Asian matchup of Superstars

[The Sean]

CMJ top 100 cricketers

Top 10. Sachin
14. Imran
26. Gavaskar
34. Akram
36. Waqar
74. Dravid

The definitive all-time ranking of cricketers was actually conducted some months ago, and it read:

6. Tendulkar
7. Imran
23. Akram
29. Gavaskar
38. Waqar
56. Dravid

 

[fredfertang]

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.

Well it wasn't published till after his death, and that much criticised Perry bloke was the writer, so who knows how much of the Don's thinking actually went into the finished product

 

[The Sean]

Well it wasn't published till after his death, and that much criticised Perry bloke was the writer, so who knows how much of the Don's thinking actually went into the finished product

True, though it did seem to have The Don's blessing - from what I could tell it was held off until after Bradman's death so as to avoid him having to justify or debate it. Reading the team, you can see why. I always felt his "Best Ashes Teams" were actually much better balanced than his all time World XI.

As for Roland Perry, meh. I was going to go into some detail (again) about how shockingly average I consider him to be but then I suppose there'd be nothing to stop him creating an account, come on here and posting "so how many cricket books have you had published, ****?"

Which, I guess, would serve me right.

 

[fredfertang]

Don't let that stop you Sean - I reckon Roland Perry = Precam anyway so he wouldn't last long

 

[Teja.]

True, though it did seem to have The Don's blessing - from what I could tell it was held off until after Bradman's death so as to avoid him having to justify or debate it. Reading the team, you can see why. I always felt his "Best Ashes Teams" were actually much better balanced than his all time World XI.

As for Roland Perry, meh. I was going to go into some detail (again) about how shockingly average I consider him to be but then I suppose there'd be nothing to stop him creating an account, come on here and posting "so how many cricket books have you had published, ****?"

Which, I guess, would serve me right.

I firmly believe, however bad the team was, it definitely was The Don's. He always felt O'Reily was the finest bowler ever and had a strong liking for Morris. SRT, Hobbs, Sobers and Headley are picks which make it to almost every pundit's XI. His team IMO, is not bad due to the individuals in-itself but the crappy balance.

 

[The Sean]

I firmly believe, however bad the team was, it definitely was The Don's. He always felt O'Reily was the finest bowler ever and had a strong liking for Morris. SRT, Hobbs, Sobers and Headley are picks which make it to almost every pundit's XI. His team IMO, is not bad due to the individuals in-itself but the crappy balance.

Agree with you about the balance being all wrong. Though I'm not sure if I misunderstand your post, but neither Hobbs nor Headley made Bradman's side. The Don picked Barry Richards to open with Morris.

 

[Teja.]

Agree with you about the balance being all wrong. Though I'm not sure if I misunderstand your post, but neither Hobbs nor Headley made Bradman's side. The Don picked Barry Richards to open with Morris.

My bad, embarrassing memory lapse there.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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.




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:

Hobbs
Grace
Bradman
Tendulkar
Pollock
Sobers
Gilchrist
Imran
Warne
Marshall
Barnes

Pollock the only one of those I would replace, IMHO.

Yes.Armstrong's team is slightly more balanced & better looking than Richie's.Replace Pollock with Viv Richards & I have not much to say against the team.I'm not in favour of including Barry Richards & Graeme Pollock.Barry Richards not only played just 7 tests but also was a racist selection.Graeme Pollock too was a racist selection.But even not considering that,he averages 60,same as that of George Headley after playing about same number of tests but in a very short period of time as compared to Headley.Moreover,these could've & would've things don't work with me.May be,he could've ended with a much better record or could've also ended with a similar record to Jimmy Adams after a great start to his career.Who knows?Hence they should not be considered.And playing little cricket because of apartheid is different than being playing less because test cricket having not started when you were young or were not selected then, as in the case of W.G.Grace, who had done as well in county cricket as Bradman did in Test cricket later .

 

[zaremba]

Yes.Armstrong's team is slightly more balanced & better looking than Richie's.Replace Pollock with Viv Richards & I have not much to say against the team.I'm not in favour of including Barry Richards & Graeme Pollock.Barry Richards not only played just 7 tests but also was a racist selection.Graeme Pollock too was a racist selection.But even not considering that,he averages 60,same as that of George Headley after playing about same number of tests but in a very short period of time as compared to Headley.Moreover,these could've & would've things don't work with me.May be,he could've ended with a much better record or could've also ended with a similar record to Jimmy Adams after a great start to his career.Who knows?Hence they should not be considered.And playing little cricket because of apartheid is different than being playing less because test cricket having not started when you were young or were not selected then, as in the case of W.G.Grace, who had done as well in county cricket as Bradman did in Test cricket later .

I agree that Armstrong's team is better balanced but I'd take issue with you on three points.

1. Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock were not "racist selections". Yes they were picked to play for South Africa when South African cricket was run along indefensible racial lines, but let's face it, they were so good that they would have commanded a place in a World XI at that time, let alone a pan-South African team.

2. From your last sentence you seem almost to blame Richards and Pollock for playing in the apartheid era; or at least you seem to be making some moral point about it. I just don't buy this. They weren't to blame for the system ffs.

3. Richards and Pollock cannot just be judged on their Test careers. Look at how they performed in the other forms of cricket that they were permitted to play, and look at how they were judged by those that played against them and watched them. I don't think many sober observers would seriously believe that Pollock and Richards were from the drawer marked "Jimmy Adams".

 

[zaremba]

personally the one I agree with most is Geoff Armstrong's team that he picked in his 100 greatest cricketers book:

Hobbs
Grace
Bradman
Tendulkar
Pollock
Sobers
Gilchrist
Imran
Warne
Marshall
Barnes

Pollock the only one of those I would replace, IMHO.

I love that book.

In fact it's one of my 2-year-old girl's favourite books. From time to time she'll get it off the shelf (it's almost the same size and weight as her) and make me or Mrs Z read it to her. She'll ask who all the players are and repeat their names. It's really funny hearing her reciting the older ones especially, like Monty Noble.

I'm also teaching her that when she sees a picture of Steve Waugh she must sing "Waugh - Waugh - what is it good for? Absolutely nothing" - that may take time, but she'll get there.

 

[Cevno]

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.


.

I guess he had enough confidence in himself,Sachin ,Sobers,Morris and Barry Richards to Justify the tail.

Have to say disagree with some choices though.

 

[zaremba]

Yeah, it had the ring of "my cricketing buddies of yesteryear" about it.

And I suppose the luxury of being able to pick himself at no 3 means that his team would probably beat any opposition.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I agree that Armstrong's team is better balanced but I'd take issue with you on three points.

1. Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock were not "racist selections". Yes they were picked to play for South Africa when South African cricket was run along indefensible racial lines, but let's face it, they were so good that they would have commanded a place in a World XI at that time, let alone a pan-South African team.

2. From your last sentence you seem almost to blame Richards and Pollock for playing in the apartheid era; or at least you seem to be making some moral point about it. I just don't buy this. They weren't to blame for the system ffs.

3. Richards and Pollock cannot just be judged on their Test careers. Look at how they performed in the other forms of cricket that they were permitted to play, and look at how they were judged by those that played against them and watched them. I don't think many sober observers would seriously believe that Pollock and Richards were from the drawer marked "Jimmy Adams".

1.If South African was then run along indefensible racial lines,how were they not racial slections were they were not ready to pick couloured players who are told to be better than non-couloured ones wo were then in the team?They both might make a World First Class XI of that era but only Pollock would make World Test XI.

2.I'm blaming them for being racistselections,not for playing in apartheid era.

3.When you're making hypothetical assumptions like "they could've done this,this & that had they played more" you should also assume that they might have ended better or worst than what they were at that time.

You're welcome to rate them highly & include them in your XI's but personally,I neither rate them very highly nor would I ever include them in My Greatest XIs.For me,they were vey good players & thats it.And I'm not alone in not including them in Greatest XIs.

 

[zaremba]

I can completely understand that many people wouldn't pick them for an all-time XI, and that's a view that's clearly defensible on cricketing grounds.

But as for your first point, I agree that the policital and cricketing system in South Africa in that era was racist, corrupt and disgusting. But it does not follow from that that Pollock and Richards were racist selections.

I've never heard anyone suggest that there was any black South African of that era who was better than Pollock or Richards. Can you name any? And even if there was one, or two, or four, do you not think that a multi-racial South African team would have managed to squeeze in Pollock and Richards somewhere in the batting line-up? And if they would have been selected, to talk of them being "racist selections" is, in this context, meaningless.

 

[zaremba]

When you're making hypothetical assumptions like "they could've done this,this & that had they played more" you should also assume that they might have ended better or worst than what they were at that time.

True, but unless you're prepared to make some fairly massive hypothetical assumptions, there's little point in bothering to pick an All-Time World XI. Hypothetical assumptions are what the whole exercise is about.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I can completely understand that many people wouldn't pick them for an all-time XI, and that's a view that's clearly defensible on cricketing grounds.

But as for your first point, I agree that the policital and cricketing system in South Africa in that era was racist, corrupt and disgusting. But it does not follow from that that Pollock and Richards were racist selections.

I've never heard anyone suggest that there was any black South African of that era who was better than Pollock or Richards. Can you name any? And even if there was one, or two, or four, do you not think that a multi-racial South African team would have managed to squeeze in Pollock and Richards somewhere in the batting line-up? And if they would have been selected, to talk of them being "racist selections" is, in this context, meaningless.

Ok,I take back my comments of them being racist selections but my other points are still there because which I find it fairly reasonable not to include them.

 

[Teja.]

I love that book.

In fact it's one of my 2-year-old girl's favourite books. From time to time she'll get it off the shelf (it's almost the same size and weight as her) and make me or Mrs Z read it to her. She'll ask who all the players are and repeat their names. It's really funny hearing her reciting the older ones especially, like Monty Noble.

I'm also teaching her that when she sees a picture of Steve Waugh she must sing "Waugh - Waugh - what is it good for? Absolutely nothing" - that may take time, but she'll get there.

Nice stuff.

 

[zaremba]

Ok,I take back my comments of them being racist selections but my other points are still there because which I find it fairly reasonable not to include them.

Fair enough mate. Personally, my All-Time World XI is pretty flexible. Depends on whether I'm going to include Grace or not, and the middle order is more or less completely interchangeable between about 6 or 8 players.

 

[andyc]

Can't agree with your argument here at all, Bhupinder. Both of them are absolute shoe-ins for a South African All Time XI. See here.

 

[Teja.]

Can't agree with your argument here at all, Bhupinder. Both of them are absolute shoe-ins for a South African All Time XI. See here.

Reminds me of how underrated a cricketer, Shaun Pollock is. His bowling average and wpm puts him in the very top bracket and a very capable lower order Batsman. Finest Cricketer South Africa has produced IMHO. Good man too. Would make my All-Time XI.