Wisden names All Time World XI

[smash84]

if you think Imran wasn't a master of the old ball then you should watch this video. It is only 4 mins but this is arguably the finest display of reverse swing ever. A strong indian batting line up on a flat pitch.

Rare Video....Imran Khan destroying India 1982-83 Pakistan Vs India Test Cricket Series - YouTube

 

[smash84]

and I am not sure what you mean by handy with the bat . The other day you put Wasim and Marshall and Warne in the bowling all rounders category. Which was quite silly.

 

[kyear2]

So why do you believe that Imran is hardly included in these ATG XIs?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

if you think Imran wasn't a master of the old ball then you should watch this video. It is only 4 mins but this is arguably the finest display of reverse swing ever. A strong indian batting line up on a flat pitch.

Rare Video....Imran Khan destroying India 1982-83 Pakistan Vs India Test Cricket Series - YouTube

When did I say Imran wasn't a master of the old ball? All I said was Wasim was the most skilled with it and that Waqar swung it the most.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

So why do you believe that Imran is hardly included in these ATG XIs?

Why isn't Kallis?

Because everyone thinks 1 all-rounder is enough despite the fact that Imran and Kallis are ATG bolwer and batsman respectively and would slot in even if they weren't all-rounders.

 

[smash84]

So why do you believe that Imran is hardly included in these ATG XIs?

Because of the stupid 1 allrounder rule that most of these teams follow. Even cricinfo only wanted to keep 1 all rounder hence Imran didn't make it.

 

[kyear2]

But they fill completely different roles and if it was the opinion of the selectors that Imran the bowler was good enough to make the team, I am sure he would have.

Regarding Kallis, Don't think most would include him as a batsman alone as most rate him below Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting from his era alone as a batsman.

 

[smash84]

There have been bowlers marginally better than Imran (McGrath, Marshall, Ambrose, Hadlee) but Imran is far ahead of them in batting. Which is why he brings so much more to the side. So while he doesn't cut it clearly as a bowler but he does so as an overall package.

 

[marc71178]

So why do you believe that Imran is hardly included in these ATG XIs?

Because people misclassify him as a middle order batting all rounder rather than a very handy number 8 and front line bowler

 

[Red]

I think of Imran as a bowler.

 

[smash84]

Yes you do but lots of other teams (like cricinfo) would be pitting him for a number 6 slot which would be taken by a middle order batsman/batting all rounder

 

[smash84]

Wisden announces an alternative XI as well

Brian Lara, Adam Gilchrist and Imran Khan included in alternative World XI, but there's no room for Ian Botham - Telegraph

 

[Esperance]

Why isn't Kallis?

Because everyone thinks 1 all-rounder is enough despite the fact that Imran and Kallis are ATG bolwer and batsman respectively and would slot in even if they weren't all-rounders.

that is unequivocally not true

 

[NUFAN]

Wisden announces an alternative XI as well

Brian Lara, Adam Gilchrist and Imran Khan included in alternative World XI, but there's no room for Ian Botham - Telegraph

That's a fantastic XI which would challenge the Wisden XI. I don't think I could have named a better team. McGrath is probably the most unlucky to miss out.

 

[kyear2]

Love that second team. Might actually beat the first one.

Especially love the middle and the fast bowlers.

Greg Chappell and McGrath just a tad unlucky.

 

[watson]

For the record the two teams are;

Alternative World XI:

1 Sunil Gavaskar (India, 1971-87) 125 Tests, 10,122 runs at 51.12
2 Len Hutton (England, 1937-55) 79 Tests, 6,971 runs at 56.67
3 George Headley (West Indies, 1930-54) 22 Tests, 2,190 runs at 60.83
4 Brian Lara (West Indies, 1990-2006) 131 Tests, 11,953 runs at 52.88
5 Graeme Pollock (South Africa, 1963-70) 23 Tests, 2,256 runs at 60.97
6 Wally Hammond (England, 1927-47) 85 Tests, 7,249 runs at 58.45, 83 wickets at 37.80
7 Adam Gilchrist (Australia, 1999-2008) 96 Tests, 5,570 runs at 47.60, 379 catches, 37 stumpings
8 Imran Khan (Pakistan, 1971-92) 88 Tests, 3,807 runs at 37.69, 362 wickets at 22.81
9 Fred Trueman (England, 1952-65) 67 Tests, 307 wickets at 21.57
10 Dennis Lillee (Australia, 1971-84) 70 Tests, 355 wickets at 23.92
11 Muttiah Muralitharan (Sri Lanka, 1992-2010) 133 Tests, 800 wickets at 22.72


Wisden World XI:

1 Jack Hobbs (England, Wisden Cricketer of the Year 1909) 61 Tests, 5,410 runs at 56.94
2 WG Grace (England, CY 1896) 22 Tests, 1,098 runs at 32.29
3 Don Bradman (Australia, CY 1931, capt) 52 Tests, 6,996 runs at 99.94
4 Sachin Tendulkar (India, CY 1997) 198 Tests, 15,837 runs at 53.86
5 Vivian Richards (West Indies, CY 1977) 121 Tests, 8,540 runs at 50.23
6 Garry Sobers (West Indies, CY 1964) 93 Tests, 8,032 runs at 57.78, 235 wickets at 34.03
7 Alan Knott (England, CY 1970, wkt) 95 Tests, 4,389 runs at 32.75, 250 catches, 19 stumpings
8 Wasim Akram (Pakistan, CY 1993) 104 Tests, 414 wickets at 23.62
9 Shane Warne (Australia, CY 1994) 145 Tests, 708 wickets at 25.41
10 Malcolm Marshall (West Indies, CY 1983) 81 Tests, 376 wickets at 20.94
11 Sydney Barnes (England, CY 1910) 27 Tests, 189 wickets at 16.43.

On a green-top I reckon that the Alernative World XI would be slight favourites. On a flat wicket, or one that spins, I think that Wisden World XI has the edge. Actually scrap that, I have no idea.........

 

[kyear2]

The second team does seem to have the better attack, as stated, especially on green tops. To counter that of course, the first team batting is just near perfect and just good enough to handle it, so as Watson so arfully articulated, I have no idea which would win.

Might fun series to watch though.

 

[smash84]

haha....funnily enough, despite having Bradman in their side the first XI batting average of the top 8 comes to 408 runs while of the alternative XI comes to 428

 

[watson]

haha....funnily enough, despite having Bradman in their side the first XI batting average of the top 8 comes to 408 runs while of the alternative XI comes to 428

That's quite a nice observation.

Since WG Grace probably played many of his Tests on wickets that resembled either a cobble-stone road or a swampy-marsh, or both together, then an average of 32 is likely to be way underdone. And therein lies the problem with 19th century cricketers. Many of the usual certainties fly out the window, and instead we are left with a bunch of relatives. That is, 'Peer Comparison' which only really tells you half of what you would like to know.

Anyway, since Grace would possibly/probably average 50 or more on the featherbeds of today, then the team averages are probably a lot closer as a result.

 

[Red]

Got a feeling that second XI would beat the first XI as often as not.