How do you think This team would fare?

[C_C]

Eddie Barlow
Vinoo Mankad
Gary Sobers
Jacques Kallis
Keith Miller
Adam Gillchrist(wkt)
Imran Khan (capt)
Ian Botham
Kapil Dev
Richard Hadlee
Ritchie Benaud

 

[Adamc]

I think it's safe enough to say that they would win the majority of their games. Hadlee, Imran, Miller, Kapil Dev, Botham and Benaud is a formidable attack already, without bothering to consider the others. There's only really one 'great' batsman there, but it wouldn't really matter with that sort of depth.

 

[archie mac]

Eddie Barlow
Vinoo Mankad
Gary Sobers
Jacques Kallis
Keith Miller
Adam Gillchrist(wkt)
Imran Khan (capt)
Ian Botham
Kapil Dev
Richard Hadlee
Ritchie Benaud

A team of all-rounders, did I see Tony Greig in their, I was just about to make a comment about him being the weak link, but I think even I could play in this team and still no one would come close to knocking them over.

 

[C_C]

well i had gregie in there due to his batting but decieded that Kallis would be a better bet.

 

[archie mac]

well i had gregie in there due to his batting but decieded that Kallis would be a better bet.

I thought you had him their so the Aussies could par-take in some sledging

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Miller, Hadlee, Imran, Botham... that's as good a pace attack as you will EVER see. Miller is one of the all time great bowlers, as is Hadlee, Imran is only a fraction behind and Botham was pretty damn good as well. I would say that's a better pace attack than any put on the park in test cricket. Add Benaud, Sobers and Mankad for a bit of spin variety, and that's a pretty good batting lineup as well, with the depth being its obvious strength.

Very good side.

 

[C_C]

Imran behind Hadlee ? Yes. Iman behind any other pacer in that group ? No.

 

[Adamc]

Put in Jayasuriya for Mankad, then you'll have the eight major teams covered.

 

[C_C]

Well i dont think Jayasurya qualifies as a genuine allrounder in the side.......
the weakest case is for Kallis, since his bowling is mediocre apart from some brief stints in the past....but i dont think Jaya is anything more than a good part time bowler in Tests.
If i include Jaya, i might as well include Steve Waugh,Tendulkar and Alan Border.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Imran behind Hadlee ? Yes. Iman behind any other pacer in that group ? No.

Imran and Miller are about equal, imo. Miller bowled in an era of massively high scores and flat wickets and achieved a phenomenal average, greatest bowler of his era alongside Lindwall and turned matches regularly. Imran was more of a specialised bowler and carried his attack a bit more.

Hadlee shades both of them, and Botham is just behind both of them, but all four bowlers are all-time greats.

 

[PY]

There's only really one 'great' batsman there, but it wouldn't really matter with that sort of depth.

Would you not say that Kallis is becoming a 'great' batsman with his career so far? 22 centuries is more than enough in my book to get into the upper echelons of cricketing talent.

That's assuming that Sobers is the 'great' you speak of.

 

[C_C]

Imran and Miller are about equal, imo. Miller bowled in an era of massively high scores and flat wickets and achieved a phenomenal average, greatest bowler of his era alongside Lindwall and turned matches regularly.

Imran faced one of the greatest batting lineups in his era and did splendidly.
You'll also find that Imran had significantly less support than miller until the last third of his career.

And Botham the bowler is nowhere close to Imran-Hadlee-Miller.

 

[PY]

And Botham the bowler is nowhere close to Imran-Hadlee-Miller.

I find a comment like that a little difficult to understand. 383 Test wickets isn't doing too badly.

If you look at figures comparatively, Botham more than holds his own. Maybe he is the worst (not IMO) of those four but he's certainly not "nowhere" near them.

 

[C_C]

Put it this way.
Botham is about as much 'near' Imran/Hadlee/Miller as Ntini is to McGrath.

 

[Adamc]

Would you not say that Kallis is becoming a 'great' batsman with his career so far? 22 centuries is more than enough in my book to get into the upper echelons of cricketing talent.

That's assuming that Sobers is the 'great' you speak of.

He probably will be regarded as 'great', I'm just reluctant to give him that label just yet. The main reason is that a number of his contemporaries are regarded as better than him: Lara and Tendulkar (definitely), Dravid and Ponting (probably), and Inzamam (possibly). If he continues to play well once Lara, Tendulkar and co. are gone in a few years, though, he will probably be regarded as one of the greats of his era.

 

[PY]

Ah, think I understand, you're only referring to people being great i.e. relatively peerless and talked about as being the batsmen of the 90s/00s, I guess I was just looking at his record and that compares favourably to most of the people you mention. Not sure why he isn't looked at as one of those people you mention though.

Someone to do with the fact he's only been scoring very very heavily in last two years? How long would he have to keep it up to be regarded as great? I wonder if he was from Australia, India or England he'd be regarded as one of them.

 

[Adamc]

Ah, think I understand, you're only referring to people being great i.e. relatively peerless and talked about as being the batsmen of the 90s/00s, I guess I was just looking at his record and that compares favourably to most of the people you mention. Not sure why he isn't looked at as one of those people you mention though.

Someone to do with the fact he's only been scoring very very heavily in last two years? How long would he have to keep it up to be regarded as great? I wonder if he was from Australia, India or England he'd be regarded as one of them.

I guess that's a large part of it. In fact he was averaging 40 as recently as 2001 - and he had played 50 Tests by that stage. Since then his performances have improved massively though, averaging about 57 now. It will probably be the case that Kallis will be regarded as one of the greats of the '00s' (even though he played a lot in the 90s) while Lara and Tendulkar will be regarded as greats of the 90s (even though they've both played a lot since 2000).

 

[PY]

Guess that's fair enough.

As a sidenote, he's averaged 71 since the the end of 2002.......

Ponting's averaged 73, Dravid 71 and Lara 69.

 

[C_C]

I think Kallis missed the boat in terms of greatness.
I dont just look at the aggregate numbers, i look at the details.
Since 1990, there have been 4 attacks that can be considered great - Australia (post 96), West indies (pre2001), Pakistan(pre2001) and South Africa(pre 2001-02)

Lara played against 3 of them and averaged 27 vs PAK, 35-36 against RSA and 51-52 against AUS.
Tendy played against 4 of them and averaged 37-38 against PAK, 41-42 vs RSA, 57-58 against AUS and 58-59 vs WI

Kallis played 3 of them and averaged under 35 against all of them.

Thats his fundamental blow to greatness as far as i am concerned - inability to consistently produce against the best of the best.

 

[PY]

Does that mean that someone who averages 100 from now until 2008 against the current bowling attacks isn't regarded as great? I know that's extreme situation but you can only wallop what's put in front of you (which Kallis might not have managed).

PS. You missed off England (2004-now) as great bowling attacks.