Ranking the Cricinfo All-Time XIs

[GotSpin]

A very good analysis. I think it will be a tough competition between Australia and the West Indies with Pakistan coming in at number 3 due to a superb (arguably the best) bowling attack. Australian batting might be the best but only just. Imagine a middle order with Lara, Sobers, Richards, and Headley. Enough firepower to face any attack under any conditions.

India probably has a batting line-up good enough to rival these two but I am not sure how they will cope with real pace on truer pitches than the ones found in the sub-continent.

Do feel Australia has a bit of an edge over West Indies in the batting.

India struggling somewhat in the bowling department though.

 

[Slifer]

Would be a great contest... Gav vs Holding is something I'd pay for... an unstoppable force vs an immovable object...

Would back Sachin to do well against Marshall and the likes, but yeah overall would give WI a better chance...

However the same holds reverse also... would anyday back the Indian spinners to run through the best batting lineups Aus, WI , SA could put up in a typical subc pitch...

Agreed. I believe the Indian spinners would make short work of most teams all time XI in India.

 

[Slifer]

Do feel Australia has a bit of an edge over West Indies in the batting.

India struggling somewhat in the bowling department though.

Actually I think OZ have a significant adv over all the teams and its not just because of Bradman. He's a big part of it but Adam Gilchrist just about adds icing to the cake so to speak.

 

[bagapath]

it is already well established that australia's batting is the best of the lot. don't forget that their bowling is also the best: two match winning fast bowlers, two matchwinning spinners and the best fast bowling all rounder as the third pacer. 4 all time greats + 1 very good pacer is a significantly better combination than even the west indian attack which has 3 all time great pacers + 1 good spinner + 1 support bowler in sobers.

 

[Slifer]

Meh... India somehow kept blundering on and fluking results against the likes of the ATG Australian side at their peak.

But yeah, we're a bunch of flat-track bullies who can't beat an egg outside the subcontinent.

Never meant it that way tbh. Ne way this isnt ne different from the sentiment that somehow the WI Xi would struggle vs spin. U never made that statement but its a widely held sentiment which i disagree with (esp an all time WI Xi)

 

[vcs]

Never meant it that way tbh. Ne way this isnt ne different from the sentiment that somehow the WI Xi would struggle vs spin. U never made that statement but its a widely held sentiment which i disagree with (esp an all time WI Xi)

Sorry for the over-sensitivity.

 

[Slifer]

it is already well established that australia's batting is the best of the lot. don't forget that their bowling is also the best: two match winning fast bowlers, two matchwinning spinners and the best fast bowling all rounder as the third pacer. 4 all time greats + 1 very good pacer is a significantly better combination than even the west indian attack which has 3 all time great pacers + 1 good spinner + 1 support bowler in sobers.

Excuse me. With all due respect that would be Imran Khan. That Aside i agree. I think the Wi and OZ bowling would have been on par if the so called jury would have let common sense reign supreme and chosen Garner in place of Gibbs, and Walcott or Dujon for Hendircks. I really dont know what they were thinkin with those seriosuly daft choices. GArner is not only far better than Gibbs, he's a better fielder and batsman

 

[Slifer]

My top 5:

Batting:

Oz
WI
Eng
Ind
RSA

Bowling

Oz
Pak
Eng/WI
RSA

Fielding

Oz/RSA
WI
Eng
NZL??

Overall

Oz
WI
Eng
Pak/RSA

One thing that this exercise under scores for me is that even the so called experts can get it dead wrong.
Having a bowling all rounder affords a team much more flexibility than a batting all rounder.

 

[bagapath]

Excuse me. With all due respect that would be Imran Khan.

today being a sunday i felt like naming miller the best fast bowling all rounder of all time. on other occasions i might have gone for imran. honestly it is very tough to split them.

 

[SeamUp]

These sorts of things are always hard to judge. No matter how much it interests me...it shouldn't be done.

The debate over varying eras is justified and it makes it so hard to judge. There's no point in me going further on that issue because a debate like that could go on for days.

But on the SAF team.

Its quite remarkable that we have 4 all-rounders in there in Kallis, Faulkner, S. Pollock and M.Procter and all are varying types as well.

Faulkner was one of the true greats that many people outside of England and SAF don't know about. He was one of the finest leg-break bowlers to have played and definitely one of the first to perfect the googly. Having learnt the art from Reggie Schwartz who was good mates with Bosanquet.

To think that Eddie Barlow (THE GREATEST INSPIRATION IN SOUTH AFRICAN cricketing history), Trevor Goddard, Clive Rice, Brian McMillan and Lance Klusener (mainly ODI) all missed out as all-rounders is quite remarkable. One things for sure and we would never lack options the way we produce all-rounders.

On the batting front, all of the top 5 average (d) over 50 in test cricket and considering the sporting pitches we have always produced is quite impressive. Eventhough Richards only played 4 tests, I don't think many would doubt that he wouldn't have maintained that. A pure magician with the bat. Eventhough we have had some othere really good batsman, I couldn't argue with that line-up.

On the bowling...considering Peter Pollock, Neil Adcock, Vince Vd Bijl, Garth Le Roux, Fanie De Villiers and Makhaya Ntini aren't there..its quite impressive.

Hugh Tayfield is a shoe-in.

Johnny Waite vs Denis Lindsay vs Mark Boucher would always be a tough one.

 

[subshakerz]

Do feel Australia has a bit of an edge over West Indies in the batting.

I agree. Bradman and Gilchrist definitely give Australia an advantage, even over the imposing WI middle order.

 

[subshakerz]

Excuse me. With all due respect that would be Imran Khan. That Aside i agree. I think the Wi and OZ bowling would have been on par if the so called jury would have let common sense reign supreme and chosen Garner in place of Gibbs, and Walcott or Dujon for Hendircks. I really dont know what they were thinkin with those seriosuly daft choices. GArner is not only far better than Gibbs, he's a better fielder and batsman

I think the selection team wanted to pick a team based on best representation for each role rather than overall strength of the team, and given that WI already had three pacers, they opted for Gibbs. I disagree, if India can have three spinners, SA four all-rounders and Pakistan four pacers, WI should have a team that reflects their historical strengths. Garner or Roberts over Gibbs.

 

[GotSpin]

I agree. Bradman and Gilchrist definitely give Australia an advantage, even over the imposing WI middle order.

I do wonder about Arthur Morris though. His career certainly fell away after the retirement of Bradman, but hypothetically speaking, I do wonder if he'd play well in an AT XI because Bradman is there.

 

[subshakerz]

But on the SAF team.

Its quite remarkable that we have 4 all-rounders in there in Kallis, Faulkner, S. Pollock and M.Procter and all are varying types as well.

Yes, I think the SA team, as usual, is underrated. They have six bowling options, including a worldclass spinner, and batting all the way until 9. They are the only team along with WI that can seriously compete with the Aussies. But, like I said, they may adopt a conservative approach depending on their captain, if its Smith, which may cost them.

 

[taipan1]

Faulkner was one of the true greats that many people outside of England and SAF don't know about.

Except for the small fact that he averaged 62.85 against Aus.

But I guess the Aussies would prefer to forget that

 

[subshakerz]

Agreed. I believe the Indian spinners would make short work of most teams all time XI in India.

Actually, I don't agree.

Against the all-time Pakistan XI, Pakistani batsmen are second only to India when playing spin, and Kapil and Srinath will not trouble them too much. And the pacers should be adept enough to reverse the ball or bowl cutters when needed. Besides, they will be led by Imran, who already has experience beating India both home and away. Unless the pitch is a dodgy rank turner ala Kanpur 2008, then I give the advantage to Pakistan. In a five match series I believe they will win 2-1.

Also favor WI to do well, their top six seem terrific against spin and should be at ease against the pacers, and strong WI sides since the 60s never lost in India despite the presence of so many spinners.

Australia will be competitive, it really goes down to how well McGrath, Miller and Lillee bowl given that O"Reilly and Warne will be largely neutralized.

If history is anything to go by, winning matches in India you are better off depending on pace, not spin.

 

[Matt79]

To rank them as requested:
Australia
West Indies
South Africa
Pakistan
England (can't believe they're that low, but couldn't fit them in higher)
India
NZ
SL

 

[vcs]

Actually, I don't agree.

Against the all-time Pakistan XI, Pakistani batsmen are second only to India when playing spin, and Kapil and Srinath will not trouble them too much. And the pacers should be adept enough to reverse the ball or bowl cutters when needed. Besides, they will be led by Imran, who already has experience beating India both home and away. Unless the pitch is a dodgy rank turner ala Kanpur 2008, then I give the advantage to Pakistan. In a five match series I believe they will win 2-1.

Also favor WI to do well, their top six seem terrific against spin and should be at ease against the pacers, and strong WI sides since the 60s never lost in India despite the presence of so many spinners.

Australia will be competitive, it really goes down to how well McGrath, Miller and Lillee bowl given that O"Reilly and Warne will be largely neutralized.

If history is anything to go by, winning matches in India you are better off depending on pace, not spin.

Pakistan certainly haven't played Indian spinners, or indeed, any kind of spinners well in my lifetime.

 

[subshakerz]

Pakistan certainly haven't played Indian spinners, or indeed, any kind of spinners well in my lifetime.

The current generation, with a few exceptions, are indeed average against spinners. But Hanif Mohammad, Anwar, Zaheer, Miandad, and Inzi were a class apart in playing spin. They all excelled against India as well. Zaheer and Miandad were responsible for ending the reign of the famous India spinner quartet in 78-79. Even Imran as a bat did well against India.

 

[smash84]

The current generation, with a few exceptions, are indeed average against spinners. But Hanif Mohammad, Anwar, Zaheer, Miandad, and Inzi were a class apart in playing spin. They all excelled against India as well. Zaheer and Miandad were responsible for ending the reign of the famous India spinner quartet in 78-79. Even Imran as a bat did well against India.

Agreed with subshakerz. The current generation are quite pathetic against spin otherwise from 1970 till 1999 we were very good players of spin. I think Muralitharan's worst average is also against Pakistan (although after banning of Salim Malik, Shane Warne really used to destroy Pakistan but that too was mainly 1999 onwards).

Also I might add once again that Australia have a very marginal edge over West Indies. If anything the combining Richards and Sobers together might equal about 1.5 Bradmans....that is my opinion and Lara and Headley can be a match for the other Aussies. Gilchrist does tilt the equation in favor of Australia but the difference is not that great.

As for Indian batsmen against real pace on true pitches I might have to bank more on Gavaskar than anyone else in the Indian batting. Sachin and Dravid are all time great players surely but on pitches with real bounce and pace I don't think they are at par with Gavaskar. I always felt that Sachin struggled somewhat against McGrath and failed to hold his own. Although his domination of Shane Warne was a treat to watch.