• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

All time world test XI selection

Nikhil99.99

U19 Debutant
Not a big Hammond fan personally. Piled up a heap of runs against weak pace attacks on flat decks. Makes for some grim reading.
He pretty much averaged over 50 against Australia.From 1932(from O’Reillys debut) to 1938 ,Hammond averaged 49 against Australia including 55 in Australia.the Indias bowling attack wasnt that bad with neser and Amar Singh being pretty good bowler.And the wis attack he got was pretty good as well.
He did score runs against minnows but he did perform against others as well.He was a good bowler as well,can easily be 5th bowler for his side and the best fielder of his generation .Really useful player imo.
 
Last edited:

kyear2

International Captain
If we can assume that all of Hammond, Lara and Smith will make it, that would be the ideal line up with Kallis at 6, but while that's likely, there's always that chance that it's not.
 

subshakerz

International Regular
If we can assume that all of Hammond, Lara and Smith will make it, that would be the ideal line up with Kallis at 6, but while that's likely, there's always that chance that it's not.
I have Greg Chappell over Smith. I dont think we should include current cricketers, especially someone like Smith who has maybe 30-40 percent of his career ahead of him still, injuries notwithstanding.
 

trundler

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I have Greg Chappell over Smith. I dont think we should include current cricketers, especially someone like Smith who has maybe 30-40 percent of his career ahead of him still, injuries notwithstanding.
Smith >> Chapell because Smith has played for roughly the same duration without avoiding tough tours. I'd have Border over both though.
 

subshakerz

International Regular
Smith >> Chapell because Smith has played for roughly the same duration without avoiding tough tours. I'd have Border over both though.
Chappell played for 15 years though.

Smith has been averaging sub-40 the last 13 tests. What happens if his slump continues? How can you be certain he will rank ahead of Chappell by the end of his career?

Or alternatively, he could have another super peak and kick out someone in the first XI.

I prefer judging cricketers over their entire career. Too many variables.

And Chappell over Border IMO.
 

trundler

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Chappell played for 15 years though.

Smith has been averaging sub-40 the last 13 tests. What happens if his slump continues? How can you be certain he will rank ahead of Chappell by the end of his career?

Or alternatively, he could have another super peak and kick out someone in the first XI.

I prefer judging cricketers over their entire career. Too many variables.

And Chappell over Border IMO.
Chapell effectively played 12 years and never played in India. After a certain point, he gave up touring altogether. Smith has played a decade already and averages much more with a much more creditable away record. Border had an insanely long career and excelled everywhere, even in India. Less ***y but more impressive record IMO. Chapell only played 87 tests to Border's 150+ on the trot. 150 tests in a row. That's insane. Even without the context of shouldering a Root-esque load. Smith has had a better peak and even if he ends up averaging 57 or something he'd still be ahead of Chapell based on his achievements.
 

Top