Asian matchup of Superstars

[zaremba]

snore

 

[asty80]

I suspect this poll is going to end up as "flamboyance vs solidity"

 

[Prince EWS]

As cricketers it has to be the Pakistan trio. Imran was a genuine all-rounder & Wasim a bowling all-rounder. As useful as Sachin's little allsorts and Dravid's occasional keeping are, I reckon you'd take the Pakistan package first.

Yeah, my reasoning too. I think having a three all-time great fast bowlers - one of which is also a genuine batsman and another of which is wouldn't look too out of place batting seven - gives a team a much, much better base to work around than three awesome top order batsmen of similar quality. It's not even so much a batting v bowling thing with me as it is considering the allround qualities of Imran and Wasim.

 

[L Trumper]

Bowlers win matches and add to the fact that two of the pakistanis listed there are genuine all rounders, also they are successful captains compared to indian trio.
I'll guess even most of the indians will chose those 3 ahead of indian trio.

As far as benaud's team considered, thats his opinion besides not placing marshall in the inital pool of 33 i don't think its well thought out either.

 

[Cruxdude]

Will vote for the Pakistani trio. But if they played against each other, would expect it to be pretty even.

 

[marc71178]

Yeah, my reasoning too. I think having a three all-time great fast bowlers - one of which is also a genuine batsman and another of which is wouldn't look too out of place batting seven -

Personally I wouldn't want a fully firing with the ball Imran batting higher than 7 and I certainly wouldn't want Akram there.

 

[Prince EWS]

Personally I wouldn't want a fully firing with the ball Imran batting higher than 7 and I certainly wouldn't want Akram there.

Akram's obviously a bit of a stretch; he's a more than handy #8 though. And I suppose it depends which version of Imran you take exactly.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, the top order batsman who wasn't as much of a force with the ball or the top class bowler who wasn't that great a batsman.

Either way offers more all-round to a team then any of the others mentioned.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, Imran, Wasim, Waqar easily, and thats not a reflection on the Indians, i'd pretty much always take the 3 match winning bowlers, probably would only reconsider if the batters included the Don

I want to say this but I'm slightly concerned that honestbharani will follow me around ranting about how much of an idiot I am if I do.

In any case, Imran's contribution to any cricket team is insane. The presence of an all-rounder really tilts the scales towards the Pakistani trio here.

 

[GotSpin]

Like mentioned before, would take the bowling trio unless the batting held the Don.

 

[Teja.]

If given the choice of only Waqar and Imran(and an average bowler) and 3 excellent Batsmen not named Don Bradman, I'd still take the former.

 

[Xuhaib]

I am confused what are we suppose to judge them on

Looks,Skills or both?

 

[Xuhaib]

anyways I will take the thirdman route and vote based on national bias.

 

[Jono]

Are we taking the players in their peak, or over their careers?

Because I reckon it changes the answer, particularly considering Waqar's injury.

 

[Debris]

All-time World XIs are pretty much a pointless exercise. All they usually do is point out your personal prejudices. I do agree that great bowlers are more useful that great batsmen though.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Got to be the bowlers as they are the ones who win the matches.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, the top order batsman who wasn't as much of a force with the ball or the top class bowler who wasn't that great a batsman.

Either way offers more all-round to a team then any of the others mentioned.

In his peak bowling years (80-88), Imran averaged over 40 with the bat.

Anyways, the bowling trio definitely. Worldclass fast bowlers are more valuable, and I would say rarer, than worldclass batsmen. Take in the all-round qualiities of Imran and it's a lock.

In my opinion, I think a lot of Indian fans would rather trade in their batting trio for the Pakistani bowlers. I could be wrong though.

 

[Thirdman1]

In his peak bowling years (80-88), Imran averaged over 40 with the bat.

Anyways, the bowling trio definitely. Worldclass fast bowlers are more valuable, and I would say rarer, than worldclass batsmen. Take in the all-round qualiities of Imran and it's a lock.

In my opinion, I think a lot of Indian fans would rather trade in their batting trio for the Pakistani bowlers. I could be wrong though.

Despite the fact that Pakistan has won only 1 test series each against OZ, SA,.IND in last 20 years and Pak is yet to win a test series in WI .

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Benaud's World XI
1 Jack Hobbs, 2 Sunil Gavaskar, 3 Don Bradman, 4 Sachin Tendulkar, 5 Viv Richards, 6 Imran Khan, 7 Garfield Sobers, 8 Adam Gilchrist, 9 Shane Warne, 10 Sydney Barnes, 11 Dennis Lillee.
ESPN Best test team
ESPN Legends of Cricket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bradman's world XI
Barry Richards - South Africa
Arthur Morris - Australia
Don Bradman - Australia
Sachin Tendulkar - India
Gary Sobers - West Indies
Don Tallon - Australia
Ray Lindwall - Australia
Dennis Lillee - Australia
Alec Bedser - England
Bill O'Reilly - Australia
Clarrie Grimmett - Australia
12th man:
Wally Hammond - England

I haven't seen a better team by a cricket expert/former cricketer than that Of Richie Benaud's.Only inclusion I don't agree with is Dennis"Greentop Bully"Lillee.
And that of Bradman has to be one of the worst ever by a cricketer.Seems to be a team picked on bias rather than performance & abilities(barring himself ofcourse).May be its a team based on people whom he liked rather than performance & abilities.You can easily name much better substitutes for atleast 6 or 7 of those players.

 

[The Sean]

Don Bradman was perhaps a better cricketer than me but that's easily the worst World XI I've ever seen from a respected commentator, and I think I'm not alone in this . And as it happens he didn't select Sunny.

But yes you're right, some people (and almost all Indian fans) would put Gavaskar and Tendulkar in their all-time world XIs. I'm not sure I would.

Agreed - not sure what the Don was thinking there, no one has ever really been able to make sense of it. Just a diabolically long tail.

I haven't seen a better team by a cricket expert/former cricketer than that Of Richie Benaud's.Only inclusion I don't agree with is Dennis"Greentop Bully"Lillee.
And that of Bradman has to be one of the worst ever by a cricketer.Seems to be a team picked on bias rather than performance & abilities(barring himself ofcourse).May be its a team based on people whom he liked rather than performance & abilities.You can easily name much better substitutes for atleast 6 or 7 of those players.

Richie's was a good one (baffling lack of love for WI quicks notwithstanding) but personally the one I agree with most is Geoff Armstrong's team that he picked in his 100 greatest cricketers book:

Hobbs
Grace
Bradman
Tendulkar
Pollock
Sobers
Gilchrist
Imran
Warne
Marshall
Barnes

Pollock the only one of those I would replace, IMHO.