Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[Ikki]

Miller's best position was #5 and Sobers is the greatest #6 of all time, so I'd say that is reason enough. It doesn't mean he rated Miller ahead as a batsman.

[sobers no:1]

my preferences

openers

1.gavaskar
2.barry richards
3.hutton
4.hobbs
5.WG
6.trumper
7.sehwag
8.merchant

middle order
1.sobers
2.tendulkar
3.lara
4.viv
5.don
6.g.pollock
7.headley
8.hammond
9.ranjit singhji

10.g.chappel
11.dravid
12.ponting
.
.

wicket keeper batsman
1.gilly
2.les ames
3.knott
4.flower


all rounders (match winning (batsman+bowler) + fielding ability)
1.sobers
2.procter
3.kapil
4.botham
5.miller

6.imran
7.hadlee

spinners
1.murali
2.warne
3. o reilly
4.grimmet


1.akram
2.marshal
3.hadlee
4.lillee
5.SFB
6.mcgrath
7.trueman
8.donald
9.ambros
10.imran
11.waqar


and my 11
gavasakr-barry
viv
sachin
lara
sobers
gilly
procter
hadlee
akram
murali

[watson]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Benaud himself said that Bradman was the best captain and had the best anlytical cricketing brain he has encountered, so Bradman is good enough for me as captain.
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.

Miller would become necessary if you believed that;

1. SF Barnes must be in the team because he is the greatest bowler of all time.
2. Shane Warne (or Murali) must be in the team because he is the greatest spinner of all time.
3. Any ATG team must have 3 world class fast bowlers on principle. Not 2 world class fast bowlers plus Sobers or Kallis.

Therefore, Miller must be selected as he is a world class fast bowler, and the best batsman out of all the great 'bowling allrounders'.

01. Len Hutton
02. Sunil Gavaskar
03. Don Bradman
04. Sachin Tendulkar
05. Keith Miller
06. Gary Sobers
07. Adam Gilchrist
08. Malcolm Marshall
09. Shane Warne
10. Dennis Lillee
11. SF Barnes

[Monk]

Originally Posted by social

“Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse, cricket is not.”

I love Miller, but I get really sick of this quote being rolled out all the time.

Surely the idea of international cricket is to win the game?

[Monk]

I don't see Barnes as necessary, so I guess I don't need Miller!

- Hobbs
- Gavaskar
- Bradman *
- G. Chappell ^
- V. Richards ^
- Sobers
- Knott +
- Hadlee
- Davidson/Akram/Marshall/Ambrose/McGrath (depends on the day)
- Warne
- Lillee

[the big bambino]

Originally Posted by watson

Taylor also faced, and got out to;

Grimmett
Gregory
Tate
McDonald
Voce
Larwood
Wall
O'Reilly
etc

Include FR Foster too whom he rated the hardest of the lot. Mailey as well I believe. Rhodes and Ironmonger too.

The occasion where Mailey tried to influence O'Reilly came during a match. If O'Reilly took Mailey's advice it would have been detrimental to his career. Mailey was whimisical but he was jealous of O'Reilly. Not the 1st time a person outwardly known for their whimsy and easy going nature exploited that reputation to advance their own cause by harming another's. Tiger was smart enough to see the selfish intent in Mailey's supposedly helpful advice and rejected it.

[watson]

Conrad Hunte
Bill Ponsford
Ian Chappell * ^
Martin Crowe ^
Shivnarine Chanderpaul
Mushtaq Mohammad
Ian Healy +
Wes Hall
Alec Bedser
Colin Croft
Subhash Gupte

Liked your line-up of teams kyear. However, the 9th team is a little unbalanced because it has 2 similar leg-spinners. Gupte needs to be an offie, left-armer, or at least a 'fast' leg-spinner like Chandra.

I also agree with Armstrong that Ponsford had defective footwork against express bowling (which is why he was dropped from the Aussie team on 2-3 occasions). I think that a different opener is required. If you really wanted to include Ponsford then he would probably go better in the middle-order because he wouldn't get a 'new ball examination' every time he went into bat.

And while I'm on the topic of 9th teams. Armstrong's 9th team is highly dubious IMO. Flintoff should not make the side on the basis of a single Ashes series, and McCabe was not a specialist opening batsman. ATG teams need specialist opening batsman.

Therefore,

01. Stan McCabe
02. Herbie Taylor
03. Vijay Hazare
04. Clive Lloyd
05. Inzamam-Ul-Haq
06. Andy Flower
07. Andrew Flintoff
08. Bill Lockwood
09. Jeff Thomson
10. Tom Richardson
11. Arthur Mailey

Should be (without making whole sale changes);

01. Gordon Greenidge
02. Herbie Taylor
03. Stan McCabe
04. Vijay Hazare
05. Clive Lloyd
06. Andy Flower
07. Aubrey Faulkner
08. Bill Lockwood
09. Jeff Thomson
10. Tom Richardson
11. Derek Underwood

[watson]

Originally Posted by Monk

I don't see Barnes as necessary, so I guess I don't need Miller!

- Hobbs
- Gavaskar
- Bradman *
- G. Chappell ^
- V. Richards ^
- Sobers
- Knott +
- Hadlee
- Davidson/Akram/Marshall/Ambrose/McGrath (depends on the day)
- Warne
- Lillee

I've also talked to people that believe that both Warne and Murali "must" be in the team. Miller or Imran is then included at No.5 or 6 to boost the fast bowling.

[Coronis]

I don't really see that 3 ATG quicks are necessary. Tell me, what is wrong with a bowling lineup of:

Marshall
McGrath
Warne
Murali
Sobers

[Ikki]

That Sobers is a very average bowler and if you are competing with a very talented team akin to your own you are at a significant disadvantage. If you wanted such a line-up you'd have to pick a bowling-allrounder who was world-class/ATG at that level - preferably Miller, or Imran.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Coronis

I don't really see that 3 ATG quicks are necessary. Tell me, what is wrong with a bowling lineup of:

Marshall
McGrath
Warne
Murali
Sobers

It's modern convention I guess. Nothing wrong with that attack imo.

[kyear2]

I have never seen the need for two spinners in a team, though Murali does deserve a place in an ATG first team

[Mike5181]

Originally Posted by Monk

It's modern convention I guess. Nothing wrong with that attack imo.

Meh, spinner on within the first 15 overs of a test match just doesn't look right. Three fast bowlers + one of Warne/Murali + Sobers is a much better way to go.

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by Monk

I don't see Barnes as necessary, so I guess I don't need Miller!

- Hobbs
- Gavaskar
- Bradman *
- G. Chappell ^
- V. Richards ^
- Sobers
- Knott +
- Hadlee
- Davidson/Akram/Marshall/Ambrose/McGrath (depends on the day)
- Warne
- Lillee

I personally don't like the idea of great batsmen from the same era occupy the middle order of an All Time XI. Likewise I don't like how you might end up with a line-up of Lillee, Marshall and Hadlee.
Since about 50% of the total tests in history have been played in the last 20 odd years, I'd have at least 3/4 if not more players from the last 20 odd years in the side.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by watson

I would like to read Mailey's criticism of O'Reilly to see where he was coming from. I would hazard a guess and reckon it would be along the lines of O'Reilly not being a 'real' leg-break googly bowler. That is - way too fast, no flight, no top-spin, no dip, and no deception. And all with a ridiculous grip on the ball.

Also, Mailey had a wonderful sense of humour, understood irony, and rarely took himself seriously. 'Tiger' O'Reilly took himself overly seriously, so no wonder they didn't get along. Just another case of a fanatical person not being able to understand a whimsical person.

I can't remember the exact arguments and hard to find with a cricket book collection as large as mine

It was nothing really harsh just little things as I remember it