Cricinfo's all time XIs - India

[Sir Alex]

Could Nissar be considered for all time bangladesh xi ?

 

[Sir Alex]

GI Joe! I never said Nissar should be considered for all time pak XI. pak cricket history starts after 1947. so does India's.

If some players from pre independence days managed to play test cricket for India or Pakistan after partition then they are candidates for their respective national teams. others, those who played only from 1932 to 1947 for British India, should be ignored.

In my opinion, records prior to 1947 shouldn't be attributed to any country, I see even cricinfo has not differentiated between pre-Independence Indian records and post Independence. It makes no sense whatsoever combining both records.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I think you are taking the names too seriously. Had we become Bharat and Pakistan after 1947 then you wouldn't be associating present day India with the India British were ruling. The country that played test cricket from 1932 to 1947 doesn't exist anymore. Instead, there are three test nations in its place. Could Nissar be considered for all time bangladesh xi ?

Simple question, Bagapath: At what point does Indian Test cricket begin? If you say 1947, I can think of quite a few cricketers who'll be turning in their graves. You're confusing political history with cricketing history. The two need not, and in this case, do not coincide. Test #1 played by any team that is presently considered as representative of the Republic of India is still officially the one played in 1932. Indian cricket history does not begin in 1947.

 

[G.I.Joe]

GI Joe! I never said Nissar should be considered for all time pak XI. pak cricket history starts after 1947. so does India's.

If some players from pre independence days managed to play test cricket for India or Pakistan after partition then they are candidates for their respective national teams. others, those who played only from 1932 to 1947 for British India, should be ignored.

Yeah, if and when Khalistan gains Test status in 2020, Bishan Bedi and Harbhajan will be thrilled to hear that they no longer qualify for consideration for an all time India XI.

 

[bagapath]

Simple question, Bagapath: At what point does Indian Test cricket begin? If you say 1947, I can think of quite a few cricketers who'll be turning in their graves. You're confusing political history with cricketing history. The two need not, and in this case, do not coincide. Test #1 played by any team that is presently considered as representative of the Republic of India is still officially the one played in 1932. Indian cricket history does not begin in 1947.

may be you believe pakistan came out of india, like how bangladesh came out of pakistan (and khalistan would have to be carved out of india). i am of the opinion that british india was broken into pakistan and india. both countries and their respective histories started in 1947.

you think i am confusing political history with cricketing history. i think you are confused by the name india. if this country were called bharat then you wouldnt be mixing it up with british india.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't think a single East Pakistani(present day Bangladeshi) has ever represented Pakistan.May be I am wrong and there might have been one but that would be about it.

A quick bit of Googling revels Niaz Ahmed. Indian born, but represented East Pakistan and Dacca in FC cricket as well as playing tests for Pakistan. Might be others.

just saw your post boy brumby. india and pakistan being carved out of british india, and east pakistan gaining independance from pakistan are two different kind of historical events. pakistan still exists. bangladesh just split from it. but british india is gone. india and pakistan are new nations.

if a pakistani player setlled down in bangladesh post his playing days he should still be considered for the pakistan xi (like how engineer should be considered for all time india Xi despite him living in england). because the country he represented still exists and plays test cricket. but british india is gone. the country that played test cricket from 1932 to 1947 doesnt exist anymore. it is wrong to assume that india is the same as present day india.

Well, a Pakistan still exists, but "Pakistan" between 47-71 meant both East and West Pakistan in the same way as India before 47 meant all of modern day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

I'm not passing comment on the geo-political forces at play in their births, but I personally don't see a difference in principle as far as test nations goes.

 

[Manee]

How dare you forget Ashok Dinda

He really should have been proof that you can bowl 140kph and still be useless.

 

[G.I.Joe]

may be you believe pakistan came out of india, like how bangladesh came out of pakistan (and khalistan would have to be carved out of india). i am of the opinion that british india was broken into pakistan and india. both countries and their respective histories started in 1947.

you think i am confusing political history with cricketing history. i think you are confused by the name india. if this country were called bharat then you wouldnt be mixing it up with british india.

No, I include all players who played for India between 1932 to 1947 as representative of the same cricketing nation that happens to also go by the name of India 1947 onwards. Similar to how I include all players who played for Pakistan until 1971 as representative of the same cricketing nation that goes by the name of Pakistan 1971 onwards. Sri Lanka didn't become a different cricketing nation to Ceylon, and neither does renaming India to Bharat make it so. Yes, there is definitely the issue of partition/secession in the latter case, but cricketing historians have displayed great wisdom in choosing to look at it as a secession rather than a partition (which I agree with both politically as well as in cricketing history terms), and it is over smartness to now claim and pretend it should have been otherwise as far as the sport is concerned.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

A quick bit of Googling revels Niaz Ahmed. Indian born, but represented East Pakistan and Dacca in FC cricket as well as playing tests for Pakistan. Might be others.

Right,thanks for that so there is at least one.

The partition of British India isn't really comparable to Pak/Bang.I am not sure if we are allowed to discuss that here though.Suffice it to say that the present day Bangladesh contributed little to Pakistan,be it cricket or otherwise.


It is my opinion that pre partition players should only be allowed to represent the countries they chose post partition.It is our choices more than anything else that truly define us.Nissar chose to migrate to Pakistan,was a Pakistani citizen,was apparently the founder of the PCB and is regarded as the first Pak cricketer apparently.I think that is enough proof he doesn't qualify for an "Indian" side.

Ind's current PM,Manmohan Singh,was also born in Pakistan (was part of British India then obv).He migrated to India post parition and is an Indian citizen.Nissar is as Indian as Manmohan Singh a Pakistani.

Like I mentioned,it comes down to how pedantic you are with "India".Cricinfo doesn't differenciate between India pre 1947 and the present day India so in that sense he does qualify.

 

[bagapath]

well... I am not going to choose nissar for cricketing reasons alone. hope that saves me from getting into this argument i can never win or lose.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

yeah he's only played 6 tests.

 

[Pratters]

Still better than 95% of Indian seamers in history.

 

[G.I.Joe]

well... I am not going to choose nissar for cricketing reasons alone. hope that saves me from getting into this argument i can never win or lose.

That's reasonable. I'm surprised you saw any sense in that inane argument.

 

[weldone]

well... I am not going to choose nissar for cricketing reasons alone. hope that saves me from getting into this argument i can never win or lose.

Me too. If I have Kapil and Amar Singh in the team, the last place for a third pacer can go to Srinath or Nissar. From what I've read about Nissar, he seems to have been a similar bowler to Srinath. Srinath has played so many tests, and was quite successful in home conditions.

 

[bagapath]

India all-time XI: The XI | All-time XIs | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

gavaskar
sehwag
dravid
tendulkar
hazare
dhoni (wk)
kapil
mankad
kumble
srinath
prasanna

other than kumble and prasanna the team looks fine. i would have gone for bedi and gupte in their places.

 

[andyc]

Kumble absolutely has to be in the team IMO. See here for more. Interesting to note the stark differences, in terms of figures alone, in the bowling between India's XI and other countries. The lowest bowling average in the team is Kapil's 29.64, and Kumble is the only other one to be under 30. Obviously the state of the home pitches have a lot to do with this, but just find it really interesting, and an indication that stats aren't necessarily the be all and end all.

 

[Himannv]

I think thats a good team that was picked in the end. Very effective.

 

[G.I.Joe]

India all-time XI: The XI | All-time XIs | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

gavaskar
sehwag
dravid
tendulkar
hazare
dhoni (wk)
kapil
mankad
kumble
srinath
prasanna

other than kumble and prasanna the team looks fine. i would have gone for bedi and gupte in their places.

Both Mankad and Bedi?

 

[Sir Alex]

Would opt for Lax over Hazare any day.

 

[aussie]

India all-time XI: The XI | All-time XIs | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

gavaskar
sehwag
dravid
tendulkar
hazare
dhoni (wk)
kapil
mankad
kumble
srinath
prasanna

other than kumble and prasanna the team looks fine. i would have gone for bedi and gupte in their places.

Would always pick Engineer over Dhoni, especially for a hypotetical home test, where IND will need the best pure keeper againts that spin trio. Maybe in a hypotetical overseas test, you could pick Dhoni however

No need to pick Bedi when you have Mankad. Utilizing the options of having a pure leggie, offie & left-arm spinners is too enticing ignore.

Gupte over Kumble anyday indeed. I wouldn't try & explain using my reasoning. I'll quote SJS on that matter from years ago.

Firstly if anyone wishes to counter by arguing a case for Kumble over Gupte due to Kumble's longevity:

Longevity alone doen't win too many arguements, does it. I haven't heard anyone on this forum putting Hobbs ahead of Bradman, WG ahead of Hobbs, Wilfred Rhodes ahead of Sobers and Woolley ahead of Lara.

Inspite of the many years Kumble has put in, have you ever heard anyone, ever, talk of him in terms of being the greatest spinner of all times. The fact is that some very highly respected names in the game have done that with Gupte. We may disagree with that claim but it surely tells us that longevity doesn't come into it. Sobers has talked of Gupte being better than Warne. He doesn't talk of Gupte being better than Kumble let alone talking of Kumble being better than Warne. Longevity does tell something about a cricketer but when you compare one great cricketer with another, you invariably think of each at his best and there aren't many who have had a twenty year peak.

Well he is surely the greatest orthodox leg spinner of all time India have produced.

That much we can say without much chance of contradiction with the unorthocox, medium pacers of Kumble and Chandra.

Gupte is widely called by those who played with or against him as the finest spinner India produced so we cant just ignore that claim out of hand, Amongst those who swear by him are as great and legendary cricketers as Sir garfield Sobers.

Inspite of Kumble's 600 plus wickets, Bishen's magnificently beautiful bowling and mastery over his subtle craft and Chandra's amazing ability to strike suddenly and venomously and win matches in a short sharp spell, the fact remains that the only other Indian bowler who has been considered amongst the all time greats by opponents Is Erapally Prasanna.

Just as the West Indians are enamoured by Gupte and swear by him, the Australians of the late 60's and early 70's swear by Prasanna. And you may not be fond of Ian Chappel but there are few more knowledgeable students of the game.

I havent seen Gupte bowl but I have heard of how great he was hundreds and thousands of times from those who had played with him. Prasanna I have seen and consider the greatest Indian spinner, I have seen for various reasons which will take some space.

Coming to the problem of putting Gupte's greatness in the context of his figures let me tell you that figures tell you something for sure but they dont tell you everything unless you KNOW it.

Whats the BIG difference between Gupte, Bedi, Chandra, Prasanna, Kumble, and Venkat ? Its the same difference as between Andy Roberts and the other great West Indian fast bowlers who followed. He had very modest, if any support at the other end. And yet so many of those who saw him at his peak consider Roberts the greatest of the many great West Indian fast bowlers.

Roberts for most of his peak as a fast bowler, bowled with medium pacers of modest caliber at the other end. By the time Holding developed into a world class fast bowler, Roberts' career was on the wane. Hence iplayers like Lillee, Imran, Lloyd, Trueman, Bailey and Mallet among others rate him higher than those who followed him in-spite of his figures being, comparatively, less impressive.

Bedi, Prasanna and Chandrashekhar were in a period when India had no pace bowlers to talk of but they had each other and Venkat waiting to play now and then. Between them they made the greatest spin attack ever assembled in one Test nation. This did help though Kapil arrived ten years late for India to really benefit from a truly awesome attack.

Kumble when he arrived had Kapil with some juice left in him, Prabhakar close to his best, Venkatpathy Raju who joined the same year and Javagal Srinath who made his debut the next year. By the time Kumble flowered around mid-90's, Srinath was a world class bowler. Before Srinath went Harbhajan had become a top flight off spinner and there were a host of young medium pacers knocking at the Test doors. Not to mention that India by now had become one of the great batting sides in the world which was important because Kumble didn't have to always defend very modest scores.

Gupte had the worst in this respect.

The only single bowler whose career, briefly, ran parallel to Gupte's was Vinoo Mankad. The others were nothing to write home about. Gupte made his debut in Dec 51, was promptly dropped and included exactly 12 months later in Nov. 1952. From then till 1956, he played 20 Test matches, mankad played in 19 of them.

In these 19 Tests, Gupte took 94 wickets at 23.5 each.

Mankad was to play no more for India till recalled in 1959 to lead the country against Alexander's West Indies. I think the 3rd captain in 4 Tests. Mankad was already 42 years old and bowled only in the first innings when he took four wickets while Gupte took one. Gupte took another four in the second as West Indies thrashed India once again.

India's previous series in the West Indies ha been six years ago in the Carribean and they had managed to draw four of the five Tests with Gupte being the outstanding bowler with 27 wickets. Valentine who took 28 for West Indies was the only bowler to take more. Mankad was the next best Indian bowler and his wickets cost him 24 runs per wicket more !!

This time they decided that the pace of Hall and Gilchrist had to be met with dead wickets. All that did was that the Indian bowlers were slaughtered in four of the five games while Hall and Gilchrist with sheer pace took 56 wickets between them at 17 apiece.

Windies ran up consecutive scores of 443 for 7, 614 for 5, 500 and 644 for 8 decl in the last four Tests to win three of them by 203 runs, an innings and 336 runs and 295 runs !!

Gupte toiled on those dead tracks to bowl 312.3 overs. The next three Indian bowlers Borde ramchand and Mankad bowled ten overs less !! between the three of them.

Gupte whose 4 for 86 in the first Test had helped restrict the Windies to a very modest 227 and whose fabulous 9 for 102 in the second Test got them, single handedly, for 222, still managed the series with nothing to show but the toil of bowling day in and day out on dead wickets.

After 15 wickets at 19.99 each in the first three innings of the series, he bowled 210 overs in the next five innings for just 7 wickets for almost 90 runs each. It broke his spirit.

He had dead wickets to contend with, and for fellow bowlers, as we have seen
- Borde, primarily a batsman - an allrounder of sorts,
- Mankad also an allrounder and well past his use by date,
- Ramchand again a bits and pieces player with 33 Test wickets in his career,
- Polly Umrigar again primarily a batsman,
- Surendranath a very modest bowler with 26 wickets in his Test career,
These were the five main bowlers for India in this series and between them they bowled 457 overs. Ramchand with 5 wickets at 49.4 was the most successful of the lot.

Four bowlers in the series took over ten wickets three of them bowled fast to medium pace in the series (Sobers too most of the time).

Hall 30, Gilchrist 26, Gupte 22 and Sobers 10.

Sometimes figures have to be seen in the wider context.

I think that if Gupte and Mankad had bowled in tandem for longer (more over lap) and/or if there had been a third bowler of some note in the Indian side of the fifites, we would be seeing completely different figures of Subhash Gupte.

I have stressed a lot on this series to stress the difference the lack of a balanced attack means. That is why Gupte, Andy Roberts and even kapil Dev for a large part of his early career and Richard Hadlee are such remarkable bowlers.