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
Windies XI for me:
Greenidge | Headley | Viv | Sobers | Lara | Worrell* | Dujon +| Marshall | Garner | Holding | Ambrose |
With the Aussie XI, the no. 5 slot is such an open position: Waugh, Ponting, Harvey, Border, and McCabe; have never been able to make up my mind on that one. Although safe to say, Border is the last on my list, perhaps because I think that all time teams should be show stealers, and in that respect at least, Ponting, McCabe and Harvey are ahead of Border, and also ahead of Waugh. Waugh's awesomeness in the early 90s was really good though, so I put him up there. Harvey was very good, but I am pretty sure couldn't really be better than Ponting. So, in the end, for me, it comes down to Ponting, Waugh and McCabe. Who would you chose?
Anyways, my England XI:
Hobbs | Sutcliffe | Hutton | Hammond | Barrington | Botham | Prior +| Larwood | Laker | Trueman | Barnes |
I know most of you will look down, shaking your heads, when you read Prior's name on there, but I think his batting is a fantastic add on for a team that has Botham coming in at number 6. Knott's batting was not as good, and I have yet to see keeping howlers from Prior either. I thought of leaving Botham out for a specialist bat at number 6, but that would be doing a disservice to Headingley 81
Last edited by harsh.ag; 09-09-2012 at 09:02 AM.
Frank Wooley / Ian Botham
None of the other teams would be compeditive and would behind even second W.I and Aussie XI's
If you are saying that an India All Time XI wouldn't be competitive, you are completely out of your depth. India has always been exceptionally difficult to defeat at home, even by the best teams in the history of test cricket. I am guessing you made that statement by assuming that fast, seaming pitches are the only pitches on which test cricket should be played. Even then that statement is not true. Anyways, try beating this team on spin friendly pitches:
Gavaskar | Sehwag | Dravid* | Tendulkar | Hazare | Engineer +| Mankad | Dev | Z Khan | Kumble | Prasanna |
Not to offend, Just don't belive that they have the bowling, eapecially away from home, to bowl out any of the top teams.
So btw, what is your World A.T XI
I don't really have a World All Time XI to be honest, but if I had to, then I would take:
B Richards | Gavaskar | Bradman | Viv | Tendulkar | Sobers | Gilly +| Imran | Marshall | Murali | McGrath |
I think this team would do well irrespective of where the match is held. I have taken those batsmen who were good players of both pace and spin. Barry Richards was a good tackler of spin, whereas with Hobbs and Hutton I can't be sure. Likewise with the middle order. Imran, Marshall, McGrath and Murali will do well anywhere in the world too.
Sir Len Hutton brioike Bradman's record with possibly the second greatest spinner ever bowling 87 overs. He was possibly the only batsman who conquered and properly and positivly played Ramadin and Valentine during their peak.
Persons point to Warne's record in India as Murali being better everywhere. A closer look shows that they both struggled in India with Warne averaging 43 compared to Murali's average of 45 and Murali also struggled in Australia averaging 75 (2 series). Even where Murali performed best at home averaging 19 (compared to 27 overseas), Warne's average was similar at 20.
So Warne was equally good everywhere plus was the better batsman, good slip fielder and that great cricketing mind.
Similarily Imran also performed much better at home than away (19 compared to 25) and particularily strugged averaging over 28 in India and Australia. Still makes my team though primarily on his captaincy and importance to Pakistan cricket and he was a great bowler as well.
Just my two cents worth.
Last edited by kyear2; 09-09-2012 at 11:50 AM.
Actually I just prefer Murali as a bowler over Warne. Not much difference, I just think he will take more wickets than Warne on average. Plus, I am pretty sure they will be the first ones to say that the other is the best, so it doesn't make sense to niggle too much. Additionally, I think Warne's great cricketing mind is slightly exaggerated to be honest.
I guess I haven't seen Hutton, so cannot be sure. Barry and Gavaskar were fantastic. Doesn't matter. Pick any two of them.
Last edited by harsh.ag; 09-09-2012 at 11:52 AM.
Well for me Hobbs is an automatic, and with out question the greatest opener ever, Barry just didn't play enough tests for 1st team consideration, though from second on he is a serious contender. Gavaskar for me is just below Hutton as Hutton over came more and was succesful againts better bowling and on more difficult pitches.
And to be fair to Murali, how do you expect any bowler to bowl to his potential when he is being called willy-nilly by the umpires for chucking - referring to the Australian performance. And Murali's record of India was ruined in only his last series, before that he averaged in the mid 30s there. On the other hand, Warne did badly there during his pomp. And Warne has got so many wickets against the English, who we all know have been horrible players of spin during this era. Yes, I know Murali has his stats inflated by minnows too. I am just saying when it comes to spin bowling, the English were comparable to the minnows. Check out Murali's record against England, comparable to his record against the minnows.
My only problem with choosing a batsman like Hobbs is that I can never be sure how he would perform in the sub-continent, where most of his countrymen have failed miserably. I know it's not his fault that he didn't get the opportunity, but it's not my fault either No problems with Hutton.
I also think that there can be a big bias in favor of batsmen who play well in seaming conditions, and I don't think it makes sense. A match can be held anywhere, against any kind of opposition bowling.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)