Alan Knott VS Adam Gilchrist

[capt_Luffy]

As I noted.

But I'm also not parochial in my thinking as you are.

Even though he's not in mine, doesn't mean he's not a lock for such teams.

You're gauging it by your opinions, preferences and biases. Im basing it on reality and logical arguments, even if not mine. Again Hobbs makes the overwhelming amount of these teams.

In your mind it's incomprehensible that Gilchrist isn't an automatic choice because you base everything on lower order batting, but many just prefer the better keeper, and some select them.

LoL lol XD

 

[Prince EWS]

Holding is better than his numbers suggest and for me easily better than Garner.

As I've said he squarely in that Donald, Imran, Lillee tier.

He didn't have Marshall's tools, but he was very highly rated in the 80's, I've said that I've seen him rated above Imran, always below Lillee and Hadlee though.

My father as I said is a big Lillee fan but he rates Holding #2 and was surprised he wasn't in the discussion here. He thinks he was a bit better than Marshall and easily better than McGrath.

 

[subshakerz]

Even though he's not in mine, doesn't mean he's not a lock for such teams.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't get it. If he were a lock, why wouldn't someone include him in his XI even after knowing that?
And if there are reasons not to include him, how is he a lock?

Let me simplify it for you.

He wants to create a case for Marshall to be as certain a selection in the ATG XI as possible and therefore needs other players like Hobbs and Tendulkar for him to be bunched with.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Strangely enough, Warne makes ATG XIs much more consistently than any of Sachin, Marshall or Hobbs. IIRC, he was the only cricketer bar Don and Sobers to get all 60 points in Cricinfo's team. Sachin for comparison was the next best and got 51. Hobbs beat Gavaskar by a single point.

 

[sayon basak]

Lockness of a player should be based on one's own judgement, not cricinfo teams imo.

 

[Coronis]

Strangely enough, Warne makes ATG XIs much more consistently than any of Sachin, Marshall or Hobbs. IIRC, he was the only cricketer bar Don and Sobers to get all 60 points in Cricinfo's team. Sachin for comparison was the next best and got 51. Hobbs beat Gavaskar by a single point.

I think we all know why that is though. His main competition is Murali and there are reasons why certain people wouldn’t vote for him. The validity of those reasons would be questionable at best.

 

[subshakerz]

Strangely enough, Warne makes ATG XIs much more consistently than any of Sachin, Marshall or Hobbs. IIRC, he was the only cricketer bar Don and Sobers to get all 60 points in Cricinfo's team. Sachin for comparison was the next best and got 51. Hobbs beat Gavaskar by a single point.

Yet Kyear considers Warne as less of a lock than Marshall. That's the discrepancy.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think we all know why that is though. His main competition is Murali and there are reasons why certain people wouldn’t vote for him. The validity of those reasons would be questionable at best.

Still, I would guess someone like Ranatunga to vote for Murali. And he did, but he voted for Warne as well. In some recent videos (from MCC(?)) were quite a few players made their AT XIs, Warne made the most, almost all serious ones. Murali made a fair bunch too, but even when he did so did Warne.

 

[subshakerz]

Still, I would guess someone like Ranatunga to vote for Murali. And he did, but he voted for Warne as well. In some recent videos (from MCC(?)) were quite a few players made their AT XIs, Warne made the most, almost all serious ones. Murali made a fair bunch too, but even when he did so did Warne.

Yeah, McGrath also was the most voted for pacer.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah, McGrath also was the most voted for pacer.

Yeah. And Murali roughly got the same votes as Ambrose and Steyn, so it wasn't like picking him was a rarity.

 

[DrWolverine]

He thinks he was a bit better than Marshall and easily better than McGrath.

That’s fair.

Michael Holding has ATG series in Australia, England, WestIndies and India and I mean a proper an ATG series and he played alongside the best ever.

in Eng : 4 Tests. 28 wickets @ 12
in Aus : 3 Tests. 24 wickets @ 14
in WI : 4 Tests. 19 wickets @ 19
in Ind : 6 Tests. 30 wickets @ 22.

 

[Johan]

That’s fair.

Michael Holding has ATG series in Australia, England, WestIndies and India and I mean a proper an ATG series and he played alongside the best ever.

in Eng : 4 Tests. 28 wickets @ 12
in Aus : 3 Tests. 24 wickets @ 14
in WI : 4 Tests. 19 wickets @ 19
in Ind : 6 Tests. 30 wickets @ 22.

McGrath has ATG serieses in WI/Eng/Aus too y'know

 

[DrWolverine]

Yes

I rate McGrath as the third best pacer.

But I see an argument for saying Holding is better.

.

 

[kyear2]

Lillee was rated ahead Marshall in the 1990s.

Richie Benaud picked him ahead of Maco.

Lillee came in 6th among Wisden Cricketers list.

Sir Don Bradman picked only two players in his ATG team who made their debut post 1970 and one of them was Dennis Lillee.

Again it's simply not true.

@peterhrt has spoken to this many times in how different countries, regions and constituencies rated players differently.

For many of the Australians, especially players, journalists, umpires from that era, Lillee will always be no. 1. I don't think that the posters here recognize that untill Marshall came along and really solidified hos legacy in '88, Lillee was the GOAT.

In '91 E.W. Swanton created his world XI, in it he included Marshall.

Hobbs | Gavaskar | Bradman | Sobers Headley | Miller | Davidson | Evans | Marshall | O'Reilly| Gibbs

The notion that he was wasn't recognized isn't based in reality.

Plenty of batsmen from that era rated Marshall as the greatest and many held him and Lillee in equally high esteem.

Christopher Martin Jenkins also included Marshall in his post war England vs World XI series.

Richie Benaud rated Lillee the greatest ever. He didn't rate the West Indians at all. We've already discussed ad nauseum the hypocritical why. His XI, which I would like people to actually watch, clearly explains in his own words that it isn't the best XI, but rather the one he would like to represent him.

There is no doubt that he didn't make Dickie's team. But the notion of an all time XI, which it was definitely released as, without more "locked in names" as Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Tendulkar, Gilchrist and yes Marshall, makes it more aligned with the XIs that we see on the lord's cricket channel than one that I would use in my tallies.

Bradman's team was only released after his death, but that doesn't cast any doubts for me as it repeats his affinity for certain players such as O'Reilly, Tendulkar and Richards. But again no Hobbs, Warne, Gavaskar, Hutton, Warne, and with the curious inclusions of Bedser, Grum and Norris?


No one, not even Bradman nor Sobers makes a 100% if these things, but when when we narrow down to the credible and representative teams and more importantly, look at who is likely to make it more times than not, behind Bradman and Sobers, we mostly get the same names. Hobbs, Marshall, Tendulkar and Warne. We've discussed that for Warne there is a very legitimate argument and actual competition for the spot, the others don't have either far less both of those. He does still make the vast majority though.

 

[subshakerz]

Plenty of batsmen from that era rated Marshall as the greatest and many held him and Lillee in equally high esteem.

Says Lillee was rated the same but proceeds to give excuses for why we should ignore all the ATG XIs he was included.

Hobbs, Marshall, Tendulkar and Warne. We've discussed that for Warne there is a very legitimate argument and actual competition for the spot, the others don't have either far less both of those.

Yet Warne appears in far, far more ATG XIs than Marshall.

All because you are biased towards Marshall and don't want to accept there may be an argument based on peer and pundits consensus not to include him.

 

[sayon basak]

That’s fair.

Michael Holding has ATG series in Australia, England, WestIndies and India and I mean a proper an ATG series and he played alongside the best ever.

in Eng : 4 Tests. 28 wickets @ 12
in Aus : 3 Tests. 24 wickets @ 14
in WI : 4 Tests. 19 wickets @ 19
in Ind : 6 Tests. 30 wickets @ 22.

How does that make him easily better than McGrath?

Pretty sure he didn't have these stats in his mind while expressing his opinion.

 

[DrWolverine]

I can understand what his father is saying.

An express fast bowler who could bowl at 95mph and could take the pitch out of the equation.

 

[sayon basak]

I can understand what his father is saying.

An express fast bowler who could bowl at 95mph and could take the pitch out of the equation.

Yeah, and such an effortless action. Pretty sure batsmen used to get an impression that he was holding back some of his speed and there was more to come, which is scary.

 

[Johan]

"I maintain that one of the greatest, possibly 'the greatest', piece of sustained fast bowling it has ever been my privilege to witness was by Michael Holding in the 1976 Test at The Oval. To appreciate the full significance of that performance it first necessary to realise that it was achieved on an absolute featherbed... It is fascinating and revealing to examine the figures of other fast and medium fast bowlers in that match."

This comes from one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time and someone in the top ten.