Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Donald Bradman *
Viv Richards ^
Sachin Tendulkar
Garfield Sobers ^
Adam Gilchrist +
Imran Khan
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne ^
Glen Mcgrath

Sunil Gavaskar
Herbert Sutcliffe
George Headley
Brian Lara ^
Greg Chappell *^
Jacques Kallis ^
Keith Miller
Allan Knott +
Curtly Ambrose
Dennis Lillee
Muttiah Muralitharan

Gordon Greenidge ^
Barry Richards
Wally Hammond ^
Graeme Pollock
Ricky Ponting ^
Frank Worrell *
Les Ames +
Richard Hadlee
Michael Holding
Fred Trueman
Bill O’Reilly

Arthur Morris
Bobby Simpson ^
Kumar Sangakkara
Everton Weekes ^
Allan Border *
Clyde Walcott +
Ian Botham ^
Ray Lindwall
Jim Laker
Joel Garner
Sydney Barnes

Victor Trumper
Geoffrey Boycott
Rahul Dravid ^
Neil Harvey ^
Javed Miandad * ^
Aubrey Faulkner
Mike Procter
Alan Davidson
Hedley Verity
Jack Blackham +
Allan Donald

Graeme Gooch ^
Matthew Hayden ^
Rohan Kanhai ^
Kevin Pietersen
Steve Waugh *
Andy Flower +
Kapil Dev
Wasim Akram
Andy Roberts
Dale Steyn
Clarrie Grimmett

Graeme Smith ^
Vijay Merchant
Ken Barrington
Stan McCabe ^
Clive Lloyd *^
Charlie Macartney
John Waite +
Shaun Pollock
Anil Kumble
Harold Larwood
Courtney Walsh

Bruce Mitchell ^
Virender Sehwag
Denis Compton
Inzamam Ul-Haq ^
Dudley Nourse
Tony Greig ^
Farokh Engineer +
Richie Benaud *
Ian Bishop
Waqar Younis
John Snow

Conrad Hunte
Eddie Barlow ^
Ian Chappell *^
Ted Dexter
Martin Crowe ^
Shivnarine Chanderpaul
Ian Healy +
Wes Hall
Alec Bedser
Colin Croft
Subhash Gupte

Trevor Goddard

Made some adjustments as per Watson's suggestions. Tough to leave out Lawry from the revamped last 11, but Barlow brings his bowling ability and superb slip catching.

You pick B richards in 1st XI (at least 2nd) or you don't pick him at all. If the sample size isn't enough to put him in the 1st XI then it's not for 5th or 6th XI. Same goes for G pollock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akilana

You pick B richards in 1st XI (at least 2nd) or you don't pick him at all. If the sample size isn't enough to put him in the 1st XI then it's not for 5th or 6th XI. Same goes for G pollock

---

I just find it really difficult to rate Procter and Richards, talent wise they are first team, but at least the guys in the first two teams have accomplished so much for their teams its difficult to omit them for Richards.
With Pollock, that is just where I rate him. Third team isn't bad by any means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPrez

My argument to your second team would be that if you felt the need to have two spinners in your team, you would be playing on a spinning track. In this case, you wouldn't want to be carrying a superfluous pacer if you're particularly selecting your team to suit the spinning conditions.

---

The thing is, I've seen Warne on numerous occasions bowl on a "seamers" wicket on the first morning of a test and get turn and get wickets. I'd imagine Murali did the same on occasions. Even on a "non-spinning" track Warne was a massive handful for great batsmen.

Plus, I also consider the fact that if the game is in the fifth day and is there to be won, and the wicket is getting rough, Warne from one end and Murali (or O'Reilly etc) from the other end will be a massive nightmare of survival.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monk

The thing is, I've seen Warne on numerous occasions bowl on a "seamers" wicket on the first morning of a test and get turn and get wickets. I'd imagine Murali did the same on occasions. Even on a "non-spinning" track Warne was a massive handful for great batsmen.

Plus, I also consider the fact that if the game is in the fifth day and is there to be won, and the wicket is getting rough, Warne from one end and Murali (or O'Reilly etc) from the other end will be a massive nightmare of survival.

---

This.

Also, whilst researching all rounders previously, it seems to go pretty much like this in their individual attributes.

Batting: Sobers and Kallis >>> Miller > Procter/Botham/Imran/Kapil >> Hadlee
Bowling: Hadlee > Procter/Imran > Miller/Botham/Kapil >> Sobers/Kallis

So ironic, Sobers and Kallis the best batsmen, but by some distance the worst bowlers, and inverse for Hadlee. Is that better of a Procter/Miller who is lies in the middle of both catergories?


2000

Ok then chaps, so my question for you:

Should Ryan McLaren bat at 6 when Kallis retires?

Please post that in the right thread and people will answer you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kyear2

So ironic, Sobers and Kallis the best batsmen, but by some distance the worst bowlers, and inverse for Hadlee. Is that better of a Procter/Miller who is lies in the middle of both catergories?


2000

---

To be fair to Sobers, he suffered from chronic knee problems and that severely curtailed his pace bowling abilities as his career wore on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by social

To be fair to Sobers, he suffered from chronic knee problems and that severely curtailed his pace bowling abilities as his career wore on

---

The fact remains that both Sobers and Kallis are easily the worst bowlers of the "great" all rounders.

They'd be 5th bowlers though. Better to have a batting allrounder as 5th bowler than a bowling allrounder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akilana

Please post that in the right thread and people will answer you

---

It is the right thread. It's another theoretical question that can be used as an example similar to the Miller debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ikki

So 33 matches outweighs the 60 other tests he bowled with avg. 41, sr. 110?

That peak isn't good enough, even as it is. Whether Sobers scored a lot of runs isn't the issue because on his batting alone he has a place. We're talking about the drop in bowling quality one has to deal with when using him as a 3rd seamer.

Miller is ideal for such a role because his average and strike rate overall (let alone his peak) is world-class/ATG class. His limitation is less wickets per Test than other ATG bowlers but as a 3rd seamer it's not really an issue.

---

So if he only played these 33 Tests you would have no problem with him? So is the alltime team based on a player at his best or what he did over his whole career?

I always think a little of both, so we could choose the Sobers who played for those eight years which is a fair period.

Personally I would pick players at their peak for say two-three years. To beat another all time team you need the bowlers so players like Thommo and Jack Iverson would be in my team, they may both win you one Test each in a five Test series.

You certainly can't pick players based just on a certain period imo. Otherwise Philander would be a shoo-in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPrez

You certainly can't pick players based just on a certain period imo. Otherwise Philander would be a shoo-in.

---

Well with Sobers, surely 8 years is a long enough period. Otherwise players who go on too long are marked down. Which is another reason why stats can't be the be all and end all