Yeah, my reasoning too. I think having a three all-time great fast bowlers - one of which is also a genuine batsman and another of which is wouldn't look too out of place batting seven - gives a team a much, much better base to work around than three awesome top order batsmen of similar quality. It's not even so much a batting v bowling thing with me as it is considering the allround qualities of Imran and Wasim.As cricketers it has to be the Pakistan trio. Imran was a genuine all-rounder & Wasim a bowling all-rounder. As useful as Sachin's little allsorts and Dravid's occasional keeping are, I reckon you'd take the Pakistan package first.
Personally I wouldn't want a fully firing with the ball Imran batting higher than 7 and I certainly wouldn't want Akram there.Yeah, my reasoning too. I think having a three all-time great fast bowlers - one of which is also a genuine batsman and another of which is wouldn't look too out of place batting seven -
Akram's obviously a bit of a stretch; he's a more than handy #8 though. And I suppose it depends which version of Imran you take exactly.Personally I wouldn't want a fully firing with the ball Imran batting higher than 7 and I certainly wouldn't want Akram there.
I want to say this but I'm slightly concerned that honestbharani will follow me around ranting about how much of an idiot I am if I do.Yeah, Imran, Wasim, Waqar easily, and thats not a reflection on the Indians, i'd pretty much always take the 3 match winning bowlers, probably would only reconsider if the batters included the Don
In his peak bowling years (80-88), Imran averaged over 40 with the bat.Yes, the top order batsman who wasn't as much of a force with the ball or the top class bowler who wasn't that great a batsman.
Either way offers more all-round to a team then any of the others mentioned.
Despite the fact that Pakistan has won only 1 test series each against OZ, SA,.IND in last 20 years and Pak is yet to win a test series in WI .In his peak bowling years (80-88), Imran averaged over 40 with the bat.
Anyways, the bowling trio definitely. Worldclass fast bowlers are more valuable, and I would say rarer, than worldclass batsmen. Take in the all-round qualiities of Imran and it's a lock.
In my opinion, I think a lot of Indian fans would rather trade in their batting trio for the Pakistani bowlers. I could be wrong though.
I haven't seen a better team by a cricket expert/former cricketer than that Of Richie Benaud's.Only inclusion I don't agree with is Dennis"Greentop Bully"Lillee.Benaud's World XI
1 Jack Hobbs, 2 Sunil Gavaskar, 3 Don Bradman, 4 Sachin Tendulkar, 5 Viv Richards, 6 Imran Khan, 7 Garfield Sobers, 8 Adam Gilchrist, 9 Shane Warne, 10 Sydney Barnes, 11 Dennis Lillee.
ESPN Best test team
ESPN Legends of Cricket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bradman's world XI
Barry Richards - South Africa
Arthur Morris - Australia
Don Bradman - Australia
Sachin Tendulkar - India
Gary Sobers - West Indies
Don Tallon - Australia
Ray Lindwall - Australia
Dennis Lillee - Australia
Alec Bedser - England
Bill O'Reilly - Australia
Clarrie Grimmett - Australia
12th man:
Wally Hammond - England
Agreed - not sure what the Don was thinking there, no one has ever really been able to make sense of it. Just a diabolically long tail.Don Bradman was perhaps a better cricketer than me but that's easily the worst World XI I've ever seen from a respected commentator, and I think I'm not alone in this . And as it happens he didn't select Sunny.
But yes you're right, some people (and almost all Indian fans) would put Gavaskar and Tendulkar in their all-time world XIs. I'm not sure I would.
Richie's was a good one (baffling lack of love for WI quicks notwithstanding) but personally the one I agree with most is Geoff Armstrong's team that he picked in his 100 greatest cricketers book:I haven't seen a better team by a cricket expert/former cricketer than that Of Richie Benaud's.Only inclusion I don't agree with is Dennis"Greentop Bully"Lillee.
And that of Bradman has to be one of the worst ever by a cricketer.Seems to be a team picked on bias rather than performance & abilities(barring himself ofcourse).May be its a team based on people whom he liked rather than performance & abilities.You can easily name much better substitutes for atleast 6 or 7 of those players.