era of Imran's batting was at the fag end of his career when his bowling was no longer his best weapon. Now if we are arguing to pick a batsman who scores at number 6/7 then I have much better option than Imran, but if we are selecting an all-rounder then how do I pick a player whose career was so lop-sided? In his first half he is a good bowler and in his latter half he is a good bat but seldom the two together. This is not a knock on Imran who obviously remains Pakistan's greatest player but just the fact that if I had to pick a LOI all-rounder I would go with Kapil. Also my pick of the Pakistani players would be Akram, then Saqlain Mushtaq, then Miandad and finally Imran. xxx

[Holysmoke]

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.

Nope. Not read any of those books. But I wouldn't agree with you when you say Bradman was more analyzed than any other batsman in history. Sachin, will have probably been analyzed 100 times more than what Bradman was. Analyzing by having spies watching his moves, and analyzing video footage with stuff like hawk-eye which tells you exactly where the ball pitched, how much it swung, how much it bounced, what speed it came at, etc is totally different. They are not even comparable. Also, the point of him only playing against 1 opposition is very very important. You say that the bowlers knew Bradman, and how he played. There too, Bradman knew all the bowlers, and what they were capable of. Here, if some newcomer, for example me, if I was to play for some country, I would know exactly how to bowl, to SRT. what speed, what kind of swing, where to pitch the ball etc, while he may not even know whether i bowl with my right hand or left!. Mate, dont underestimate the power of computer analysis. Also, Bradman didnt play much on subcontinental pitches, and slow low turners. He only played in Eng and Aus. Makes a big big difference mate... Just tell me this much. If Bradman was to play today, the way cricket is played today, do u think he would average 99.94?

[Lurker]

Just tell me this much. If Bradman was to play today, the way cricket isplayed today, do u think he would average 99.94?

Holy. Dont mean to butt in here but say Bradman was playing today, what do you you think he would end up averaging? xxx

[Holysmoke]

Holy. Dont mean to butt in here but say Bradman was playing today, what do you you think he would end up averaging? xxx

60

[Lurker]

60

Okay even if we go by your standard that average shall put him much ahead of the rest is it not?

[Holysmoke]

not much. Keep in mind, that 60 is max. I simply dont know enough about his batting. He could have failed miserably in the subcontinent, or he could have actually been the best there too. We just dont know.... An average of 60 doesnt put him much ahead of the rest. Something like Ponting, or Dravid. He could so easily have been sorted out by technology. He couldve been like Cullinan.. quite a good batsman, (Cullinan was by no means great), but woeful against spin. Also Ponting, when he was young. We just dont know. All im trying to say is that statistics dont tell the whole story. If Dravid, or SRT, or Ponting, were going to somehow travel back in time, I think they would have done equally well. On the other hand, if Bradman played in the 90's, he would not have averaged 100.

[Lurker]

not much. Keep in mind' date=' that 60 is max. [b']I simply dont know enough about his batting. He could have failed miserably in the subcontinent, or he could have actually been the best there too. We just dont know....

] True Holy, but what about those who have actually seen him bat? Say someone like Richie Benaud or Brian Johnstone or John Arlott? The three mentioned have seen everyone from Bradman to Tendulkar and surely they would have been in a good position to judge. Guess what? They all select Bradman as greatest ever. By the way if you think Bradman could have scored at 60(as against his ultimare career average of 99.9) how do you think Indian batsmen of the time would have performed? Say Vijay Merchant who eventually scored at abouts 47 runs, how much do you think his career average would be? Or Lala Amarnath, India's first centurion, he ended with batting average of mid 20's or so. xxxx

[CC1981]

Don't care about the ODIs, but there is no conceivable way you can have Hutton and Gavaskar and not have Hobbs. It is literally impossible to believe. All he did was score 60,000+ First Class runs with 197 centuries....

I am not very impressed with pre-war namby-pamby amatuers like Hobbs...only exception is Bradman because well, he is Bradman- when someone averages nearly twice that of the 2nd best batsman, he is truely something extraordinary, i don't care if he was playing cricket with coconut shells 5000 years ago in Kerala...he still gets into my team.

Hutton deserves to be here too...unfortunately, Gavaskar has to go.

Sorry but Gavaskar is the most elegible opener in an alltime world XI by a country-mile and half. Not only has Gavaskar played on uncovered pitches too like Hobbs, he played bowling 10 times more challenging than Hobbs in a team weaker against the opposition than Hobbs or Hutton. When i select an alltime world XI, three names i put down before even thinking about them : Bradman, Gavaskar and Sobers.

[CC1981]

McGrath not only ties up one end but takes wicket. If any captain wants a crucial wicket, in that team the first person he will throw the ball to is McGrath. McGrath is there to take wickets and keep the run rate down. McGrath's yorkers, short of good length and bouncers are stuff of legends. I can't see how you can doubt the quality of a bowler like McGrath that time and again has proved none can dominate him even the best in the world.

I feel ODI bowling is about variety, about balance and about filling role properly. McGrath's mode of bowling is he is very accurate, he will keep it very tidy and if you play him carefully, he will bag 10-1-35-1, if you have to throw the bat around on him, he will bag 10-1-45-4 kinda deals. The way McGrath bowls in ODIs can be done by Kapil in my team- keeping it tidy and picking up wickets when batsmen try to accelerate. McGrath is not my strike-force bowler to look to-Wasim, Garner, Waqar do it better.

Remember Waqar of 1996 quarter finals against India (Jadega taking him apart) or the game against India in the world cup 2003? I don't need say anything more. If you doubt Donald's credentials you should look up at his performances.

Well Donald got slaughtered a few times too. I dont doubt Donald at all, he is one of my fav. bowlers due to his action and one of the alltime greats..very much a bowler in Waqar mould for ODIs though i think Waqar is a better striker (though slightly more expensive on average than Donald too). Since my consideration here is for a strike bowler, Waqar nudges ahead of white lightening.

Mark Waugh was one of the best players against spin. Mark Waugh did not excel just by opening. Flexible is the key here, you can move Gilly where you like and if need be Waugh can bat at the top. Make no mistake M.Waugh was one of the best in the business in the ODIs. His fielding and catching is on par with Jonty. There is absolutely no comparison between Mark Waugh and Clive Lloyd in ODIs. It is insane to even think Junior is inferior to Clive Lloyd.

I dont believe in shuffling the batting order unless players are very experienced being shuffled around. Gilly and Waugh both have 90% of their runs and success as openers...so i can't just slot Junior in the middle. His catching was as good as any but i think you are giving him too much credit by saying his fielding was like Jonty.

I wouldn't care the least about captains. A team good enough will win despite whoever the captain is. You think Taylor, Waugh and Ponting are all great captains? They are made to look great because of a great team.

I disagree. In ODIs, where real-time form and strategy means a lot, a good captain makes helluva difference and this is where Lloyd is worth his weight in gold. I disagree about Taylor- he was a great captain indeed and i think what made the Aussies of mid-late 90s (pre Waugh era) so competetive was excellent captaincy from Taylor. I've watched quite a few tests between OZ and RSA in the 90s, when RSA were literally like an inch behind the Aussies and it often came down to Mark Taylor's brilliant captaincy, bringing on a particular bowler with a particular field setting = wickets = match won.

[King]

I don't mind what team you select but just to put to rest some of the points you have raised about my selection :

    Mat      Balls      Runs      Wkts      BBI      BBM      Ave      Econ      SR      4      5      10

Waqar Younis 

ODIs      262     12698     9919     416     7/36     7/36     23.84     4.68     30.52     14     13     0

Allan Donald 
ODIs      164     8561     5926     272     6/23     6/23     21.78     4.15     31.47     11     2     0

You said Waqar was a better strike bowler. All I can say is look at the above stats and I rest my case.

His catching was as good as any but i think you are giving him too much credit by saying his fielding was like Jonty.

The difference is the ease at which Mark Waugh go about fielding or catching. From whichever way I see I cannot justify the inclusion of Lloyd over someone like Mark Waush.

[CC1981]

You said Waqar was a better strike bowler. All I can say is look at the above stats and I rest my case.

i would interpret those stats differently- as we know, its much harder to maintain a good average playing longer than shorter...Waqar has 100 more matches and nearly the same strike rate- plus he didnt bowl half his career on fast, bouncy wickets of Durban or Cape Town. I agree Donald is a great bowler too but if you look at Waqar, his wickets are in bunches - a lot more 4-fers/5-fers etc. From a strike bowler, i dont want 1-2 wickets consistently, i am willing to put up with the occasional bad match for matches with bursts of wickets..As i said, they are there to fill a role and i think Waqar fills the role slightly better than Donald in one-dayers.

From whichever way I see I cannot justify the inclusion of Lloyd over someone like Mark Waush.

Well, Lloyd was an equal callibre catcher and significantly better fielder than Junior..as a batsman,Lloyd was superior in both formats too - he didnt have the advantage openers have from the 90s with the field up for 15 overs. Yet he boasts a strike rate superior to Junior (at a better average too!) in an age where 4 RPO was a matchwinning rate. I think you are seriously underrating Lloyd the batsman - 47 average in tests, almost 40 in ODIs (with 80+ strike rate- that is better than Ponting's strike rate, while batting at #4/#5 in the 70s/80s, where 220 in 50 overs was a winning score !), best cover fielder in the last 30 years, super- captain and one of the best slip catchers ever. If his batting touched 50, i'd include him in my alltime test XI too.

[silentstriker]

I would say in the 2000s, he would still average 90+....in the nineties, he would have averaged less due to the better bowling and pitches, but I would say maybe 75-85. His primary power was concentration, and not playing crap shots after playing himself in. I don't see much changing.

[Gambit]

Good thread SS but you lend too much credence to romantic and flowery accounts from people, who in order to sell cricket, a sport they were obviously quite passionate about, tended to get carried away a bit and made mountains out of good-to-great cricketers. Here is my all time test XI from people I've seen extensive footage of and seen live: 1. Sunil Gavaskar - in my opinion, the greatest opening batsman ever 2. I don't know who to put in as a second opener. Still thinking. 3. Don Bradman - I don't need to justify this. 4. Sachin Tendulkar - In my opinion, the greatest post 80s bat. 5. Viv Richards - From what I've seen and read, he was a force of nature. A really destructive one at that. 6. Gary Sobers - The greatest all rounder ever and who wouldn't want someone averaging 58 to come in at number 6 7. Imran Khan - Probably, the second greatest all rounder ever. Handy batsman and excellent bowler. 8. Adam Gilchrist - The GREATEST wicketkeeper batsman of all time, bar none. 9. Shane Warne - The GREATEST spin bowler () of all time. 10. Glenn McGrath - The best assassin of batsmen I have ever seen. 11. Malcolm Marshall - The best among the fearsome WI quartet and that is saying something! BTW it's a crime not to have Gilchrist in any all time test XI as a w/k batsman . His wicketkeeping was far from shoddy and whatever little mistakes he made were far far outweighed by the destruction he used to wreak with his blade.

[silentstriker]

I love Gavaskar as a player, but not sure how you can put him above Hobbs and Hutton. Can you justify him over either of them? To be honest, I am not convinced he was the best Indian opener (Vijay Merchant was better IMO), but obviously Merchant did not play as much Test cricket, so it has to be Gavaskar among the Indians, but still....I cannot look past Hobbs and Hutton.

[CC1981]

I would say in the 2000s, he would still average 90+....in the nineties, he would have averaged less due to the better bowling and pitches, but I would say maybe 75-85.

Hmm..if we'r going to throw in our guesses, i'd say Braddles would be doing 60-65 range in the 1955-20001/2 period with perhaps 70s/80s just above 60, rest of the time around 65. In the 2001/02- present period, i'd think Braddles would be doing a Ponting - ala 70-75 range. I don't think anyone can breach the 70 ave. barrier in the modern times over a long consistent career with decent bowling attacks around.

I don't see much changing.

Tv exposure + better analytic equipments at hand (yes, it really does help to watch a batsman in slo-mo rather than from 90 yards away) to 'break' them would mean Bradman faces a much much tougher challenge in the modern era. Yes, he was the greatest batsman of alltime easily, but his average/figures, like every other pre-war dude ( except batsmen in 1800s playing on cratered pitches and bowlers having single digit averages period) is inflated significantly due to the less intense matchplay that happens in amatuer contest. Remember, pro/amtuer distinction here isnt about money- it is about attitude and cricket graduating from a tea party to a much higher level due to the competetive mentality of the post-war world. Remember, in Bradman's days, lbw laws were ludicrously batsman-favoured and they had ludicrous laws like bowling outswingers to tailenders were seen as 'unfair' ! Cricket had a much less 'anything within the rules is fine, this is war on the pitch' mentality that came in post-war generations.

Can you justify him over either of them?

How about the biggest justification of all : faced attacks a zillion times more potent than Hobbs & Hutton ?? Plus Hobbs/Hutton have not come even remotely close to facing India-Pakistan kind of pressure like Sunny's career did. Plus Hobbs/Hutton didnt have to single-handedly carry the batting lineup ! Yes, Amarnath, Vengy, GRV all played good parts of their career with Sunny but Sunny didnt have another alltime great batsman alongside him like Hobbs/Hutton et. al. did. Neither did his side boast a particularly strong overall team/bowling attack. Hobbs/Hutton also are question marks ( like any other pre-war player) in the subcontinent and this cannot be dismissed in a piffle- it is a fact that different areas of the world present unique challenges/conditions that may expose a certain shortcoming of your's. Tendulkar is a fine player in Perth but he is a failure at Brisbane. Ponting can play the turners of Sydney and Colombo decently but is a total ninny on crumblers of India. Gavaskar is a more proven batsman than Hobbs/Hutton in that aspect.

but still....I cannot look past Hobbs and Hutton.

Often a fault in the well learned cricket circles is that they tend to be anglo-biassed, particularly from the pre-war period. I guess this is part nostalgia and part hero-worship complex. But sad truth is, cricket back then was at an inferior level and anyone who thinks that playing dibbly dobblies on uncovered pitch come even remotely close to playing a Malcolm Marshall on concrete, they gotto be either joking or clueless about cricket ! To me, Gavaskar's case is quite obvious : played in one of the weaker teams of his era, only opener in 40 years ( a good 10 years on either side of his career) to average 50 in test cricket, played vs opposition bowling of the highest quality in all of cricket's history ( yes, the 70s to mid 80s was a golden period of bowling worldwide), had only 4 batsmen to've played in the same match as Gavaskar and ended up with 50+ average : Viv, Border, Chappell & Miandad, had the best overall and one of the top 3 records against the best pace bowling attack ever assembled, well i could go on and on but SunnyG is easily the best opener test cricket has ever seen.