# 3 for 1946-2006 World Test XI

[PhoenixFire]

He may think it is a bit of a travesty if Walcott goes vote-less.

 

[archie mac]

He may think it is a bit of a travesty if Walcott goes vote-less.

Yes that is it, any man who can score 5 tons in one series against Miller, Lindwall and Johnston is a fair player, and does not deserve to go voteless.

And as my vote would have had no bearing on the final result I would have given one to the greatest batsman/wk

 

[oz_fan]

Viv Richards

 

[Anil]

viv by a mile...

 

[aussie]

Richards

 

[bagapath]

i've gone for viv. it is probably because i grew up watching him as the all-conquering champion batter. ponting's numbers (and walcott's) are better than his. but still richards deserved to be pencilled down in this team as early as possible for earning the respect of great fast bowlers and spinners alike. punter still has a point to prove against quality spin. walcott's record looks fabulous but the other two guys were lucky enough to play longer and prove their longevity by maintaining a 50 + average over 100 tests. very very tough call. but it had to be viv for me.

and i hope we select sobers at 6 and allow two more great champions in the middle order. if we select four bowlers of the highest quality then sobers is more than enough as the fifth bowler.

 

[Perm]

Viv Richards

 

[cover drive man]

I say ponting because I havn't seen the others.

 

[Poker Boy]

Sir Vivian Richards.

 

[aussie tragic]

This polls a bit harsh on Clyde Walcott actually as if you remove the 15 tests that he played as wicket-keeper, his record is as follows:

Walcott: 29 tests, 2910 runs @ 64.66, (12/11), HS 220

So this means he scored over 100 runs per test, plus his average would be the 2nd best in history (for > 40 innings)......only Bradman beats him on this record I think...

 

[Beleg]

All three are all-time greats.

I'll vote for Ponting, because, to be honest, I never got to watch Richards in him pomp and Ponting is an amazing batsman to watch.

Also, Weekes > Walcott, IMO.

 

[PhoenixFire]

All three are all-time greats.

I'll vote for Ponting, because, to be honest, I never got to watch Richards in him pomp and Ponting is an amazing batsman to watch.

Also, Weekes > Walcott, IMO.

Richards was better to watch, trust me.

 

[shortpitched713]

You've watched Richards play live?

 

[silentstriker]

Richards was better to watch, trust me.

I thought you were 14 mate . Cause I'm 22 and I haven't watched him live. Seen DVDs but thats about all.

 

[PhoenixFire]

You've watched Richards play live?

I wish

Well, not straight for me, but my dear old father has, and heard from many credible sources, that he was one of, if not the, best player to watch.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No one touches Richards as a batsman to watch. His Test average of 50 doesn't do his talent justice, it probably shows up the slight flaws in his character in that especially in the later years he wasn't prepared to play himself in. Some say he got bored or had lapses in concentration, which again is a flaw in his character. When he was still not established in the West Indies side he looked capable of batting forever especially against England in 1976 when he made over 800 runs in 4 Tests. I enjoy watching Ponting bat but he's not in the same league as Richards.

 

[Slifer]

IMO Richard's stats look as they do because he went way past his selling date.

 

[Ikki]

Punter for pretty much the same reasons as SS.