I am often asked who was the best, fastest or toughest bowler I ever faced and I quite enjoy giving different answers every time. Well, it keeps me amused anyway –but the underlying point is that one could revise this whole list on a daily basis and never really be right and never really be wrong - DAVID GOWER
[QUOTE=watson;3011990]Dev better than Miller? Probably not.
But was Dev greater than Miller? Probably yes, for the simple reason that for several years Dev was Indian cricket. If Dev fired then India won, if he didn't then they lost or drew.
In other words, he was the Indian equivalent of Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Murali, or (mid-80s) Allan Border.
Incidently, I wonder how Miller would have gone if he didn't have Lindwall, Johnston, Morris or Hassett to prop him up, and therefore couldn't play his usual care-free style? Who knows, Miller may have buckled under pressure if he played in a mediocre side and had to shoulder responsibility for a change?[/QUOTE]
“Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse, cricket is not.”
Wonder how many no. 3s would be more comfortable batting behind Trumper than Gavaskar?
Not as easy as it looks, here is my stab at it:
Donald Bradman *
Viv Richards ^
Garfield Sobers ^
Adam Gilchrist +
Shane Warne ^
Brian Lara ^
Greg Chappell *^
Jacques Kallis ^
Allan Knott +
Gordon Greenidge ^
Wally Hammond ^
Ricky Ponting ^
Frank Worrell *
Les Ames +
Bobby Simpson ^
Everton Weekes ^
Allan Border *
Clyde Walcott +
Ian Botham ^
Rahul Dravid ^
Neil Harvey ^
Javed Miandad * ^
Jack Blackham +
Graeme Gooch ^
Matthew Hayden ^
Rohan Kanhai ^
Steve Waugh *
Andy Flower +
Graeme Smith ^
Stan McCabe ^
Clive Lloyd *^
John Waite +
Bruce Mitchell ^
Inzamam Ul-Haq ^
Tony Greig ^
Farokh Engineer +
Richie Benaud *
Ian Chappell * ^
Martin Crowe ^
Ian Healy +
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
Greenidge and Morris above Barry Richards is plain wrong to me, surprising to see KP and Chanderpaul up there so highly too.
Oh for a strong arm and a walking stick
Loving your slip cordon idea though, have been using it myself. Great idea and massively agree with you on the subject, kyear.
Maybe we need to make these teams more uniform if we're going to do them like that - maybe we could think of a set way to pick a team?
1. Select the best captain, providing they can hold their place in an ATG team
2. Select the two best new ball bowlers
3. Select the best spinner
4. Select the best wicketkeeper
5. Select the two best opening batsmen
6. Select the three best middle order batsmen available
7. Select an X factor player to fill in the gap
1. Jack Hobbs
2. Barry Richards
3. Don Bradman
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Keith Miller - 3 ^
6. Garfield Sobers ^
7. Richie Benaud* G
8. Alan Davidson - 1
9. Malcolm Marshall - 2
10. Shane Warne ^
11. Bob Taylor +
Kallis only making the 8th team with SRT making the first team is absolutely ridiculous.
@CowsCorner - 202 followers and counting!
Disclaimer: I am a biased South African. Anything I say is likely to have something in it that ultimately favours the Proteas.
Firstly, expecting to be able to use one formula to make a "best ever XI" is never going to work. You can use basic guidelines, but you need to be flexible.
Secondly, in an ATG team I highly disagree with captaincy being the first selection criteria. Especially when one is talking in an ATG context, where all of the players are elite players, I completely disagree that choosing the best captain is the most crucial selection choice. A good captain is crucial, but I'd easily take an elite batsman and a good captain over a good batsman and an elite captain, for example. Just in terms of overall performance of the side, the extra physical ability would easily trump the extra captaincy.
I also disagree with Davidson being the second best quick of all time but that's another story altogether.
To me though a world XI should be about who you would pick should you have every player ever to play a test available for selection. Not "how much they proved themselves."
Even if I could get past your obsession with Miller, why you would bat him over one of the greatest batsmen ever is beyound me, in that lineup I would even bat him at 4 (his best position, especially if he is not bowling that much) to separate the right handers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)