IMO his team should have been.
Jack Hobbs
Sunny Gavaskar
Don Bradman (cpt)
Sachin Tendulkar
Walter Hammond
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist (wk)
Imran Khan
Malcolm Marshall
Muttiah Muralitharan
Sydney Barnes
Don Bradman and
Garry Sobers pick themselves.
Jack Hobbs was the world's best batsman for years scoring runs all over the world phenomenally consistently. Don Bradman said he was the most complete player he had ever seen (he saw a few!!), and in terms of percentage of innings over 10, he was the most consistent Test batsman ever.
Sunil Gavaskar was the pre-eminent opening batsman in world cricket for years, and was one of the the few batsmen to get on top of the mighty West Indies bowlers (2749 runs @ 65.45 against them with 13 centuries).
Walter Hammond should be in. A greater batsman than Richards, probably the best slip fielder ever (with Bob Simpson and Mark Waugh), and a better bowler than Richards. I see no reason for his non-selection other than bias towards more modern players with people not wanting to select players they have not seen. On ability alone he's a certainty for me. IMO to compare Hammond to Richards and Tendulkar is an insult to Hammond.
I cannot conceive any reasons why Richards and Tendulkar, who average lower than him anyway, could be considered better given relative pitch conditions. He was also surely a better looking player.
Still, I can see why Richie would "like" Richards and Tendulkar more. I don't think he ever watched Hammond, if so only an occasional match.
I'd not say Viv Richards was a certainty, though, far from it - IMO there have been plenty of better West Indian batsmen.He dominated weak attacks like England and India, while his record against the high quality Pakistan and New Zealand lineups is not worthy of an all-time great. Also he never had to face the mighty West Indian bowlers.
Sachin Tendulkar has been the world's premier batsman for a decade or so and averages over 50 home and away, and against Australia. Dravid might be more reliable now but Tendulkar proved himself over a much longer period.
Adam Gilchrist is almost certainly the best wicketkeeper-batsman ever and 30 extra runs is more useful than saving a few byes or occasionally a dropped catch. Purely on keeping Don Tallon or Bob Taylor would be in contention.
As captain,
Imran Khan probably reached heights never achieved by any other allrounder ever. With 2408 runs at 52.34 and 163 wickets at 19.20, it could be argued that he was both their best batsman and bowler, all at once.
Mutthiah Muralitharan is obviously better than Warne. Warne has failed dismally against the best players of spin – India (29 wickets at 55.44). Murali has done far better against them (51 wickets at 32.94).
Murali has a better average, strike rate, economy rate, and takes more wickets per match than Warne; despite the fact that Warne has not had to play against the world's best team.
Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 90 5120.4 1366 11998 527 22.76 9-51 44 13 58.2 2.34
Warne 112 5248.2 1478 13425 527 25.47 8-71 27 8 59.7 2.55
Murali has a better record against all countries, except Pakistan.
Murali is far more consistent. Warne has been known to be hit around occasionally and although Murali has previously been nullified to a degree, he has never been smashed around the park.
Warne
45 7 150 1 3.33 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1991/92 at Sydney
22 2 107 0 4.86 1st Test v SL in SL 1992 at Colombo (SSC)
30 7 122 1 4.07 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Chennai
42 4 147 0 3.50 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1997/98 at Kolkata
15.5 2 70 1 4.42 3rd Test v WI in WI 1998/99 at Bridgetown
13 1 60 0 4.62 3rd Test v Ind in Aus 1999/00 at Sydney
34 3 152 1 4.47 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 2000/01 at Kolkata
30 6 108 2 3.60 3rd Test v SA in SA 2001/02 at Durban
Warne is part of a stronger bowling attack. If Warne was of equal ability to Murali he would take less wickets per match than Murali (because there are four good bowlers competing for wickets), but would have a lower average and strike rate (because greater pressure is put on the batsman by bowlers at the other end). Murali takes more wickets per match and has a lower average and strike rate.
Warne takes a lot of his wickets against the same batsman, whereas Murali takes more of a variety. A high proportion of Warne's test wickets are numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order; Murali does well against all batting positions. What’s the point in Warne taking the wickets of Nehra or Walsh game after game, if he cannot trouble Tendulkar, Dravid or Lara?
Although Warne has been less effective since his shoulder injury, even at his peak (1993-97) he was not as good as Murali has been this century.
Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 2000-2003 37 2347.3 684 4990 258 19.34 9-51 22 10 54.5 2.13
Warne 1993-97 57 2876.5 938 6457 277 23.31 8-71 11 3 62.3 2.24
You could take a look at their respective records in the English county championship:
Mat O M R W Ave Best 5wi 10w SR Econ
Murali 19 1049.1 322 2195 149 14.73 7-39 17 6 42.2 2.09
Warne 24 962.5 259 2682 113 23.73 6-34 8 0 52.7 2.69
One reason why Warne is rated so highly is Gatting’s reaction to the so called “ball of the century.” The shock that that ball sent through the cricketing world was immense because it was thought no one else could bowl that delivery. Actually, Warne was not the only one to bowl such a delivery in recent years, Abdul Qadir had bowled the same delivery a few years earlier, it just wasn’t highlighted at the time because it wasn't on such a big stage. Murali bowled similar balls which were every bit as good to both Sadgapan Ramesh and Mark Butcher a few years ago.
Murali was recently voted the best bowler ever in an objective Wisden analysis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/2572069.stm
I think Lillee is overrated. In reality, he was an outstanding but far from complete fast bowler, he was less effective against left-handers and not as good as some at running through the tail due to the lack of a good yorker. As a matter of fact Lillee had his off days and McGrath is a far more reliable fast bowler. Please note im not questioning his status as a great bowler, just think he is overrated and not the very best. Lillee's stats are less impressive than McGrath even though he played in a lower scoring era, and McGrath is the rarely thought of as the very best fast bowler. IMO
Malcolm Marshall is the best paceman ever, closely followed by Hadlee.
Sydney Barnes only played against Australia and South Africa but almost everyone who saw him thought he was the best bowler they had ever seen. On a perfect wicket Barnes could swing the new ball in and out very late, could spin from the ground, pitch on the leg stump and miss the off. Barnes was creative, one of the first bowlers really to use the seam of a new ball and combine swing so subtly with spin that few batsmen could distinguish one from the other. At Melbourne, in December 1911, Barnes in five overs dismissed Australia's five best batsmen for a single. At his very best, between 1910 and 1914, he was frequently unplayable, and during this time took an astonishing 122 wickets at 14.08. Also, 24 5-fors is more than many great bowlers manage in a career, despite playing 4 times as many matches.
,,, I know they can/could bowl a bit...bit to lump them in there with a bowler who took well over 200 tests wickets(Sobers) is a bit much..I dont think you would really need the likes of Richards or Tendulkar to bowl with those bowlers, do you
