# 5 for 1966-85 World Test XI

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sobers at 6 IMO, then Knott and four specialist bowlers.

I've gone Border here.

 

[Matt79]

Sobers I think. Sobers was easily a top five batsman all time (Bradman, Tendulkar, Chappell, Sobers, Sir Viv IMO). And definatly should come at five or so, which still means he has enough time to build an innings.

Forget his bowling, his batting alone would catapult him easily into an all time side.

As a bowler in an all time team (or a two-decade team) he won't be doing much bowling. UNLESS something happens (like an injury) or nothing is working (as in you think you need a second spinner), in which case he could act as an extra pace bowler or an extra spin bowler. He would add such great versatility obviously, but he wouldn't be a mainline bowler.

I'm not selling his bowling short, but if Lillee, Khan, Marshall, Hadlee (for example) make it, with Underwood as the spinner....I don't think Sir Gary will get the ball much.

he does offer a left hand option as a quick or a spinner, which adds another string to the attack's bow. Could occasionally be a very useful option. Although i agree his batting merits selection alone.

 

[shortpitched713]

Choosing Sobers at #6 would reduce the bowling stocks for no real appreciable gain in batting strength.

You don't think Miandad's any better than Hadlee, Imran, Botham with the bat?

The way I see it is that we're going to get Sobers anyway, at either 5 or 6, so his talents will not be missed. The question then becomes if one wants 5 specialist quality batsmen with 6 world class bowling options, or 6 specialist quality batsmen with 5 world class bowling options. I lean toward the latter, because I feel that teams generally need more batters than bowlers, and that the 6th bowler would be generally superfluous anyway.

 

[adharcric]

You don't think Miandad's any better than Hadlee, Imran, Botham with the bat?

The way I see it is that we're going to get Sobers anyway, at either 5 or 6, so his talents will not be missed. The question then becomes if one wants 5 specialist quality batsmen with 6 world class bowling options, or 6 specialist quality batsmen with 5 world class bowling options. I lean toward the latter, because I feel that teams generally need more batters than bowlers, and that the 6th bowler would be generally superfluous anyway.

I'm not sure if Sobers' bowling is of the all-time standard, even as a fifth bowler. That's why people are looking towards someone like Imran or Botham as the real fifth bowler and then looking for an extra bonus with Sobers. Perhaps I'm underrating Sobers as a bowler, but having him at #6 would leave the team with 4.5, not 5 all-time quality bowlers.

 

[bagapath]

No, but they do tell a good part of it!

Seriously though, placing Sobers at #5 really aids team balance - as I have been saying for quite a while. It enables you to play Botham (or Imran) at #6, and allows for Hadlee's inclusion at #8 and the flexibility of choice between batsman/bowler (say a spinner)/or another all-rounder (Greig/Imran/Botham) at #12.

Choosing Sobers at #6 would reduce the bowling stocks for no real appreciable gain in batting strength. I have nothing against Miandad and consider him one of the great batsman - but his record against the WI during the period in question is woeful, just terrible. It was only in 1988 that he settled the score with a couple of 100's in WI.

Sobers at #5 would allow a bowling attack of Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee, Botham/Imran, Underwood backed up by Sobers and Richards. The batting would be strong enough too, in fact all the way down to #10 - in fact #11 if Underwood could wield a willow, and I do not know if he could. In any case, Sobers record at #5 is appreciably better than the others.

I know you wanted this change and got it done with this solid argument. i am voting for sobers.

but after doing so much ground work why haven't you voted yet?

 

[bagapath]

BTW, my apologies to border and miandad. they were great. but sobey was just too good a batsman.

SS. I am not sure I agree with your ranking. my top 5 batters of all time would be bradman, hobbs, sobers, richards and hammond . each to his own i guess.

 

[SJS]

BTW, my apologies to border and miandad. they were great. but sobey was just too good a batsman.

SS. I am not sure I agree with your ranking. my top 5 batters of all time would be bradman, hobbs, sobers, richards and hammond . each to his own i guess.

That selection seems as close to perfection as you can get without too much of an arguement I agree too.

 

[Matt79]

I'd go: Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Hammond, and the last is a toss up between Pollock and Richards. Sachin is probably 7 IMO.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Chappell and Richards for me.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond, Viv Richards and Sobers

 

[PhoenixFire]

Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond, Viv Richards and Sobers


As for the point about Sobers in at Number 6, thats where he should bat IMO. I have voted Zaheer Abbas, although nobody else seems to like him, as he has had two voted in the last two polls. Why?

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, Hobbs and Hammond might be up there, but I just find it hard to rate the batting and bowling of that long ago. There is no video of them either. Does it work against them? Unfortunately yes, even though they might deserve a top five ranking. With a few exceptions of course, like Bradman, whose records kind of speak for themselves. Obviously both Hobbs and Hammond would be in the top ten, I just don't know about top five. Though its really hard to argue with them being there obviously.

I'd still personally take a batting lineup of Bradman, Tendulkar, Chappell, Sobers, Richards IMO.

 

[Poker Boy]

Well Javed didn't get in at 4 but I think hr has to play somewhere....and leave No 6 to Sobers...

 

[BhupinderSingh]

None of Imran, Dev or Botham (+Miller) can be classed as genuine allrounders

Neither can be Sobers,so there's been no genuine allrounder in history of cricket then.I believe Imran was better than all other allrounders.And as for as averages are concerned,U may call them unsatisfactory for Botham,Miller & Dev(because they were middle order batsmen while an average of Imran Khan is excellent as he was a lower order batsmen.U simply can't expect an average of 50 or above from someone who bats at # 7 or 8.Moreover,Imran was so good with the bat that he would've made any team of the world on batting alone.He is the best bowler & allrounder ever IMO.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond, Viv Richards and Sobers


As for the point about Sobers in at Number 6, thats where he should bat IMO. I have voted Zaheer Abbas, although nobody else seems to like him, as he has had two voted in the last two polls. Why?

Yes,I'm also surprised by lack of love for Zaheer"The Asian Bradman"Abbas.

 

[silentstriker]

Neither can be Sobers,so there's been no genuine allrounder in history of cricket then.I believe Imran was better than all other allrounders.And as for as averages are concerned,U may call them unsatisfactory for Botham,Miller & Dev(because they were middle order batsmen while an average of Imran Khan is excellent as he was a lower order batsmen.U simply can't expect an average of 50 or above from someone who bats at # 7 or 8.Moreover,Imran was so good with the bat that he would've made any team of the world on batting alone.He is the best bowler & allrounder ever IMO.

Actually Sobers would have made the WI team based on his bowling and fielding alone. So you could say that he was the only all rounder in history, if thats your criteria. I think he averaged around 26 with the ball in his prime years (about a decade in the middle).

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I'd go: Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Hammond, and the last is a toss up between Pollock and Richards. Sachin is probably 7 IMO.

Didn't play enough cricket to deserve a spot in top 20 even.Anyway,my top 5 would be:

Bradman
Lara
Richards
A.Flower
Hobbs

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Actually Sobers would have made the WI team based on his bowling and fielding alone. So you could say that he was the only all rounder in history, if thats your criteria. I think he averaged around 26 with the ball in his prime years (about a decade in the middle).

No way on earth he would've made the WI team with his rubbish spin bowling,but as a medium pacer,he might have been considered.But I think Imran Khan was a better allrounder than him.But then this is my opinion,as everyone has his own & not necessary that its same as yours.

 

[silentstriker]

Didn't play enough cricket to deserve a spot in top 20 even.Anyway,my top 5 would be:

Bradman
Lara
Richards
A.Flower
Hobbs

Flower?

Better batsman than Sachin, Chappell, Hammond, etc?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Actually Sobers would have made the WI team based on his bowling and fielding alone. So you could say that he was the only all rounder in history, if thats your criteria. I think he averaged around 26 with the ball in his prime years (about a decade in the middle).

Tbh I'm not really sure about that. Certainly he was a very fine batsman, but whether someone who averaged 2.32 wickets per match would be?