• 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.

Deceased XI vs. Living XI

Who would win the ultimate grudge match?


  • Total voters
    38

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Now, what if the two XIs played a 12 match series, with the conditions and equipment from every decade (e.g, pitches, bats, pads, etc). So they play the first game in 1895, 1905,1915.....2005. Which one would come out ahead?

I'd say the dead would win 10-2 or 9-3.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
TBH,they're pretty close,I rate Mrshall the third ever which puts him behind Imran & Hadlee.
Wow, I did not know that your species existed. I thought it was completely unanimous that Marshall was by far the best quick ever to have lived.

*checks name*

Ah a Pak fan. Never mind.
 

Shaggy Alfresco

State Captain
Cannot believe there is a debate about this. Bradman + Hobbs + Marshall + Barnes = large victories. Especially on sticky wickets, the living XI would be like rabbits in a headlight playing on those.
 
Wow, I did not know that your species existed. I thought it was completely unanimous that Marshall was by far the best quick ever to have lived.

*checks name*

Ah a Pak fan. Never mind.
Yes a Pak fan but you shouldn't jump to making opinions about persons that quickly.I might be a great fan of Imran but I'm also the person who criticizes Pakistan team & bash the players the most.Spend more time here & you'd come to know that I have fairly valid statistical or other reasons for whatever I say about certain players.There's nothing wrong in saying Imran was a better bowler than Marshall as both were pretty close ut Imran was just better IMO because he played in more much more difficult conditions & did much more for his team than Marshall did.That was as a bowler but as an allrounder & overall cricketer:
Imran>>>Marshall
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Bradman really makes the difference noticable, otherwise it would be very close.
 

Olwe

School Boy/Girl Captain
Cannot believe there is a debate about this. Bradman + Hobbs + Marshall + Barnes = large victories. Especially on sticky wickets, the living XI would be like rabbits in a headlight playing on those.
With just Hobbs, Bradmen and Len Hutton you will need to have something amazing to get the out and the rest of teh team is of the quaitly and with teh bowling you might argue with muithmithan and warne but the Jim laker who is one of the best and in my opinion is the best spin bowler ever.
 

Shaggy Alfresco

State Captain
With just Hobbs, Bradmen and Len Hutton you will need to have something amazing to get the out and the rest of teh team is of the quaitly and with teh bowling you might argue with muithmithan and warne but the Jim laker who is one of the best and in my opinion is the best spin bowler ever.
Is this some kind of wind-up?
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Wow, I did not know that your species existed. I thought it was completely unanimous that Marshall was by far the best quick ever to have lived.

*checks name*

Ah a Pak fan. Never mind.
Its not unanimous by any means though, don't know where you got that idea. Although Imran is not a particularly popular candidate for best seamer of all time, one must admit.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Yes a Pak fan but you shouldn't jump to making opinions about persons that quickly.I might be a great fan of Imran but I'm also the person who criticizes Pakistan team & bash the players the most.Spend more time here & you'd come to know that I have fairly valid statistical or other reasons for whatever I say about certain players.There's nothing wrong in saying Imran was a better bowler than Marshall as both were pretty close ut Imran was just better IMO because he played in more much more difficult conditions & did much more for his team than Marshall did.That was as a bowler but as an allrounder & overall cricketer:
Imran>>>Marshall
Marshall played well in all conditions though, including in the subcontinent. Not sure how you can hold it against him for not playing so many games there. :huh:
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
The talk of Imran's difficult conditions is not a perfect argument. Abrasive outfield plays a part in reverse swing does it not? Reverse swing was one of Imran's main weapons was it not? This makes him a particularly genius bowler but does not necessarily make him better then figures suggest.

"It's not the cards you are dealt, it is how you use them."
 

Top