Cricket Web All Time World XI

[Blaze]

Andrew Flintoff

Nice.

 

[Clarence]

Lara followed by S. Waugh

 

[C_C]

But even then players couldn't make a living from cricket, so how can you question their commitment? Players from Sutcliffe's era made far greater sacrifices on tour.

Please - players in the 60s were far more consumate professionals than players in the 20s and 30s. Gentlemen or players is irrelevant, whats relevant is that it was not a profession and neither was there much intensity to the game ( heck man, how serious competition do you think it is when batsmen whine about bowlers bowling a googly as cheating ??)

Bloated as it may be, it was still intense cricket. I'm struggling to find a modern day equivalent.

I would face bodyline - without a helmet- any day of the week over facing the WI four-prong in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. I would rather have one ordinary fast bowler and two medium pacers bowling leg stump to me than Holding, Garner, Roberts, Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Patterson etc. bowling searing pace and bouncers all the time.
Same stuff, far better quality.

Unless you wish to contend that there were no good bowlers in a twenty year span of first class cricket, I don't see how a player whose Test average never dropped below 60 can have his record denigrated on the basis that cricket wasn't egalitarian enough for you.

So tell me, which fast bowler in Sutcliffe's era would you pick before Imran, Holding, Marshall, Lillee, Garner, Thommo, Waqar, Imran, Akram, Donald, Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Hadlee, Pollock, Kapil, Botham, Hall, Davidson, Trueman, Pollock, etc. etc.
Lets hear the names and the reason please.

You are arguing for the sake of it and that too, flying into face of basic reasoning - everything, from sports, to science to technology- all of them have evolved and become more advanced as time has gone by - obviously its not one steady graph- you will have little ups and downs but the overall curvature is towards up - so how can 80 years old stuff compare to modern stuff is beyond me.

Based on what you've written, I don't see how you can make a concession for Bradman, whilst making it seem like Sutcliffe & Hobbs played in the 19th century.

I think every single cricketer,including Bradman- from that era would struggle to maintain their average in the professional era, given that they would be facing a tougher test. I dunno how much but i think there would be a noticable difference - maybe 20-30 % drop in performance. With Bradman, he is so far ahead that with any drop, he'd still come out ahead comfortably. With Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Hammond, etc., where their record is not much better than modern stalwarts, i seriously doubt they would be averaging over 50 in the modern era.

It stands to reason that cricket wasn't as athletic in Sutcliffe's era, but that doesn't mean Sutcliffe was the breezy player that Trumper was -- quite the opposite from all accounts. After all, Sutcliffe is renowned for his footwork & using a dead bat on treacherous pitches. Hardly a blazon approach to cricket.

Breezy or not, i am sure its easier to score runs if you got people trotting to the ropes and know nothing about diving or attacking the ball than scoring runs against Jonty Rhodes.

 

[a massive zebra]

Hammond most definitely.

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

King Viv.

 

[andyc]

I would face bodyline - without a helmet- any day of the week over facing the WI four-prong in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. I would rather have one ordinary fast bowler and two medium pacers bowling leg stump to me than Holding, Garner, Roberts, Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Patterson etc. bowling searing pace and bouncers all the time.
Same stuff, far better quality.

How do you know this? What are you basing your judgements on? I'm sure Larwood was anything but ordinary.

 

[C_C]

How do you know this? What are you basing your judgements on? I'm sure Larwood was anything but ordinary.

So you would rather have Larwood than Holding/Ambrose/Marshall/Garner/Walsh/Bishop/Roberts ?

Short-pitched bowling into the body- thats a tactic that was rampant in the 70s and 80s and i think i would rather go with a professional bowling attack on covered pitches averaging 20-21 against professional batsmen than an amatuer bowling attack, led by two pacers and trundlers on uncovered wickets who struggle to average below 25.

 

[NZTailender]

Dravid at 5.

 

[Jono]

Brian Lara at 5.

 

[Dasa]

Lara.

 

[R_D]

Lara for me

 

[steds]

Hammond

 

[honestbharani]

Lara, obviously.

 

[Deja moo]

Chappell ( Other choices: Dravid, Waugh and Lara)

 

[Blaze]

Lara looking good here. Still plenty of time to vote. Just under 8 hours.

 

[The Baconator]

Well I tried to vote for him before, so Viv's my pick.

 

[Jason_M]

Too much of a sympathy vote for Lara here....

Lara is not a number 5, he lost his battle with Tendulkar and Bradman for the number 3 and 4 so move on and vote someone that has played alot of cricket at 5.

 

[roseboy64]

Too much of a sympathy vote for Lara here....

Lara is not a number 5, he lost his battle with Tendulkar and Bradman for the number 3 and 4 so move on and vote someone that has played alot of cricket at 5.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Lara's more capable of playing at number 5 than Tendulkar that's why it went like that. People want to have all three in their middle order so the best solution is Bradman, Tendulkar then Lara.

 

[roseboy64]

Lara

 

[grecian]

Viv Richards, the master-blaster, with thoughts for Hammond, Hendren and Dravid.