Richie Benauds All Time Team

[Swervy]

Remember everyone..this Benaud team is just the team he would like to see playing together, for entertainment and the ability to win. It is his opinion..so there are no ' he should have put so and so in'..I am sure he has wwatched enough cricket to have formed an opinion on the game. can people forget the averages as well....If the game were ruled by averages, the game would be extremely dull and predictable. To make a decent judgement on a play you need to have watched him play...not look up in Wisden what his average is...averages can be a tool to see how effective a player has been, not a tool to see who is a better player....because there are so many variables to take into account.

I think that its a very strong line up he has chosen

 

[Will Scarlet]

Swervy, would you personally put Imran in the team ahead of Hadlee or Marshall considering the batting strength?

 

[Swervy]

Swervy, would you personally put Imran in the team ahead of Hadlee or Marshall considering the batting strength?

I personally would have had Botham in ahead of Imran...butI see your point, the batting is already very strong so it wouldnt have harmed anyone to have had a Hadlee or Marshall in there (probably would have had Hadlee in there)...but I dont really have any quibbles with Benauds team

 

[marc71178]

If this turns (hehe.. see what I did there) anywhere near Warne v Murali, someone will get angry.

Someone or everyone?

 

[Son Of Coco]

With respect to Lillee, perhaps Richie picked him on his performances at top pace before his back injury in the 70's. Not for his medium pace antics with the ball from the early 80's.

.......and perhaps Richie has his doubts about Murali too.......

 

[lord_of_darkness]

i think murali did deserve to have made it in though.. but i guess he should atleast be 12th man!

 

[blueeyedboy]

Hello everyone, I'm new to the site and thread. Any other Scots on here?
I tend to agree with Swervy that this is Richie's all-time XI, and who are we to argue with one of the games greatest all-time captains, spinners and commentators?
However, what about alternative XIs that you feel would give Richie's a good run for their money over a test series? Pointless and silly : yes, but also endlessly fascinating to speculate over such things...
Mine would be (without too much thought - 1/2 hour, tops):
G Greenidge
L Hutton
A Border
Javed Miandad
RG Pollock
IT Botham
Keith Miller (cpt)
A Knott (wkt)
M Marshall
J Laker
M Holding
I put Miller as captain because of the story of him leading a side out onto the field of play after giving a rousing team talk. As his team stepped onto the grass an admin type came up and said 'Mr Miller, sir - you have 12 players on the field'. Without breaking stride or looking round, Miller said 'Then tell one of them to bugger off.' Class.

 

[Swervy]

With respect to Lillee, perhaps Richie picked him on his performances at top pace before his back injury in the 70's. Not for his medium pace antics with the ball from the early 80's.

.......and perhaps Richie has his doubts about Murali too.......

Lillee was a better bowler after his back problems

Amongst the best bowling I have ever seen was when he dropped down a yard or so in pace in 81/82 (vs England then WI...his 7 wicket haul he got vs WI was supreme bowling)

 

[a massive zebra]

Hey blueeyedboy

A decent alternative XI might be:

Len Hutton
Matthew Hayden
George Headley
Graeme Pollock
Walter Hammond
Andy Flower (wk)
Keith Miller (cpt)
Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Jim Laker
Muttiah Muralitharan

 

[Son Of Coco]

Lillee was a better bowler after his back problems

Amongst the best bowling I have ever seen was when he dropped down a yard or so in pace in 81/82 (vs England then WI...his 7 wicket haul he got vs WI was supreme bowling)

Really? Whether the records say he was better or not I know when I'd rather have watched him bowl.

 

[Swervy]

Really? Whether the records say he was better or not I know when I'd rather have watched him bowl.

Before his back injury stuff, he was really all about pace...I guess he was after as well, but he started developing more variation...by the 80's he was probably around 85mph but bowling with some brilliant cut on the ball,and with utter control...the ball went where he wanted it to go,and with that nigh on perfect action of his, it really was a sight to behold.

 

[JBH001]

An interesting query about an alternative team to face Benauds XI.
Here is mine:

1. Len Hutton (capt)
2. Herbert Sutcliffe
3. Graeme Pollock
4. Walter Hammond
5. Brian Lara
6. Keith Miller
7. Andy Flower (wk)
8. Richard Hadlee
9. Alec Bedser
10. Muttiah Muralitheran
11. Bill O'Reilly

Bedser and O'Reilly especially, apart from their own outstanding careers, because Bradman rated them the best bowlers he ever faced and getting him out early or cheaply would be a big part of winning a game against that team. Imagine them both attacking him from either end and Bradman rising to the challenge. I also wanted some lefthanders throughout the top to lower order because of the trouble Lillee (apparently) had against them throughout his career. Besides lefties usually add variety, grace and elegance to any team.
Hutton, the hard bitten, tough, Yorkshire professional as my captain.
Dare I say it, I think my team could give Richies a good run for its money.

PS. You missed the other part of the story concerning Keith Miller blueeyedboy, after Miller says "one of you bugger off" he continues "and the rest, scatter!" LOL!

 

[masterblaster]

I think Richie's team is spot on the money, although I would've definitely had Malcolm Marshall in the side in place of perhaps Dennis Lillie or Syd Barnes.

Otherwise, good job Richie!

 

[a massive zebra]

I think a team from the post 70's era would thrash a team from the pre-70's era. The intensity and professionalism would be too much. The standards have risen too high.

In short, Hobbs would be screwed against Garner.

Im not so sure. Larwood was timed at 96mph on the 1928-29 Ashes tour, and, excluding the bodyline series, his Test strike rate was 81.04. Anyone who can bowl 96mph these days would certainly have a better strike rate than that, and it was not as if Larwood was the most wayward of bowlers.

 

[Tom Halsey]

It was Benaud's greatest XI, so that does not necessarily mean just last century. Warne did outperform Murali in the 20th century but he was selected as one of the five cricketers of the century more for his influence on the game, commercial success and ability to charm than his actual exploits on the field. People like Marshall, Barnes and Hadlee were far more proficient and successful bowlers.

I don't want to get involved with this again, but you're reasoning is ludicrous.

Comparing their County Championship records won't get you anywhere, because the opposition is not anywhere near enough to test either of the bowlers. The fact that Warne has a better average outside the Sub-Continent, against Test batsmen (so it's clearly not easy to get them out) says alot to me.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Regarding everybody's opinions I don't think we can really argue with him, because he was a very good Test all-rounder, captain and knows a helluva lot about the game. Also it was not picked on raw ability, but excitement value.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Im not so sure. Larwood was timed at 96mph on the 1928-29 Ashes tour, and, excluding the bodyline series, his Test strike rate was 81.04. Anyone who can bowl 96mph these days would certainly have a better strike rate than that, and it was not as if Larwood was the most wayward of bowlers.

Yes, but I'm not sure about Larwood's 96 mph. The technology with which they measured the speeds was not great, remember.

 

[a massive zebra]

Comparing their County Championship records won't get you anywhere, because the opposition is not anywhere near enough to test either of the bowlers..

I did a lot more than that.

The fact that Warne has a better average outside the Sub-Continent, against Test batsmen (so it's clearly not easy to get them out) says alot to me.

And Warne should really have a better average everywhere. Warne's fellow bowlers put a lot more pressure on the batsman, and this should lead to him having a better strike rate and average. The batsman can just play Murali defensively and score runs against the other bowlers, yet he still has a better strike rate than Warne, and a better average against all teams except Pakistan. The many other points I made hold much greater weight than the one you have mentioned here.

 

[a massive zebra]

Regarding everybody's opinions I don't think we can really argue with him, because he was a very good Test all-rounder,captain and knows a helluva lot about the game.

Just because someone was a good player does not automatically mean they will be a perfect selector. Bradman was the best of all batsmen but do you really agree with his all-time XI?

Also it was not picked on raw ability, but excitement value.

Then why have Sunil Gavaskar instead of Gordon Greenidge, Barry Richards, Matthew Hayden or Victor Trumper?

 

[Tom Halsey]

a) Just because someone was a good player does not automatically mean they will be a perfect selector. Bradman was the best of all batsmen but do you really agree with his all-time XI?



b) Then why have Sunil Gavaskar instead of Gordon Greenidge, Barry Richards, Matthew Hayden or Victor Trumper?

a) No, but I generally respect Richie's knowledge of the game anyway.

b) I know, it had me stumped too - but he did say it was excitement.