All time sides with a twist . . .

[SJS]

Cricketers as well as cricket enthusiasts have always reveled in making sides of past and present cricketers. As the span of the Test era stretched from decades to well over a century, people had to chose between players they had seen and those they had only heard about. This made it very difficult to compare players and while earlier people used to argue only about with loyalties affecting their choices (your county or mine or Aussie versus Pom) now it the differences spread over generations. fathers differed with sons and grandfathers were completely left out of the picture.

On top of that the game has seen many changes in playing conditions (wickets primarily) and numerous changes in laws which has made statistics more and more redundant. Of course, the average cricket fan continues to reserve the right to use statistics and make his own interpretations of them.

I have, therefore, always felt it is more fun to try and choose sides with a bit of a twist which reduces the seriousness a bit and makes fans focus on other elements than get into verbal brawls over each other's choice.

For example alphabetical teams or teams with spectacled players or a team of south paws and so on. I have started this thread with an aim to try and conjur up different twists to selection of teams. Lets see how long it lasts :-)

Here is the first one.

The team with great batsmen covering a century

I had once listed all the batsmen who had Test careers spread over at least eight years (war years excluded) and who averaged above 40 (yes it is a decent average even though it doesn't appear so today), I came across that sheet today and got this idea which I put to you.

BATSMEN :- Pick six batsmen (including at least one an all rounder) whose careers overlap and cover the years 1910 till date. You can, in fact pick any year in the first decade of the 19th century and pick six batsmen that cover the next hundred years. Remember you will have to fit them in a batting oder so do not pick four openers :-). This is generally not too difficult for you need batsmen with careers approaching two decades each and yet be amongst the greats. That makes this list a bit predictable. Mine reads this . . .

1. Jack Hobbs (1908-1930)
2. Don Bradman (1928-1948)
3. Len Hutton (1937-1955)
4. Gary Sobers (1954-1974)
5. Viv Richards (1974-1991)
6. Sachin Tendulkar (1989-2011)

PS : The overlap is just about the year. Thus if the outgoing batsman has played a Test in the same year as the incoming batsman, thats enough.

BOWLERS & KEEPER : Pick six other players (one of whom should be a wicket keeper and one an all rounder). Of the two all rounders, ideally one should be a batting all rounder and the other a bowler all rounder. The condition here is that there should be one contemporary of each of the six batsmen. Which means that bulk of the bowler's or the keeper's test career should have been during the playing years of one of the six batsmen selected.

My list (in the same order of time) reads . . .

1. Bert Oldfield-keeper (1920-1937)
2. Bill O'Reilly (1932-1946)
3. Ray Lindwall (1946-1960)
4. Alan Davidson - Bowl AR (1953-1963)
5. Dennis Lillee (1971-1984)
6. Muralitharan (1992-2010)

The ideal way to do this (although I chose directly) is to pick the best bowler/keeper/bowling all rounder contemporary of the six batsmen you have already chosen. Then one has, six bowlers and six keepers and, hopefully, six bowling all rounders making for a wider pool to pick a balanced side from.

My final side reads in batting order (drop according to conditions)

1. Hobbs
2. Hutton
3. Bradman
4. Tendulkar
5. Richards
6. Sobers - Multifaceted
7. Davidson - Left arm fast medium
8. Lindwall - Right arm fast
9. Oldfield - keeper
10. Lillee - Right arm fast
11. O'reilly - Right arm leg break googly
12. Murali - off spin and doosra

Thats a pretty decent side I think. I know many would choose Warne over Murali. I choose Murali and have two reasons for it. The diplomatic one, but a very creditable one nevertheless, is that I have O'reilly from Bradman's era so I want variety and hence Murali. The honest answer, however, is that I consider Murali the better bowler as well. I changed O'reilly at the last minute from Grimmett. Didn't want two controversial selections I guess ;-)

I always prefer to choose the best man with gloves for keeping in an all time side. The argument being that if a side needs to halp with the bat from a keeper with the bat and is willing to compromise the keeping abilities, it cant be much of an all time batting side can it ? I would be surprised if this side needed the keeper to bat much if ever :-)

The same exercise could be done with individual country sides as well. Australia, England and South Africa have played for a century and for the first two such an exercise is feasible.

South African cricketers had a shorter career span PLUS they had a long break but with a bit of tweaking that could be done as well. Other country's have played much less so I would say New Zealand, Windies India and Pakistan are worth a try.

 

[slowfinger]

Very interesting side, what gave you the spark to think of that?!

 

[SJS]

Very interesting side, what gave you the spark to think of that?!

I have always been interested in what greats of one generation thought of those that came before and those that came after. Thus Bradman's views on, say Hobbs, as well as on Hutton are invaluable. Similarly Sobers has written of those that came before him, played alongside him and came after him. This gives a kind of continuity to the game. Cricket fans nowadays go crazy discussing how the game has changed and how the old players just cant be compared with the modern ones. The overlaps (and by that I mean much closer overlaps really) and reading what these players with very long careers have to write about those that were giants in the game when they made their debuts and those that made their debuts when these were ending their careers, make fascinating reading. I have not read anything, and I read a LOT, to suggest that they felt the players of one game or the other were dramatically different.

The game has stabilised in batting technique since the middle of the last decade of the 19th century so greats from Hobbs onwards, were all playing very similar games, essentially. The differences were not as great as we tend to make them out to be.

This interest in overlapping top cricketers and what they say of generations before and after has always been of interest to me and that was the starting point for this :-)

 

[Howe_zat]

Hard to pick ones you haven't already - espesically the modern era. My first go worked forwards in time from Wooley, and was a cheat - I couldn't get through the modern era in one go. So it means picking Sanath on his ODI span, or nicking Tendulkar.

1. Arthur Morris (1946-55)
2. Gordon Greenidge (1974-91)
3. Wally Hammond (1932-47)
4. Frank Woolley (1909-34)
5. Colin Cowdrey (1954-75)
6. Sanath Jayasuriya/Sachin Tendulkar (1989-2011)

The second go worked backwards, but still using the same two to get me past the war. Fact is that Tendulkar is needed for the modern era. I tried using Kallis, as the next best, but then the best bloke you can use from there is Ranatunga, and so two pick down you're not yet out of the 1980s. The best pick from there is Lloyd (back to 1966) but there seems to be a block in that no cricketer from the 1940s, specifically that might have played against Hammond, went on to play anywhere past the mid-50s (hence my use of Morris earlier).

So, reasoning that my use of Hammond is the blocker, I started from the middle, with Cowdrey(1954-75) and Compton (1937-57). And the reason that I picked Hammond in the first place becomes evident - there is no cricketer who played a longer game than Wooley, and played both in the 1900s and the late 1930s. So I need two entirely pre-war picks in this scenario, which gets me back to where it went wrong last time. I've only got two picks to get from 1975 to today, which means one from the early 90s to today, and for that you need Tendulkar.

So my top 6 is:

1. Morris (46-55)
2. Greenidge (74-91)
3. Hammond (32-47)
4. Tendulkar (89-11)
5. Woolley (09-34)
6. Cowdrey (54-75)

And the rest is the easy part. With each player on the same team as their era's representative, for no particular reason.

7. Keith Miller (1946-56)
8. Les Ames (1929-39)
9. Harold Larwood (1926-33)
10. Malcolm Marshall (1978-1991)
11. Anil Kumble (1990-2008)

 

[SJS]

Hard to pick ones you haven't already - espesically the modern era. My first go worked forwards in time from Wooley, and was a cheat - I couldn't get through the modern era in one go. So it means picking Sanath on his ODI span, or nicking Tendulkar.

1. Arthur Morris (1946-55)
2. Gordon Greenidge (1974-91)
3. Wally Hammond (1932-47)
4. Frank Woolley (1909-34)
5. Colin Cowdrey (1954-75)
6. Sanath Jayasuriya/Sachin Tendulkar (1989-2011)

The second go worked backwards, but still using the same two to get me past the war. Fact is that Tendulkar is needed for the modern era. I tried using Kallis, as the next best, but then the best bloke you can use from there is Ranatunga, and so two pick down you're not yet out of the 1980s. The best pick from there is Lloyd (back to 1966) but there seems to be a block in that no cricketer from the 1940s, specifically that might have played against Hammond, went on to play anywhere past the mid-50s (hence my use of Morris earlier).

So, reasoning that my use of Hammond is the blocker, I started from the middle, with Cowdrey(1954-75) and Compton (1937-57). And the reason that I picked Hammond in the first place becomes evident - there is no cricketer who played a longer game than Wooley, and played both in the 1900s and the late 1930s. So I need two entirely pre-war picks in this scenario, which gets me back to where it went wrong last time. I've only got two picks to get from 1975 to today, which means one from the early 90s to today, and for that you need Tendulkar.

So my top 6 is:

1. Morris (46-55)
2. Greenidge (74-91)
3. Hammond (32-47)
4. Tendulkar (89-11)
5. Woolley (09-34)
6. Cowdrey (54-75)

And the rest is the easy part. With each player on the same team as their era's representative, for no particular reason.

7. Keith Miller (1946-56)
8. Les Ames (1929-39)
9. Harold Larwood (1926-33)
10. Malcolm Marshall (1978-1991)
11. Anil Kumble (1990-2008)

Thats an interesting side. You do need twelve though. You need another bowler from Woolley's era. Rhodes maybe ?

Secondly, I did not say everyone has to select all 12 new players. You are free to choose those I have chosen. So Tendulkar is fine . . . and so is Bradman if I may add :-)

The important thing is to pick the batsmen first. If decided on even a single bowler first then you may need to make adjustments in the batting list which will come down to trying to somehow fit your personal favourite all time side into it. Thats not the purpose here.

I do appreciate that a choice of just 12 from a century is a bit tough for ir virtually precludes too many choices. It would have been easier to pick an "overlapping side" (including all 11 or 12) for the entire Test cricket period.

That makes it easier to select players with shorter spans. But again this started with the list of batsmen who were not just great but had the rare attribute of longevity and the dillemma of limited choice shows how rare that combination is :-)

 

[Howe_zat]

I know I didn't have to avoid the players you'd chosen, but as far as i can see there's no other side that could match your batting line up in this exercise, so I went out of my way to pick a different one.

I do need another bowler, though not from Woolley's era as that's Larwood. My 12th man would be from Cowdrey's era, and so would be Fred Trueman (1952-65).

 

[adub]

How about this side? (I went the extra yard and got my bottom six to cover the whole century too)

1. Bob Simpson (57-78) 4869 runs @ 46.81, 71 wkts @ 42.26
2. Jack Hobbs (08-30) 5410 runs @ 56.94, 1 wkt @ 165.00
3. Don Bradman (28-48) 6996 runs @ 99.94, 2 wkts @ 36.00
4. Sachin Tendulkar (89-11) 14965 runs @ 56.25, 45 wkts @ 53.68
5. Allan Border (78-92) 11174 runs @ 50.56, 39 wkts @ 39.10
6. Frank Worrell (48-63) 3860 runs @ 49.48, 69 wkts @ 38.72
7. Garry Sobers (54-74) 8032 runs @ 57.78, 235 wkts @ 34.03 (Simpson era)
8. Imran Khan (71-92) 3807 runs @ 37.69, 362 wkts @ 22.81 (Border era)
9. Gubby Allen (30-48) 750 runs @ 24.19, 81 wkts @ 29.37 (Bradman era)
10. Godfrey Evans (46-59) 2439 runs @ 20.49, 173ct 46st (Worrell era)
11. Muralitharan (92-10) 1261 runs @ 11.67, 800 wkts @ 22.72 (Tendulkar era)
12. Wildred Rhodes (1899-30) 2325 runs @ 30.19, 127wkts @ 26.96 (Hobbs era)

Maybe not the best bowling attack for Perth (although Imran and Gubby would surely be a handful), but they'd have plenty to defend.

 

[weldone]

Off the top of my mind:

Leonard Hutton
Jack Hobbs
Donald Bradman*
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Garry Sobers
Keith Miller (Hutton's contemporary)
Alan Knott + (Sobers' contemporary)
Malcolm Marshall (Viv's contemporary)
Sydney Barnes (Hobbs' contemorary)
Harold Larwood (Bradman's contemporary)
Muttiah Muralitharan (Tendulkar's contemporary)

 

[SJS]

How about this side? (I went the extra yard and got my bottom six to cover the whole century too)

1. Bob Simpson (57-78) 4869 runs @ 46.81, 71 wkts @ 42.26
2. Jack Hobbs (08-30) 5410 runs @ 56.94, 1 wkt @ 165.00
3. Don Bradman (28-48) 6996 runs @ 99.94, 2 wkts @ 36.00
4. Sachin Tendulkar (89-11) 14965 runs @ 56.25, 45 wkts @ 53.68
5. Allan Border (78-92) 11174 runs @ 50.56, 39 wkts @ 39.10
6. Frank Worrell (48-63) 3860 runs @ 49.48, 69 wkts @ 38.72
7. Garry Sobers (54-74) 8032 runs @ 57.78, 235 wkts @ 34.03 (Simpson era)
8. Imran Khan (71-92) 3807 runs @ 37.69, 362 wkts @ 22.81 (Border era)
9. Gubby Allen (30-48) 750 runs @ 24.19, 81 wkts @ 29.37 (Bradman era)
10. Godfrey Evans (46-59) 2439 runs @ 20.49, 173ct 46st (Worrell era)
11. Muralitharan (92-10) 1261 runs @ 11.67, 800 wkts @ 22.72 (Tendulkar era)
12. Wildred Rhodes (1899-30) 2325 runs @ 30.19, 127wkts @ 26.96 (Hobbs era)

Maybe not the best bowling attack for Perth (although Imran and Gubby would surely be a handful), but they'd have plenty to defend.

Thats a good one. Of course putting Sobers amongst the bowlers )or as a bowling all rounder) helps :-)

The big advantage of course comes from using Gubby Allen who alongwith Rhodes helps cover an amazing half a century of Test cricket,

 

[SJS]

Off the top of my mind:

Leonard Hutton
Jack Hobbs
Donald Bradman*
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Garry Sobers
Keith Miller (Hutton's contemporary)
Alan Knott + (Sobers' contemporary)
Malcolm Marshall (Viv's contemporary)
Sydney Barnes (Hobbs' contemorary)
Harold Larwood (Bradman's contemporary)
Muttiah Muralitharan (Tendulkar's contemporary)

I am scandalized ! How the hell did I forget Barnes !!!

Well done. Although I would have looked at an extra spinner (preferably a leg spinner or a great left arm spinner) at the cost of one of the new ball men.

 

[SJS]

I am scandalized ! How the hell did I forget Barnes !!!

Well done. Although I would have looked at an extra spinner (preferably a leg spinner or a great left arm spinner) at the cost of one of the new ball men.

Now that my eyes have been opened, I would make a change in my side. Oldfield goes out and Barnes comes in from the Hobbs Era. I then drop Davidson to bring in a keeper from the Sobers Era. Its not Derryk Murray and its not Wally Grout or John Waite. It is that true prince amongst keepers of my youth - Farroukh Engineer - a chump behind the mike I am afraid :-)

 

[fredfertang]

Delighted to see you've picked such a great Lancastrian SJS - wonderful batsman as well of course, even if he could be enormously frustrating with some of those rash shots of his

 

[adub]

Thats a good one. Of course putting Sobers amongst the bowlers )or as a bowling all rounder) helps :-)

The big advantage of course comes from using Gubby Allen who alongwith Rhodes helps cover an amazing half a century of Test cricket,

Gubby was the guy that cracked the code. I couldn't think of any other way to get from 1930 to the post-war in one step. He's about the only bowler that was a true contemporary of Bradman from start to finish.

I know going with Sobers as a bowler first would maybe be seen as cheating. I can just as easily swap out Sobers as a bowler and chuck in Lance Gibbs (58-76). Went with Sobers as a bowling all rounder because he started out as one and his bowling record is not to be sneezed at. Also he give a third seam option (along with Worrell) as well as left arm bowling (again along with Worrell) to balance the attack more than Gibbs would. The mountain of runs at 7 (with Imran's not inconsiderable contribution at 8) is just a bonus.

Simpson was the guy I was least enthusiastic about as his late career only came about due to Packer, but he was a very fine opener and great first slip and using him allowed me to get AB in the side who was a big part of my cricket history.

 

[weldone]

Off the top of my mind:

Leonard Hutton
Jack Hobbs
Donald Bradman*
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Garry Sobers
Keith Miller (Hutton's contemporary)
Alan Knott + (Sobers' contemporary)
Malcolm Marshall (Viv's contemporary)
Sydney Barnes (Hobbs' contemorary)
Harold Larwood (Bradman's contemporary)
Muttiah Muralitharan (Tendulkar's contemporary)

I am scandalized ! How the hell did I forget Barnes !!!

Well done. Although I would have looked at an extra spinner (preferably a leg spinner or a great left arm spinner) at the cost of one of the new ball men.

Having given it some more thought, I'll go with this team:

Leonard Hutton
Jack Hobbs
Donald Bradman*
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist+ (I know SJS, you're not gonna like this )
Malcolm Marshall
Bill O'Reilly
Sydney Barnes
Fred Trueman

12th man: Keith Miller

 

[smash84]

Having given it some more thought, I'll go with this team:

Leonard Hutton
Jack Hobbs
Donald Bradman*
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist+ (I know SJS, you're not gonna like this )
Malcolm Marshall
Bill O'Reilly
Sydney Barnes
Fred Trueman

12th man: Keith Miller

This is one hell of a team

 

[SJS]

Delighted to see you've picked such a great Lancastrian SJS - wonderful batsman as well of course, even if he could be enormously frustrating with some of those rash shots of his

You know I try not to get into an argument about keepers from the time I have been watching the game. I stick with the Taylor versus Knott argument most of the time for people are scandalised at the choice of Engineer. But he was really something else. A complete natural.

There is a video clip somewhere on youtube of one of Barry Richards great innings against Lancashire. I posted it once on the forum not to show Richards great shots off the font foot and back but of Engineers unbelievable footwork and positioning of the gloves even though the balls never came to him.

People who cant understand what is the difference between an adequate keeper (which covers almost all keepers we see today) and a great one, you have to just watch that clip.

It is educational.

Keeping is all about footwork, staying low and keeping your hands at the same height and in the same line where the ball is at each and every point of its movement after it hits the pitch and of expecting to take each and every ball in the middle of your gloves.

I must find that clip again

 

[SJS]

Here it is. The century by Barry Richards, If you take the trouble of trying to press the pause button just at the point of the contact between bat and ball and then observe where Engineers hands are and how many inches he has risen from the ground. It is so wonderful to be reminded of it after all these years.

Keeping is an art that has gone completely out of fashion, :-(

Richards hundred against Lancashire

 

[SJS]

Having given it some more thought, I'll go with this team:

Leonard Hutton
Jack Hobbs
Donald Bradman*
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist+ (I know SJS, you're not gonna like this )
Malcolm Marshall
Bill O'Reilly
Sydney Barnes
Fred Trueman

12th man: Keith Miller

I like it for one very important reason. Sobers gets a really good batsman to come after him. We are just used to putting him (Sobers) at number six. He should be batting at number four in this line up. Then he would be making regular triple hundreds :-)

 

[weldone]

We are just used to putting him (Sobers) at number six. He should be batting at number four in this line up. Then he would be making regular triple hundreds :-)

I agree entirely. I put Sobers at no. 6 to be less controversial, but even I would like him to play at least at no. 5, if not 4.

 

[SJS]

Twist number 2 :-

Select a twelve with players from eight different countries but you have to stick to these numbers from each country.

Australia, England, SAfrica, Windies - one each
India, Pakistan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka - two each.

You can not pick two specialist batsmen or two specialist bowlers from the same country.

Lets see a really worthy all time side from this :-)