CW All Time Country XI Discussion Thread

[watson]

People seem to forget that Headley, Lara, Sobers, Walcott and yes, even IVA were excellent players of spin. Lara scored almost all of his great innings againts Warne and Mcgrath. Headley scored hundreds on uncovered wickets againts Verity, Grimmett and Ironmonger, Viv dominated Underwood and scored hundreds in India vs the quartet. It is a myth the the W.I and in particular this line up was weak againts spin.

I wasn't saying that Richards wasn't skilled at playing spin bowling per se. Rather, I was implying that he was more at home against fast bowling.

In other words, IMO Richards is statistically slightly more likely to get out to O'Reilly than say, McGrath (on most wickets).

 

[Coronis]

I think the point is, Australia would be more likely to succeed across all pitches etc., because of the variety they have compared to the W.I. Not that those batsmen would be susceptible to spin, but that their team, with a distinct lack of spin, would not fair as well. Oh and also kyear when you say the WI team has up to 4 of the top 6 batsmen, that might be a slight overexaggeration. I myself would only place 1 of them in my top 6. Perhaps 2 depending on a daily preference.

 

[Red]

Agree with the Lindwall over Miller as he was the better bowler, but I know the Miller love that exists on this thread. Harvey over Border is more questionable as Border's tougness is a good foil for the stroke players around him. So.......

Trumper | Morris | Bradman | Chappell | Ponting | Border | Gilchrist | Lindwall | Warne | Lillee | McGrath

I'm probably one of Miller's biggest fans on this forum, but I will admit that it's hard to justify his selection if Lillee, McGrath and Lindwall are in the team already. But I think in a team with two spinners and two quicks, plus Bradman and Gilchrist's additional value with the bat, Miller is worth a spot in the top 6 and the team is incredibly well balanced for any conditions. With a conventional 3 quicks and 1 spinner attack, Miller probably gets left out.

I love Border, but Harvey was as tough as Border was, and he was a more skilful attacking batsman than AB. Also, Harvey was renowned for his ability to bat on treacherous wickets. I like Border, but I'd take Harvey any day. Third batsman selected after Bradman and Chappell for me.

 

[NUFAN]

I wasn't saying that Richards wasn't skilled at playing spin bowling per se. Rather, I was implying that he was more at home against fast bowling.

In other words, IMO Richards is statistically slightly more likely to get out to O'Reilly than say, McGrath (on most wickets).

I think that is a little too simplistic putting all leg spinners into one category and all fast bowlers in another. Did Viv face any spin bowler who was similar to O'Reilly?

 

[Slifer]

I think the point is, Australia would be more likely to succeed across all pitches etc., because of the variety they have compared to the W.I. Not that those batsmen would be susceptible to spin, but that their team, with a distinct lack of spin, would not fair as well. Oh and also kyear when you say the WI team has up to 4 of the top 6 batsmen, that might be a slight overexaggeration. I myself would only place 1 of them in my top 6. Perhaps 2 depending on a daily preference.

I think the matchup between the Oz all time teams and WI all time teams is a salavating prospect. Imagine Oreilley and Warne bowling in tandem vs Lara and Sobers. Or a MM and Ambrose steaming in vs the Don on a typical Sabina or Waca wicket. So many potential sweet matchups

 

[kyear2]

Ok, two points. The W.I initially didn't go to a All Pace attack because of a lack of spinners in the Caribbean, it was a direct and deliberate strategy that created one of the two best if not the best cricket team in the history of the game. As I have argued in other threads, there have been three superstars of the game, in order Dr Grace, Bradman and Sobers (possibly Hobbs as well), but two distinct phenomeoms that dominated the game and precipitated changes in the rules of the game to even up the field. One was Bradman's batting and the other was the Windies pace attack from 1976 - 1991. It was not by accident, but with the theory that if two fast bowlers in tandem were intimidating and difficult to face then three would be unrelenting and four would be destructive and unprecedented not only physically but psychologically as well. it was a theory actually tried twice by Hutton, but he never quite gave it sufficient attempts for it to be succesful.

Also the thougt that the attack would be restricted in it's success on slow or unresponsive tracks are not familar with what Marshall and Holding did to India in '83, what Holding accomplised at the Oval in '76 or Marshall in Sydney in '88 or that Garner was basically used as a stock bowler to fill the role of a spinner who could bowl long spells and keep the run rate low and too was effective on all pitches and as far as opening partnerships goes, his with Marshall was statistically the greatest ever. He was also quite efficient at cleaning up the tail with his amazing yorker wihch would be effective on any wicket. This still doesn't factor in Ambrose who was even more deadly on a last day track that the first day, and his last day winning spells atg home and away are legendary. So really don't see the need for a spinner when one has three bolwers with averages under 21 and strike rates under 51 who succeeded the world over and againts everyone and each having their own distinct style and modus operandi just for the sake or percieved variety. Plus there is always Sobers if we do need a bit of variety with LH orthodox or chinamen googlys or LH fast medium swingers
btw South Africa seems to be doing quite well with no established spinner currently and seems to have no challenger at the moment for being the best team in the world.

 

[watson]

I think that is a little too simplistic putting all leg spinners into one category and all fast bowlers in another. Did Viv face any spin bowler who was similar to O'Reilly?

There weren't too many 'fast' leg-spinners around in the 70s/80s. However, Chandra took his wicket on 4 occasions - 3 times in the 1974/75 series and once in 1976.

HowSTAT! Player Dismissal Analysis

What that means I'm not sure. However, we can be sure that O'Reilly would present Richards with a new set of complex problems to solve. Where McGrath would be familiar (fastish and hitting the top of the off-stump is nothing new), O'Reilly's "nasty" leg-spinner bowled at medium pace, and varied with the occasional top-spinner or googly, would cause at least some confusion to the West Indian batsman to say the least. Ergo, he's more likely to pick up his wicket IMO

 

[kyear2]

I think the point is, Australia would be more likely to succeed across all pitches etc., because of the variety they have compared to the W.I. Not that those batsmen would be susceptible to spin, but that their team, with a distinct lack of spin, would not fair as well. Oh and also kyear when you say the WI team has up to 4 of the top 6 batsmen, that might be a slight overexaggeration. I myself would only place 1 of them in my top 6. Perhaps 2 depending on a daily preference.

I was making reference to middle order batsmen and I don't think it's a strech to say that one could say that the top 6 middle order bats of All Time could be Bradman, Richards, Sobers, Tendulkar, Lara and Headley. I think when Cricinfo did their exercise that the order of votes for middle order batsmen was Bradman, Sobers, Tendulkar, Richards, Headley, Lara, Hammond, Pollock and Chappell. When we did our ATG teams Sobers and Richards made the first team and Lara and Headley made the second. Hammond especially and Chappell are also credible names to be included in the 6, but thats why I used the term arguably, and I would stick with the six I named.

ESPNcricinfo all-time World XI: Voting trends | All-time XIs | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Coronis]

Fair enough on the middle order bats.

Obviously the Windies have a great attack. Personally, I think not having a full time spinner will count against them. It may just be me, but McGrath/Lillee/Miller/Warne/O'Reilly would do better over a series than Marshall/Holding/Garner/Ambrose/Sobers. The 4x pace is an ATG attack, but in the long run it would lose out imo.

 

[Slifer]

Fair enough on the middle order bats.

Obviously the Windies have a great attack. Personally, I think not having a full time spinner will count against them. It may just be me, but McGrath/Lillee/Miller/Warne/O'Reilly would do better over a series than Marshall/Holding/Garner/Ambrose/Sobers. The 4x pace is an ATG attack, but in the long run it would lose out imo.

Me thinks it depends on whom each team is playing and where

Vs Eng home and away I think either attack would cause damage
Vs RSA ditto but i think Oz would have the edge with the spinners
vs Pakistan again either attack would be effective but again Oz's spinners woud edge it
vs India well home or away (IMO) Oz's spinnners would get slaughtered. WI i think would be more effective in India. No comment on what they would do to India at home
vs NZ Advantage Oz with the spinners
vs SL this is where I think Oz's advantage would be most pronounced. With the exception of MM and maybe Mcgrath, I can see either pace bowling attack being seriously dented in SL but Warne and Oreilly I'd expect to wreak havok on SL wickets.
vs each other In Oz on ur typical Sydney wicket the spinners would probably be a handful and the bigger Oz grounds would make it difficult for Viv and co to hit them out of the park. Vs the pacemen I can see the WI lineup holding their own for the simple fact that almost all the WI batsmen would have faced these bowlers and had varying degrees of success. The WI pacemen all have exceptional records in Oz. Amby in particular did wonders vs excellent Oz batting lineups so there's no reason to think that the 4 prong wouldnt atleast break even vs the Oz batting lineup. And I expect them to pulverise Oz at the Waca. Back in the WI well tbh, the spinners would be minced. CAribbean grounds are smaller and the wickets not at all conduscive to spin. That would effectively reduce Oz to a 3 man attack and we all know how WI batsmen are on their own patch. In the WI advantage WI attack

 

[watson]

Me thinks it depends on whom each team is playing and where

Vs Eng home and away I think either attack would cause damage
Vs RSA ditto but i think Oz would have the edge with the spinners
vs Pakistan again either attack would be effective but again Oz's spinners woud edge it
vs India well home or away (IMO) Oz's spinnners would get slaughtered. WI i think would be more effective in India. No comment on what they would do to India at home
vs NZ Advantage Oz with the spinners
vs SL this is where I think Oz's advantage would be most pronounced. With the exception of MM and maybe Mcgrath, I can see either pace bowling attack being seriously dented in SL but Warne and Oreilly I'd expect to wreak havok on SL wickets.
vs each other In Oz on ur typical Sydney wicket the spinners would probably be a handful and the bigger Oz grounds would make it difficult for Viv and co to hit them out of the park. Vs the pacemen I can see the WI lineup holding their own for the simple fact that almost all the WI batsmen would have faced these bowlers and had varying degrees of success. The WI pacemen all have exceptional records in Oz. Amby in particular did wonders vs excellent Oz batting lineups so there's no reason to think that the 4 prong wouldnt atleast break even vs the Oz batting lineup. And I expect them to pulverise Oz at the Waca. Back in the WI well tbh, the spinners would be minced. CAribbean grounds are smaller and the wickets not at all conduscive to spin. That would effectively reduce Oz to a 3 man attack and we all know how WI batsmen are on their own patch. In the WI advantage WI attack

However, there are still rays of hope. Stuart MacGill's 24 wickets at 19 runs a piece during his 1999 tour of the West Indies springs to mind.

 

[smash84]

In the end I think if an AT World XI test championship was to be held the final would be played out between the WI and Aus and IMO it would be mighty close.

On flatter wickets I would give the edge to the WI (due to their bowlers having a proven record in such conditions) but on pace friendly wickets I reckon that the Aussies might take it but it could go either way. I do know that while Viv is arguably the greatest player of pace bowling ever there is also the thing that he was somewhat temperamental. The WI cricketers have historically had this flamboyance about them that has been their strength while at the same time has been to their detriment a few times as well. Also on a spinner's paradise I can see the WI struggling to answer Warne or Reilly while WI wouldn't have anyone to match that skill. Coming to Australia, historically speaking (and not counting the brain farts of Brad Haddin and his ilk), they have been far and away the most gritty team to have played cricket. Fiercely competitive and always fighting to the last man. You feel like punching the living daylights out of their batsmen for getting stuck at the crease but there has always been (at least here in Pakistan) a grudging admiration of their tenacity and their mental toughness. It is this quality of theirs (and it is extremely debatable of course) that I feel would eventually take them to win a closely fought championship series against the WI.

 

[Coronis]

Could we sim matches between these sides?

 

[smash84]

Me thinks it depends on whom each team is playing and where

Vs Eng home and away I think either attack would cause damage
Vs RSA ditto but i think Oz would have the edge with the spinners
vs Pakistan again either attack would be effective but again Oz's spinners woud edge it

I think you haven't seen Miandad, Salim Malik, and Javed Miandad play spin. I am pretty sure they wouldn't struggle that much against Shane Warne and Co. In fact in Pakistan I will give the WI attack the edge.

 

[smash84]

Cricketweb Australia All Time XI
Victor Trumper
Arthur Morris
Sir Donald Bradman *
Greg Chappell
Allan Border
Keith Miller
Adam Gilchrist +
Shane Warne
Denis Lillee
Bill O'Reilly
Glenn McGrath

Ricky Ponting
Allan Davidson

Cricketweb West Indies All Time XI
Gordon Greenidge
Sir Conrad Hunte
George Headley *
Sir I.V.A. Richards
Brian Lara
Sir Garfield Sobers
Sir Clyde Walcott +
Malcolm Marshall
Michael Holding
Curtly Ambrose
Joel Garner

Frank Worrell
Lance Gibbs

Cricketweb England All Time XI
Sir Jack Hobbs
Sir Len Hutton *
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Denis Compton
Sir Ian Botham
Allan Knott +
Jim Laker
Harold Larwood
Fred Trueman
Syd Barnes

Hedley Verity
Kevin Pietersen

Cricketweb South Africa All Time XI
Barry Richards
Graeme Smith *
Jacques Kallis
Graeme Pollock
Dudley Nourse
Aubrey Faulkner
Mike Procter
John Waite +
Dale Steyn
Hugh Tayfield
Allan Donald

Shaun Pollock
Herbie Taylor

Cricketweb Pakistan All Time XI
Hanif Mohammad
Saeed Anwar
Younis Khan
Javed Miandad
Inzamam-ul-Haq
Mushtaq Mohammad
Imran Khan *
Rashid Latif +
Wasim Akram
Fazal Mahmood
Waqar Younis

Mohammad Yousuf
Saqlain Mushtaq

Cricketweb India All Time XI
Sunil Gavaskar
Vijay Merchant
Rahul Dravid
Sachin Tendulkar
Vijay Hazare
Vinoo Mankad
Farokh Engineer
Kapil Dev
Anil Kumble
Javagal Srinath
Erapalli Prasanna

Mohammad Azharuddin
Amar Singh

Cricketweb Sri Lankan All Time XI
Marvan Atapattu
Sanath Jayasuriya
Kumar Sangakkara
Aravinda de Silva
Mahela Jayawardene *
Thilan Samaraweera
Prasanna Jayawardene +
Chaminda Vaas
Lasith Malinga
Muttiah Muralitharan
Rangana Herath

Arjuna Ranatunga
Ashantha de Mel

Cricketweb New Zealand All Time XI
Glenn Turner
Stewie Dempster
Bert Sutcliffe
Martin Crowe
Martin Donnelly
Brendon McCullum +
John R. Reid
Chris Cairns
Sir Richard Hadlee
Shane Bond
Jack Cowie

Stephen Fleming
Hedley Howarth

Am I the only one who feels that the Pakistan can beat the English ATXI?

 

[Red]

Am I the only one who feels that the Pakistan can beat the English ATXI?

That Pakistan team is capable of smashing anyone. Wasim, Waqar, Fazal and Imran form one hell of a pace attack.

 

[Coronis]

Am I the only one who feels that the Pakistan can beat the English ATXI?

Sorry man, batting doesn't stack up. Two of the best 3 openers of all time? (nobody will convince me Hutton>Sutcliffe) Hammond, possibly the 2nd best #3 ever? Not to mention Barrington and Compton.. Add in Barnes, Larwood and Laker, along with possibly the best man to throw on a pair of gloves, and its an English victory imo. Plus its not like Pakistan will catch any of them...

 

[Red]

Sorry man, batting doesn't stack up. Two of the best 3 openers of all time? (nobody will convince me Hutton>Sutcliffe) Hammond, possibly the 2nd best #3 ever? Not to mention Barrington and Compton.. Add in Barnes, Larwood and Laker, along with possibly the best man to throw on a pair of gloves, and its an English victory imo. Plus its not like Pakistan will catch any of them...

I'd back that Pakistan pace attack to dismiss a few teams for under 200.

 

[smash84]

Sorry man, batting doesn't stack up. Two of the best 3 openers of all time? (nobody will convince me Hutton>Sutcliffe) Hammond, possibly the 2nd best #3 ever? Not to mention Barrington and Compton.. Add in Barnes, Larwood and Laker, along with possibly the best man to throw on a pair of gloves, and its an English victory imo. Plus its not like Pakistan will catch any of them...

In flat conditions I would back Imran, Wasim and Waqar to start reversing the crap out of Triple H (hobbs hammond and hutton)......and Latif was no mean slouch with the gloves either. Knott doesn't have gilchrist-ish batting skills so I don't see a huge edge. And Laker was good but he wasn't all that.

In swinging conditions though it might be another story

 

[the big bambino]

as the two spinners is a bit of over kill and hasn'nt been proven effectiive outside of the sub continent since the advent of covered pitches and Miller in the top 6 in an ATG context is a liability.

Not so sure about that. O'Reilly and Grimmett played in an era when pitches weren't covered but were generally high quality in preparation. They succeeded well enough on those pitches and didn't need rain to be effective. Since them there's been Laker and Lock and McGill and Warne. Not many its true but I think the real reason for the dearth of double spin attacks is down to the fact that its rare any country having 2 top notch spinners at anyone time rather than the breed being ineffective in pairs.