ESPNcricinfo World XI

[Days of Grace]

If you look closely at Compton's strike-rate for innings where balls faced are available, you might find that he scored a lot slower (in tests anyway) than what some people may have been led to believe.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Is there a reason all these players have played in recent times

Not really.Why?Anything wrong with the eleven?Doesn't look too bad to me.I reckon my side would give any side(from the remaining players,not cricinfo's world and second eleven)a run for their money.

 

[GotSpin]

Not really.Why?Anything wrong with the eleven?Doesn't look too bad to me.I reckon my side would give any side(from the remaining players,not cricinfo's world and second eleven)a run for their money.

I was just wondering if you had any philosophy against players you hadn't seen or something.

 

[bagapath]

If you look closely at Compton's strike-rate for innings where balls faced are available, you might find that he scored a lot slower (in tests anyway) than what some people may have been led to believe.

I have seen that before D.O.G.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

they have that stat available for only about 15% of his knocks. compton scoring at 40 (and peter may at 37) looks weird to me. he is more likely to have batted at sachin, g.chappell, langer kind of pace, that is at about 52-54 runs/100 balls, if you go by the minutes he had spent at the crease and the runs he had scored during his big knocks.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I was just wondering if you had any philosophy against players you hadn't seen or something.

Na mate,nothing like that.In hindsight I could have gone for G.Pollock in place of Ponting,Dravid or Kallis,but still a solid side nonetheless.

 

[aussie]

Just a few things on the selections of Hobbs, Gilchrist & Akram in the ESPN World XI:

Firstly my replacments instead of them would have been Gavaskar, Knott & Imran.

Hobbs: With all pre-war batsmen except of Bradman, Hammond, Headley (McCabe to a level). Reservations should always be made when picking such batsmen. Given that it was a totally different world of cricket some pre war & 19th centurty batsmen encountered. So to expect them to be just as good in hypotetical match is wishful thinking.


If Mike Atherton could score runs solid hundreds againts great bowlers of the 90s & its clear he wasn't half the talent of a Jack Hobbs. Its not impossible to expect batsmen of the past to score runs in hypotetical match-ups.

But just that clearly it will take them a while to adapt. So lets say in a series England All-time toured the West Indies, you wouldn't expect Hobbs in conditions he never faced in his career to be dominating. He would either take a while to adapt or be utterly dominated by the WI pacers. So that would make him & other pre war batsmen like him under similar circumstances an achillies heel in certain circumstances in hypotetical match-ups.

Thus picking a batsman like Gavaskar who played his entire career againts quality pace bowling, is the more safer & logical pick the ESPN world XI to open.


Gilchrist:

Big fan of him & all that i am & given i saw all his tests live his record needs to be put into proepr context. Gilchirst was one the prime benefactors of the flat pitches of the 2000s era. Gilchrist post his 2005 Ashes failure. Between Pakistan 99/00 to NZ 2005, without a doubt plundered joke attacks on flat decks worldwide. Its just given the rate he scored his rus @ excited people & was better than other FTB from around the world during that timeline.

But in Ashes 05 it was the first time Gilly encountered a quality pace attack & Flintoff was the first bowler after 6 years to expose a technical flaw in his game againts the quicks - with that around the wicket line. That exposure was further conitnued by the Ntini/Nel when AUS played SA in 6 tests in 05/06 as well.

Based on that i've always been of the view that if between 99-05 more quality pace attacks where present & Gilly technical flaw againts the quicks was exposed earlier. Gilchrsit would not have average 60+ as he did for the majority of his career. He may have played the odd the odd destructive innings - but certainly not @ a 50-60+ average.

So as i presume the selectors are picking Gilly for the extra runs he could give @ # 7. Thats not wise at all IMO, given i cannot see him avergaing 50+ againts a consistent barrage of quality pace & spin bowling attacks.

Thus with that extra runs unlikely to come from Gilly. Its safer to go for the best glovesman ever & Knott fits the criteria.


Akram:

Obviously the logic behind Akram selection is basically due to variety he gives the attack based on the fact that he is left-armer. Along with the hypotetical notion that @ his peak Akram could be just as deadly as Imran, Hadlee, McGrath, Donald, Ambrose on his day, although those guys had more roundred records worldwide than him. A reasoning i can accept, since i pick my AT team like that in general.

But Imran should still be ahead of him as the best bowling all-rounder of All-time, batting @ # 7.

 

[smash84]

Just a few things on the selections of Hobbs, Gilchrist & Akram in the ESPN World XI:

Firstly my replacments instead of them would have been Gavaskar, Knott & Imran.

Hobbs: With all pre-war batsmen except of Bradman, Hammond, Headley (McCabe to a level). Reservations should always be made when picking such batsmen. Given hat it was a totally different world of cricket some post war & 19th centurty batsmen encountered. So to expect them to be just as good in hypotetical match is wishful thinking.


If Mike Atherton could score runs solid hundreds againts great bowlers of the 90s & its clear he wasn't half the talent of a Jack Hobbs. Its not impossible to expect batsmen of the past to score runs in hypotetical match-ups.

But just that clearly it will take them a while to adapt. So lets say in a series England All-time toured the West Indies, you wouldn't expect Hobbs in conditions he never faced in his career to be dominating. He would either take a while to adapt or be utterly dominated by the WI pacers. So that would make him & other pre war batsmen like him under similar circumstances an achillies heel in certain circumstances in hypotetical match-ups.

Thus picking a batsman like Gavaskar who played his entire career againts quality pace bowling, is the more safer & logical pick the ESPN world XI to open.


Gilchrist:

Big fan of him & all that i am & given i saw all his tests live his record needs to be put into proepr context. Gilchirst was one the prime beneifactors of the flat pitches of the 2000s era. Gilchrist post his 2005 Ashes failure. Between Pakistan 99/00 to NZ 2005, without a doubt plundered joke attacks on flat decks worldwide. Its just given the rate he scored his rus @ excited people & was better than other FTB from around the world during that timeline.

But in Ashes 05 it was the first time Gilly encountered a quality pace attack & Flintoff was the first bowler after 6 years to expose a technical flaw in his game againts the quicks - with that around the wicket line. That exposure was further conitnued by the Ntini/Nel when AUS played SA in 6 tests in 05/06 as well.

Based on that i've always been of the view that if between 99-05 more quality pace attacks where present & Gilly technical flaw againts the quicks was exposed earlier. Gilchrsit would not have average 60+ as he did for the majority of his career. He may have played the odd the odd destructive innings - but certainly not @ a 50-60+ average.

So as i presume the selectors are picking Gilly for the extra runs he could give @ # 7. Thats not wise at all IMO, given i cannot see him avergaing 50+ againts a consistent barrage of quality pace & spin bowling attacks.

Thus with that extra runs unlikely to come from Gilly. Its safer to go for the best glovesman ever & Knott fits the criteria.


Akram:

Obviously the logic behind Akram selection is basically due to variety he gives the attack based on the fact that he is left-armer. Along with the hypotetical notion that @ his peak Akram could be just as deadly as Imran, Hadlee, McGrath, Donald, Ambrose on his day, although those guys had more roundred records worldwide than him. A reasoning i can accept, since i pick my AT team like that in general.

But Imran should still be ahead of him as the best bowling all-rounder of All-time, batting @ # 7.

Well written. Although I must say that I have not seen Knott's keeping but I am not sure how big is the gap between Gilly's and Knott's keeping. Was Knott marginally better or head and shoulders above Gilly as a keeper???? The difference in their batting seems quite heavily in favor of Gilchrist even if we accept that Gilly was a flat track bully. And Gilly's keeping wasn't as bad as some people make it out to be.

 

[aussie]

Well written. Although I must say that I have not seen Knott's keeping but I am not sure how big is the gap between Gilly's and Knott's keeping. Was Knott marginally better or head and shoulders above Gilly as a keeper???? The difference in their batting seems quite heavily in favor of Gilchrist even if we accept that Gilly was a flat track bully. And Gilly's keeping wasn't as bad as some people make it out to be.

I have seen Knott keep except for highlights & various videos. But if you read up on him & listen to what those who played with him speaking about his keeping to Underwood on a wet wicket for eg. Its pretty clear as pure glovesman Knott>>>Gilchrist. But Gilly was certainly a quality keeper.

Although Gilly is probably a slighly better batsman than Knott. The difference is batting basically is due to all the easy runs Gilly got againts joke pace attacks which enabled him to average 60 @ during the peak point of his career between PAK 99 - NZ. If you looked at his record againts quality spin in the subcontinent in that 99-05 period on his tours to IND & SRI - he just averaged 31.

If he had to face a consistent set of quality quicks in that period, i strongly believe his average would have been similar to his record againts quality spin as shown above. With him playing the odd shot gun innings mixed with alot of low scores between. But his average wouldn't have been anywhere close to 50 IMO, which would be the tie breaker in the picking him over a pure glovesman like Knott in a ATXI.

 

[smash84]

I have seen Knott keep except for highlights & various videos. But if you read up on him & listen to what those who played with him speaking about his keeping to Underwood on a wet wicket for eg. Its pretty clear as pure glovesman Knott>>>Gilchrist. But Gilly was certainly a quality keeper.

Although Gilly is probably a slighly better batsman than Knott. The difference is batting basically is due to all the easy runs Gilly got againts joke pace attacks which enabled him to average 60 @ during the peak point of his career between PAK 99 - NZ. If you looked at his record againts quality spin in the subcontinent in that 99-05 period on his tours to IND & SRI - he just averaged 31.

If he had to face a consistent set of quality quicks in that period, i strongly believe his average would have been similar to his record againts quality spin as shown above. With him playing the odd shot gun innings mixed with alot of low scores between. But his average wouldn't have been anywhere close to 50 IMO, which would be the tie breaker in the picking him over a pure glovesman like Knott in a ATXI.

And I am not too sure about the variety argument with Wasim. I mean Imran could still do a lot of things that Wasim could with the ball. People tend to forget that Imran was a master of reverse swing too. He was the one who passed it on to the 2 Ws and could be quite lethal with it himself. And with Sobers in the team as somebody who could bowl left arm seam I don't see where the variety part comes in.

I feel Imran deserved a place in that XI and not Wasim.

 

[aussie]

And I am not too sure about the variety argument with Wasim. I mean Imran could still do a lot of things that Wasim could with the ball. People tend to forget that Imran was a master of reverse swing too. He was the one who passed it on to the 2 Ws and could be quite lethal with it himself. And with Sobers in the team as somebody who could bowl left arm seam I don't see where the variety part comes in.

I feel Imran deserved a place in that XI and not Wasim.

Agreed all the way.

 

[GotSpin]

J

Hobbs: With all pre-war batsmen except of Bradman, Hammond, Headley (McCabe to a level). Reservations should always be made when picking such batsmen. Given that it was a totally different world of cricket some pre war & 19th centurty batsmen encountered. So to expect them to be just as good in hypotetical match is wishful thinking.


If Mike Atherton could score runs solid hundreds againts great bowlers of the 90s & its clear he wasn't half the talent of a Jack Hobbs. Its not impossible to expect batsmen of the past to score runs in hypotetical match-ups.

But just that clearly it will take them a while to adapt. So lets say in a series England All-time toured the West Indies, you wouldn't expect Hobbs in conditions he never faced in his career to be dominating. He would either take a while to adapt or be utterly dominated by the WI pacers. So that would make him & other pre war batsmen like him under similar circumstances an achillies heel in certain circumstances in hypotetical match-ups.

Thus picking a batsman like Gavaskar who played his entire career againts quality pace bowling, is the more safer & logical pick the ESPN world XI to open.

Same for other batsmen that you just transfer from one generation to another isn't it. A great batsmen is a great batsmen - I'm sure had Hobbs, considering all the thousands of runs he scored, played in a modern day era, he would have been just as good.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, or you'd have to figure out how the modern batsman would do in Hobbs era with the pitches, equipment, etc.

Either way, someone is going to get the short end of the stick.

 

[sifter132]

Agree. If you put Hobbs in a time machine and transported him to the present for just one match, then yeah he might struggle but if you transferred his whole career, gave him access to modern facilities, better training methods and better equipment, then I can't see any reason why he wouldn't be able to cope. That's why I think the whole 'they wouldn't cope on with today's pitches' or 'they wouldn't have been able to play on sticky dogs' type arguments are a little pointless to me. You can only impress with what you had to work with and Hobbs was clearly better than his peers. That's enough for me. Otherwise we can play hypotheticals all day.

 

[Maximus0723]

Two things holding my decision on Wasim,

One, how much did Paks bad fielding average into his overall bowling average? and,
Of his wickets what proportion were tailenders?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I am inclined to pick McGrath over Lillee. McGrath has proven himself in different and tougher conditions. He also is someone who seems to get many top order batsman out. Also Lillee played in more bowler friendly conditions.

 

[smash84]

Two things holding my decision on Wasim,

One, how much did Paks bad fielding average into his overall bowling average? and,
Of his wickets what proportion were tailenders?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I am inclined to pick McGrath over Lillee. McGrath has proven himself in different and tougher conditions. He also is someone who seems to get many top order batsman out. Also Lillee played in more bowler friendly conditions.

Well.....Pak fielding has always been bad......I remember once Wasim was on a hattrick and a simple chance came to Imran at mid on and he dropped it........

I don't remember exactly but I think that I remember reading that more than a quarter of his wickets were tailenders........not sure if I remember correctly........the percentage was lower for Waqar and Imran (this much I recall for sure)

 

[Maximus0723]

How much lower?

 

[vcs]

Ridiculous to call Gilchrist a flat-track bully. Absolutely ridiculous. So he declined towards the end of his career, so what?

 

[aussie]

Same for other batsmen that you just transfer from one generation to another isn't it. A great batsmen is a great batsmen - I'm sure had Hobbs, considering all the thousands of runs he scored, played in a modern day era, he would have been just as good.

Well, or you'd have to figure out how the modern batsman would do in Hobbs era with the pitches, equipment, etc.

Either way, someone is going to get the short end of the stick.

Agree. If you put Hobbs in a time machine and transported him to the present for just one match, then yeah he might struggle but if you transferred his whole career, gave him access to modern facilities, better training methods and better equipment, then I can't see any reason why he wouldn't be able to cope. That's why I think the whole 'they wouldn't cope on with today's pitches' or 'they wouldn't have been able to play on sticky dogs' type arguments are a little pointless to me. You can only impress with what you had to work with and Hobbs was clearly better than his peers. That's enough for me. Otherwise we can play hypotheticals all day.

Totally DWTA TBF.

Firslty from you start talking about non-existant things like "time machines" haa to defend pre war (1900-1939) batsmen except of Bradman, Hammond, Chapell, McCabe. You are going to far IMO.

Cricket has been of a very similar style & standard since the 1950s:

- A regular diet of two of quality new-ball bowlers of the 80-90 mph vs openers in most teams

- change in the lbw rule.

- Introduction of helmets

- elimination of timeless tests

- 6 ball pers over in all natiosn except for AUS in the 60s & 70s

- No uncovered wickets, except the last phase of it in England during the 60s.

All Has been very consistent in test cricket for more than 60 years now. So i'd say comparing players across era's in the last 60 years can be easily done. I can see no difference between comparing from the 1950s to 90s in terms of standard of cricket.

You can't compare post-war (1900-1939) to (1950s-1990s). Given for example uncovered wickets where present & lack of much quality pace attacks for batsmen. But taking out the uncovered wickets part & timeless test of 1900-1939 to the 2000-2009 its comparable given the lack of quality bowling present & the flat pitches. So there is absolutely no reason to bring up talk of time-machines - just use scenarios players encountered as a guide. You dont want to recreating players careers.

Thats why i always say when people pick these All-time XI. You have to decide what you picking these teams for. If its a wall of fame XI to hang or your wall, then the likes of Trumper, Barnes etc would be given their record & impact on the game.

But if its a hypotetical match-up where you are putting pre-war batsmen to face some of the greatest bowlers & all-time (Hobbs, Trumper, Sutcliffe). Or batsman who would be free from the unfair advantage of batting on uncovered wickets when facing such bowlers such as(Barnes, Johhny Blythe etc). Then pre-war (1900-1939) players cannot be compared to post war (1945-2000) players given they played totally different era of cricket, when the trends & styles of cricket was different as i showed above. Such players become immediate achillies heels to your teams, since it would extremely naive to expect them to do well, againts bowlers (90 mph, reverse-swing bowlers) or bowlers who didn't have to unfair advantage of uncovered wickets, to bowl equally well in modern times. (last 60 years).

A bowler like Derek Underwood, lost ALOT of effectiveness (although he was still very good) in the 70s when uncovered wickets basically ceased to exist. That in itself proves how diffcult in a hypotetical ATXI match it would be for the likes of Barnes etc to adjust to modern day standards of the last 50 years.

As gideon Haigh suggested in this article: All-time World XI: Gideon Haigh on all-time XIs | All-time XIs | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

Questions nag. Under whose conditions would games be played? Would the pitch be uncovered? Would the Test be timeless? Whose lbw and no-ball law would be in force? Whose equipment would be in use? Imagine Garry Sobers with one of those modern bats that picks up like a swizzle stick but makes contact like a mace. Above all, in whose world, and according to whose values, would the team mobilise? Would Victor Trumper wish to play in a team listening to Javed Miandad sledge? Would Jack Hobbs be capable of maintaining the team omerta about Shane Warne's SMS habits?.

Old players could/should get to use modern batting equipment for example without a doubt. That would help them presuming they get time to adjust in a few practice matches before the real test matches begin.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd still be pretty close to picking Gilchrist if he averaged closer to 40, because he's shown the ability to regularly turn innings around when in trouble, and because he takes the game away from the opposition so quickly, and I think that's a luxury that we can afford to have in an All Time XI with the quality above him.

 

[aussie]

Ridiculous to call Gilchrist a flat-track bully. Absolutely ridiculous. So he declined towards the end of his career, so what?

Gilchrist test batting didn't decline. His technical flaws @ the back end of his career, starting from Ashes 05 where exposed for the 1st time in his career after dominating joke pace attacks on roads (excepet for in NZ 2000 & Darwin 04) between PAK 99 - NZ 05. He decline in run scoring was due to him not finding away to counter that around the wicket tactic bowlers discovered.

I saw all of Gilchrist's test live & almost every ball. Based on those back end of his career struggles with quality pace attacks. I see no way he would averaged 50-60 plus if a consistent amount of good pace attacks where present between 99-05. I strongly believe his average would have been similar to his record againts quality spin in which in averaged 31 (In India 2001 & 2004 & in SRI 04. With him playing the odd shot gun innings that could turn a game, mixed with alot of low scores in between.