Best eleven I've seen
1. Matt Hayden
2. Graeme Smith
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Brian Lara
6. Jacques Kallis
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Dale Steyn
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
11. Glenn McGrath
Want to be the online Don Bradman or Ian Salisbury?
Then join CW Cricket today. It's what all the cool kids desire.
RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012
RIP Hughesy 1988-2014
I guess my general life pessimism stems from the fact I saw my cricket team (Aus) getting thrashed through the 80s, while the Tiges were getting slaughtered by everyone in the footy as well.
For me, behind:
Headley, Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Sobers, Kanhai, Lloyd, Richards, Greenidge, Lara.
Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2
Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4
Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
Personally, I'd have him above Kanhai, Lloyd, Greenidge and perhaps Worrell in that list.
Last edited by Coronis; 25-02-2013 at 04:07 AM. Reason: NOT RICHARDS
Why doesn't Walcott get into many people's AT XIs?
RIP Phil Hughes. Forever 63*
Last edited by watson; 25-02-2013 at 06:39 AM.
1. Len Hutton 2. Jack Hobbs 3. Ted Dexter 4. Peter May 5. Walter Hammond 6. Ian Botham 7. Alan Knott 8. Maurice Tate 9. Hedley Verity 10. John Snow 11. Fred Trueman
There is one player whose stats are really very good yet we tend to rate him below his contemporaries because of a limited look at the aggregate statistics.
No one denies that Frank Worrell was a world class batsman but it is a tendency by a majority of cricket fans to rate him, as a batsman, below the other two 'W's basically because of their career figures which read as under :-
By any and every criteria, the stats appear to show Worrell's performance with the bat as being inferior to that of his illustrious colleagues. This is not borne out by a closer look at these figures.Code:Player Tests Runs 50's 100's Avg Weekes 48 4455 19 15 58.6 Walcott 44 3798 14 15 56.7 Worrell 51 3860 22 9 49.5
While all three of them made their debut in the same year ,1948, they did not play all the series together. Worrell, particularly was unable to play in a few series, mostly because of his personal reasons - generally academic. Plus while Weekes retired in 1958 and Walcott in 1960, Worrell played till 1963 mainly because West Indies needed him to lead them as the first ever black captain of the West Indian cricket team.
The three series that Worrell missed were against the then minnows of Test cricket ;-
- India 1948-49 (5 Tests)
- Newzealand 1955-56 (4 Tests - Only Weekes played in this series)
- Pakistan 1957-58
Its interesting to note the number of runs Weekes and Walcott scored in these three series.
Clearly they made merry against the weak attacks. Take away these three series and the comparative figures of the three W's for 1948-1960 become :-Code:Player Mts Runs 100s 50s Avg Weekes 14 1652 8 4 86.9 Walcott 9 837 3 4 76.1
Thats better but thats not all. There is more to it.Code:Player Mts Runs 100s 50s Avg Weekes 34 2803 7 15 49.2 Walcott 35 2961 12 10 52.9 Worrell 36 3011 9 12 52.8
Walcott and Weekes were absolute butchers on the home tracks which in those years were as true batting wickets as you could get anywhere in the world. However, when playing away from home, these two were reduced to more mortal figures. Here is how the three W's fared at home and away during this period.
The difference is too stark to require any comment and shows the relative batting strengths of the three in true light.Code:Player Mts Runs 100s 50s Avg Weekes-Away 16 838 1 7 28.9 Weekes-Home 18 1965 6 8 70.2 Walcott-Away 14 762 2 3 33.1 Walcott-Home 21 2199 10 7 66.6 Worrell-Away 16 1459 5 5 54.0 Worrell-Home 20 1552 4 7 51.7
As I have always maintained, statistics rarely tell you everything although you can see a bit (just a bit) more out of them if you are willing to look a bit more carefully.
I had always, as a youngster been amazed at how much Worrell's batting was written in glowing terms while the same were not used for his two contemporaries. Then came internet and the ease with which one could look at all statistics in far greater detail and one saw the difference even in the figures - although by all accounts, Worrell's fabulous batting was difficult to capture in numbers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)