All time Test & ODI XI

[silentstriker]

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.

First of all, an attack of Larwood, Voce, Allen is better than pretty much any attack in the world today since the retirement of McGrath and Warne, so I don't know how you can call that a bad attack. Larwood and Voce is about a ferocious an opening partnership as you can expect, especially during bodyline where every other ball could fracture your skull (ask Oldfield, his skull was fractured) as there were no helmets and they did not even have the padding they do now, so a wicketkeeper had to actually put slabs of meat in their gloves to protect their hands against the onslaught of Larwood and company. To his credit, Allen did not attack with bodyline, but if Larwood and Voce were after you, whether you are Bradman or Tendulkar, I doubt the words 'not a decent attack' would ever come anywhere near your brain. And if they did, a bouncer to your face would quickly dispel that notion. Not a decent attack? Please. I'll tell you what, you give me Larwood and Voce breaking people's skulls like they were M&M's and I will outperform any attack alive today. Not to mention the bat technology was so vastly inferior back then, that you actually had to hit the sweet spot to get anywhere. You edge something, even if it hit you hard, and it was going straight into a fielder's hands and certainly not for a four or six. I don't buy for a second that batting was easier against those guys, not for a minute.

[silentstriker]

Good thread SS but you lend too much credence to romantic and flowery accounts from people,

How so? 7 out of the 11 players have played AFTER WWII. If anything, I lend too much credence to these people.

[CC1981]

First of all, an attack of Larwood, Voce, Allen is better than pretty much any attack in the world today since the retirement of McGrath and Warne, so I don't know how you can call that a bad attack.

That only says one thing : our times have the worst damn bowling attack and stakes are stacked in batsmen's favour the most biassed way ever. The attack we have in the world today after retirement of McWarne, with the possible exception of Sri Lanka, is worse than any but the bottommost in the 90s and pre-90s days! As far as i am concerned, Larwood-Voce-Allen were worse than RSA/PAK/AUS/WI attack of the 90s.

Larwood and Voce is about a ferocious an opening partnership as you can expect,

True. Ferociuous. But there is a difference between Pattrick Patterson type ferocious and Michael Holding type ferocious. Larwood was nowhere close to the latter! As per helmets/padding - whatever, still doesnt compensate for much higher bowling level and variety of conditions than braddle's times in the 90s era.

I will outperform any attack alive today.

Any attack alive ? You realize Lillee, Thommo, WI pace quartet, etc. are mostly all alive ? Larwood-Voce wouldnt match the top 15 bowling attacks alive today.

I don't buy for a second that batting was easier against those guys, not for a minute.

Way easier because overall level of cricket was lower. Plus less variety of conditions and less capable bowling attacks in general and stupid namby-pamby laws/conventions = nowhere close to modern-day game. Bradman figures as the best because of one reason and one reason alone in my books - he was so far ahead of #2 that it was ridiculous. But that doesnt mean he is equally ahead of everyone else in every era, particularly the professional era of the last 50 years.

If anything, I lend too much credence to these people.

Thats the way it should be. Every sport has developed overall in skill & professionalism. Cricket is no exception. Fact is cricketers today are more skilled and more cut-throat than in Bradman's days.

[silentstriker]

I would probably rank the batsmen thus: Tier 1: Bradman Tier 2: Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton, Headley, Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Gavaskar, Sobers, Tendulkar, Compton, Viv Richards, Chappell, Sutcliffe, Pollock, Lara People in Tier 2 are hard to rank in order, and really you can swap a lot of them around. For the fast bowlers, it would be the following who I consider 'best of the best' (in no order): Marshall, Lillee, Ambrose, McGrath, Hadlee, Trueman, Barnes, Imran, Wasim, Donald, Holding, Davidson, Garner, Lindwall, Lohmann Something like that.

[The Outsider]

Some interesting discussions on the thread. Here is my choice of a test XI : 1. Gavaskar - The best test opener in test history. For those arguing Hobbs and Hutton's case ahead of Gavaskar, there is very little to fall back upon except flowery words. 2. Hutton - Apologies to those who think Hobbs needs to go in based on his FC record. 3. Bradman - Enough said. 4. Tendulkar - The ability to raise his game against the best and to have scored atleast one superb innings in all conditions against all bowlers puts him in as a perfect number 4. 5. Richards - At number 5, his ability to score quick and put the opposition on the back foot either as a counter attack or while building up on a foundation would be priceless. 6. Sobers - Can't ask for a better number six than the best batting all rounder. 7. Imran - Can't ask for a better number seven than the best bowling all rounder. 8. Gilchrist - Can't ask for a better number 8 than the best wicketkeeper-batsman. 9. Marshall - Handy number 9 and arguably the best fast bowler in history. 10. McGrath - Need this man to get rid of the best batsmen from the opposition. 11. Muralitharan - Absolute magician, the Bradman of bowling.

[CC1981]

Tier 1: Bradman Tier 2: Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton, Headley, Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Gavaskar, Sobers, Tendulkar, Compton, Viv Richards, Chappell, Sutcliffe, Pollock, Lara

Hammond,Hobbs,Hutton,Hedley Sutcliffe, Compton etc. deserve to be in the same bracket as the Gundappa Vishwanaths, Rohan Kanhais, Alvin Kallicharans , Damien Martyns, Clive Lloyd,etc. of the post WWII world - ie, second tier in terms of empiric skill in my books.

Marshall, Lillee, Ambrose, McGrath, Hadlee, Trueman, Barnes, Imran, Wasim, Donald, Holding, Davidson, Garner, Lindwall, Lohmann

By no stretch of imagination was Barnes or Lohmann fast. That is like saying Manoj Prabhakar/Hansie Cronjie were fast bowlers. Those two were perfect exampels of 'medium' bowlers, Barnes even bowled tweakers from time to time. Your list is missing Waqar otherwise it is fairly good apart from the correction above.

[The Outsider]

Larwood and Voce is about a ferocious an opening partnership as you can expect, especially during bodyline where every other ball could fracture your skull (ask Oldfield, his skull was fractured) as there were no helmets and they did not even have the padding they do now, so a wicketkeeper had to actually put slabs of meat in their gloves to protect their hands against the onslaught of Larwood and company.

All of this happened only in one series of 5 test matches. How is that a reflection of the general bowling standards of that era?

[CC1981]

Swets, i see no logic in Gillchrist & McGrath. In McGrath's case, i agree he is an alltime great bowler and best of the post-Ambrose era but everything McGrath offers with the ball, the original McGrath clone Hadlee does. Plus Hadlee comes in with truckload more runs relative to McGrath. Hadlee over McGrath is a no-brainer! In Gillchrist's case, i hope you realize that with that super-heavy batting six plus nuggety Imran in the mix, a wicketkeeper that doesnt aveage in the high 40s but in the mid 30s is easily worth carrying if the said wicketkeeper is far better a glovesman. I'd for the same reason put Knott, Kirmani, Healy, Murray etc. over Gilly in the alltime stakes. We cant just ignore the glovesmanship aspect. Gilly is a steady glovesman but nothing special.

[The Outsider]

1. The toughest test for an opener is the scenario when the opposition wins the toss and puts you in to bat because in all likelihood the pitch has more than something in it for the bowlers. Hobbs and Hutton can't even wipe Gavaskar's boots for that scenario : Gavaskar - 40.28 Hutton - 20.88 Hobbs - 33.20 2. Gavaskar scored 34 hundreds in 214 innings at 6.3 innings per century. Hobbs took 6.8 innings to score a hundred and Hutton 7.3. Gavaskar creams both of them in ability to score big runs. 3. Hutton filled up his boots pretty well against WI, who were near minnows of his time averaging 79.09 against them. Hobbs went ahead and averaged 106.00 against them. They hovered in the mid 50s against the only good side of their times. Gavaskar, on the other hand averaged 65.45 against the best side he faced scoring 13 hundreds against them, that's nearly equal to the number of centuries Hobbs hit in his entire career. Sorry, the comparison does not even begin. Infact, seeing these numbers I am tempted to bring in Hayden/Boycott ahead of Hutton in my all time XI.

[The Outsider]

In McGrath's case, i agree he is an alltime great bowler and best of the post-Ambrose era but everything McGrath offers with the ball, the original McGrath clone Hadlee does.

Maybe on paper but on the field there is no one like McGrath when it comes to winkling out important wickets at crucial times. I consider McGrath and Marshall to be the best fast bowlers ever, so they will have to find a place in my XI. Regarding Gilchrist, his keeping isn't bad at all and the choice would boil down to Gilchrist/Healy/Sangakarra because Marsh/Knott etc. never kept to a top quality spinner. Gilchrist is the obvious pick in that scenario.

[The Outsider]

But the question is who will my world XI play with, so I'll try to pick two near equal strength World XIs and pit them against each other at Perth, Headingly, Madras, Sabina Park, and Sydney in a 5 test match series : 1. Gavaskar 2. Hayden 3. Ponting 4. Tendulkar 5. Dravid 6. Sobers 7. Gilchrist 8. Hadlee 9. Warne 10. Marshall 11. Ambrose 1. Hutton 2. Boycott 3. Bradman 4. Lara 5. Richards 6. Kallis 7. Imran 8. Sangakarra 9. Donald 10. McGrath 11. Muralitharan

[Predator_05]

Why are people leaving out Richard Hadlee ? In an all time XI, he should be a shoe-in. I'd pick him ahead of McGrath.

[silentstriker]

Why are people leaving out Richard Hadlee ? In an all time XI' date=' he should be a shoe-in. I'd pick him ahead of McGrath.[/quote'] His batting was certainly better, but I would say his bowling was not. NZ was well known to provide absolute green tracks for him to work on, just because during his time, Hadlee was pretty much the only real weapon they had. His numbers are inflated slightly due to that.

[Lurker]

His batting was certainly better' date=' but I would say his bowling was not. NZ was well known to provide absolute green tracks for him to work on, just because during his time, Hadlee was pretty much the only real weapon they had. His numbers are inflated slightly due to that.[/quote'] Oh there I would disagree with you SS. Hadlee is perhaps the most successful pace bowler on sub-continent tracks. 68 wickets in 13 tests@22, I would give an arm and a leg for an Indian bowler to have that sort of record on sub-continent. Richard Hadlee was the consummate professional. He knew his limitations and bowled fantastically well. I believe he was the inspiration for Boycott coining the phrase, "corridor of uncertainty". Most, if not all, victory of New Zealand in that era could be put at Hadlee's doorsteps including the famous wins at Leeds and Brisbane. Even towards the end of his career he was good enough to take 10 wickets in India and lead NZ to victory. xxx

[silentstriker]

Oh there I would disagree with you SS. Hadlee is perhaps the most successful pace bowler on sub-continent tracks. 68 wickets in 13 tests@22, I would give an arm and a leg for an Indian bowler to have that sort of record on sub-continent. Richard Hadlee was the consummate professional. He knew his limitations and bowled fantastically well. I believe he was the inspiration for Boycott coining the phrase, "corridor of uncertainty". Most, if not all, victory of New Zealand in that era could be put at Hadlee's doorsteps including the famous wins at Leeds and Brisbane. Even towards the end of his career he was good enough to take 10 wickets in India and lead NZ to victory. xxx

Shrug, I never said anything bad about Hadlee. He was certainly a top five bowler all time. I just said McGrath is slightly better purely as a bowler. McGrath has 30 wickets from 8 tests at 21.30...so he's no mug in India either.

[Predator_05]

NZ was well known to provide absolute green tracks for him to work on' date=' .[/quote'] Hadlee's record away from home is BETTER than his record at home. His averages in AUS, ENG, IND are superb. 86 tests yielding 436 wickets, ie; 5 wickets per test is an amazing return. Sure, HE was NZ's bowling attack but that shouldn't be held against him at all, as the task of putting pressure on the batsmen to dismiss them rested solely upon his own shoulders. Batsmen could see him off and whack the rest, making his task all the more difficult - but in such circumstances, he still took wickets aplenty and at a fantastic average as well. The likes of McGrath for instance, formed a part of a very good four-pronged bowling attack which could create pressure, thereby resulting in easier wickets for him. Look at his tally in context.

[gator]

Hadlee was superior to Mcgrath, plainly because he didnt have any support from the other end.... he could run through sides on his own...

[Lurker]

Shrug' date=' I never said anything bad about Hadlee. He was certainly a top five bowler all time. I just said McGrath is slightly better purely as a bowler. McGrath has 30 wickets from 8 tests at 21.30...so he's no mug in India either.[/quote'] No Mcgrath is no mug in India but 30 wickets in 8 tests is certainly inferior to 31 wickets in 6 tests that Hadlee took in India, not to mention winning a Test match single handedly. Mcgrath also had the added advantage of playing for a great team. In his entire 124 Tests career, out of a possible 248 innings(2 innings per tests) Mcgrath bowled in 244 of them!! In other words almost every test he got a chance to bowl twice. Had Hadlee the same amount of Test as Mcgrath he would end up bowling in 224 innings(a good 20 less) and still end up with 50 plus wickets. xxxx

[silentstriker]

No Mcgrath is no mug in India but 30 wickets in 8 tests is certainly inferior to 31 wickets in 6 tests that Hadlee took in India, not to mention winning a Test match single handedly. Mcgrath also had the added advantage of playing for a great team. In his entire 124 Tests career, out of a possible 248 innings(2 innings per tests) Mcgrath bowled in 244 of them!! In other words almost every test he got a chance to bowl twice. Had Hadlee the same amount of Test as Mcgrath he would end up bowling in 224 innings(a good 20 less) and still end up with 50 plus wickets. xxxx

Hadlee didn't have the attack McGrath did - with Warne, Gillespie, Kasp, etc that took wickets away. The reason Hadlee's wickets/match ratio is so high is simply because he was pretty much the only bowler capable of taking lots of wickets in the team. I don't really see wickets/match as a good indicator of anything unless its absurdly low. If Hadlee had a Warne and Gillespie in his team, I would guarantee he would have same (or less) # wickets as McGrath. People also forget that a larger percentage of wickets that McGrath took have been top order wickets. McGrath took 225 or 40% of his wickets in the top order (top 3), while Hadlee took 158 or 36% of his wickets in the top order. It's not like McGrath couldn't have taken more lower order wickets, but he didn't because he had guys like Warne with him to clean up the tails. No one in modern history has specialized in 'the big wicket' like McGrath. Look at Atherton, poor guy...and Lara and countless others.

[Lurker]

Hadlee didn't have the attack McGrath did - with Warne, Gillespie, Kasp, etc that took wickets away. The reason Hadlee's wickets/match ratio is so high is simply because he was pretty much the only bowler capable of taking lots of wickets in the team. I don't really see wickets/match as a good indicator of anything unless its absurdly low. If Hadlee had a Warne and Gillespie in his team, I would guarantee he would have same (or less) # wickets as McGrath.

I have heard that line of argument before, specially when discussing the merits of all-rounders and discussing merits of Kapil, Imran, Hadlee, Botham as bowlers. While there is an element of truth that being the lead bowler makes sure you get more "piece of action" it also means that there is an enormous pressure to deliver. When a team played India the batsmen knew all they had to do was see through Kapil's spell and milk the other bowlers. Same with Hadlee, see him off and milk Chatfield, Morrisson, Snedden etc etc. Hadlee would not only have to work double hard but also have to come back and pick wickets when the batsmen were set thanks to Kiwi's own bowlers. As for Mcgrath there have been plenty of times when he benefitted enormously by Gillespie. In early 2000 series when India defeated Australia at home Gillespie was the bowler Indians feared most. Mcgrath would use the pressure that Gillespie created. Same with Fleming, Reiffel etc. They were all great bowlers and if anything Mcgrath benefitted by them bowling in tandem, remember that whole - fast bowlers hunt in pairs?? And of course if this all went down then the batsmen had to face Warne. There were so many occassions when opposition would be 60/0 only for Warne to come out and get it to 75/4 and then pacers would go for the kill. Its all subjective SS, you suggest having no quality bowlers helped Hadlee but how can you deny having so many great bowlers helped Mcgrath equally well, if not more. xxx