The pre WW2 batting lineup is seriously disturbing
Cause Slifer said so.........!!!!
Post WWII (alltime):
Lillee/Prasanna (pace/spin wicket)
Those amatuer guys were not used to 90+mph honing in on their heads 3 balls out of six. On the other hand, there wouldn't be much point playing a spinner against those pre-modern guys, unless we played on uncovered wickets. Ones who were used to playing the likes of Grimmett, OReiley, etc. on uncovered wickets would annihilate the likes of Warne/Murali on covered/rolled wickets, no problems.
PS: I gotto say that the purpose of picking an alltime XI is self-defeating for the sport. Whats the point of creating an XI that would bore people by winning 8 outta 10 matches ? Do we really go to watch Australia of the 90s versus Zimbabwe with a sense of excitement or a sense of resignation ?
Its much more productive, IMO, to pick two teams that would be the best for a given era, producing titanic contest that could go either way.
Ironically, both sides ( old amatuers vs the modern side) should turn the conventional 'win toss, bat' on its head. They should both bowl first:
modern ones, because they would kill the oldies first up, then rack up an insane amount of runs against their slow bowlers, then finish off half the oldie team (the ones that are not in hospital from 1st innings barrage from marshall/holding/lillee etc).
Oldies should do the same, because they get the distinct advantage batting on 4th/5th day wickets- the modern wicket deteriorates far less, so their 'zero risk, bash only the pies' leads them to either steadily chase down the target or shut shop for a draw. While bowling first up gives them the maximal effect of using the juciest time on the seaming wicket, restricting the modern greats to a managable score.