• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Who is the latest addition to your All-Time XI

Matt79

Global Moderator
Most of us probably have an all-time XI fairly firmly set in our minds - I was wondering, if anyone has changed theirs recently, and what prompted them too? Has anyone done something so outstanding in recent years that they've made it onto your list, and if so, at whose expense?

My eleven is:
Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
Don Bradman
Viv Richards
Victor Trumper
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Shane Warne
Wasim Akram
Malcolm Marshall
Dennis Lillee

Most of these guys played before I was born, and the most recent inclusions are Warne, and Gilchrist, but they were in my team the first time I sat down and seriously worked it out. Trumper is probably the least secure in the team, so there's probably the biggest chance that a mid-order batsman is the next inclusion. Sachin or Lara were close, along with another half a dozen.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Gilchrist, and I'm betting in a few years time Hussey will take Trumper's spot...well in your list.
 

C_C

International Captain
My alltime XI hasnt changed.
I'd still go with:

Gavaskar
Greenidge/Haynes/Langer/Gooch/Boycott
Bradman
Viv
Tendy
Sobers
Gillchrist
Imran
Marshall
Murali
McGrath

Edit : Gillchrist and Murali have been there for the last 4 years IIRC and i guess you could call them the most recent additions 'relatively speaking'.
 
Last edited:

a massive zebra

International Captain
My XI would read:

J Hobbs
S Gavaskar
D Bradman*
G Pollock
W Hammond
G Sobers
A Gilchrist+
Imran Khan
M Marshall
M Muralitharan
S Barnes

So I guess Gilchrist must have been the most recent addition.
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
1.Hobbs
2.Gavaskar
3.Bradman
4.Tendulkar
5.Headley
6.Sobers
7.Gilchrist
8.Warne
9.Lillee
10.Marshall
11Barnes

Barnes and Headley are recent additions
 

adharcric

International Coach
I've noticed that so many of you have guys like Hobbs, Bradman, Pollock, Trumper, etc. in your all-time XIs. I'm pretty sure most of you have never watched them play. So basically these all-time XIs are being made all based on what you've heard and statistics ... which can lie. I'm not saying they're incorrect, but just getting skeptical about it. Even I put Bradman in my all-time XIs without having a clue why he was so great, just because he's "supposed" to be the greatest. I'd like someone to come out and explain why they actually so great .. Hobbs, Bradman, Pollock, Trumper, other guys that have been named.
 

C_C

International Captain
adharcric said:
I've noticed that so many of you have guys like Hobbs, Bradman, Pollock, Trumper, etc. in your all-time XIs. I'm pretty sure most of you have never watched them play. So basically these all-time XIs are being made all based on what you've heard and statistics ... which can lie. I'm not saying they're incorrect, but just getting skeptical about it. Even I put Bradman in my all-time XIs without having a clue why he was so great, just because he's "supposed" to be the greatest. I'd like someone to come out and explain why they actually so great .. Hobbs, Bradman, Pollock, Trumper, other guys that have been named.

I think Bradman is the greatest simply because the stats he achieved are mindboggling.
It doesnt matter what era you play in or how the intangiables go - if you got stats like Bradman/Pele/Gretsky/Kasparov etc. , you got genuine claims to be considered 'the greatest of alltime'.

As per the rest- many people hold them in high regard as not only were most of them early pioneers, there is a lot of favourable commentary on them from the past. I however, dont rate any of those guys very highly. They were either untested extensively in Test cricket or achieved similar standards to many modern-day greats while playing in an amatuer era of psuedo-professionalism and much higher gaps in quality. As such, my view is, the level of play displayed by them ( which i've seen SOME of from old time tapes and BBC shows in the past) is much inferior to the level of play seen since the 60s until maybe the last few years of several great/good bowlers retiring at once. The pro-oldies camp argue that had those oldies been born in the professional era, they would've adapted but i see that as just guessing - it is NEVER a garantee that someone, no-matter how illustrious- would succeed just as well- even with proper training-if the bar is suddenly raised a few magnitudes.
 

oz_fan

International Regular
My All Time XI
1. Hobbs
2. Gavaskar
3. Bradman
4. Lara
5. Tendulkar
6. Sobers
7. Gilchrist
8. Imran Khan
9. Marshall
10. Warne
11. Lillee

Recent - Lara, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, Warne
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
C_C said:
I think Bradman is the greatest simply because the stats he achieved are mindboggling.
It doesnt matter what era you play in or how the intangiables go - if you got stats like Bradman/Pele/Gretsky/Kasparov etc. , you got genuine claims to be considered 'the greatest of alltime'.

As per the rest- many people hold them in high regard as not only were most of them early pioneers, there is a lot of favourable commentary on them from the past. I however, dont rate any of those guys very highly. They were either untested extensively in Test cricket or achieved similar standards to many modern-day greats while playing in an amatuer era of psuedo-professionalism and much higher gaps in quality. As such, my view is, the level of play displayed by them ( which i've seen SOME of from old time tapes and BBC shows in the past) is much inferior to the level of play seen since the 60s until maybe the last few years of several great/good bowlers retiring at once. The pro-oldies camp argue that had those oldies been born in the professional era, they would've adapted but i see that as just guessing - it is NEVER a garantee that someone, no-matter how illustrious- would succeed just as well- even with proper training-if the bar is suddenly raised a few magnitudes.
I'll reply to this, and the question from adharcric that prompted it.

Obviously, as I acknowledged, most of these people played cricket before I was old enough to appreciate them, if I was born at all. So, speaking purely personally, my inclusion of them is based on a combination of their stats, and the testimonials of eye-witnesses. Obviously any stat, or any eye-witness account can and will mislead in isolation. Like any historical research, the challenge is to review as many divergent sources as possible to arrive at as much of the truth as you can.

As to your points, which I think can be summarised as: the standard of play was much lower previously, say before WWI or between the wars, for instance, than in the last 20 years. I don't think this is a valid argument, though really there's no way to prove it. I think the qualities of hand-eye coordination, concentration, and desire to excell haven't changed over the last 200 years. I think somebody with those qualities would do well whenever in time you relocated them. Obviously there is a degree of luck in any successful career, in terms of getting a big break, or meeting a particular mentor, but I think for the purposes of this kind of list its only fair to make the assumption that those things stay constant. I think you need to also assume that Trumper, Grace, Hobbs, etc would today have coaching, training, and a professional fitness regime. Otherwise, you can ponder how Lara would go having to work as a bank clerk 50 hours a week, and negotiate with his boss to have time off to practice and compete, on uncovered pitches.

As to your specific point regarding the 'raising of the bar', I guess regarding the improvements in fitness, the more intensive training and coaching, and the wider varieties of venues and teams, I don't think these make cricket harder than it used to be. If anything, the situation is the reverse, if you look at things like uncovered pitches and the feeble protective equipment by today's standards. The norm is in fact to mentally adjust both batting and bowling averages upwards, recognising that batting generally was harder. Not many people have opted for old time bowlers I note.

You might be right, we'll never know, but I'll continue to have some of the old-timers in the team.
 

Top