Cricket Web All Time World XI

[ClownSymonds]

3. Bradman
4. Viv Richards

Yes, but I want Tendulkar in this team somewhere.

 

[SJS]

Am somewhat surprised that so far I'm the only one to have said Pollock

Pollock and Barry Richards, undoubtedly great players suffer due to limited amount of international cricket played.

No one doubts their pedigree but even when unsaid, people tend to be a bit unsure of whether their entire careers, if allowed to be, would have reflected the same.

Just conjecture but I suspect thats it for most people.

 

[33/3from3.3]

3. Bradman
4. Tendulkar
5. Lara

agreed

 

[Deja moo]

Bradman, Tendulkar, Lara.

 

[Zinzan]

Bradman
Hammond

 

[Slifer]

Bradman and SRT

 

[archie mac]

3= Bradman
4= Hammond

 

[Buddhmaster]

Bradman
Viv

 

[Clarence]

Sir Donald Bradman
Tendulkar
Lara

 

[marc71178]

WI started playing the 20s,IND in the 30s.

Yes, but when did they tour England, which is where you claim they had the racist biased umpiring.

 

[C_C]

Yes, but when did they tour England, which is where you claim they had the racist biased umpiring.

They didnt have home umpire neutrality. Or can you not read through the rest of the posts on this matter ?
How is a colony, who is quiete clearly subjugated under laughable notions of superiority by Britain, expected to be a neutral one ?
Learie Constantine was barred from entering the barbados cricket club because he was black- by the WICB. WICB insisted on picking a white captain till after WWII.
Sounds like a system where its gonna be very fair umpiring right ?
Get real!

 

[SJS]

Yes, but when did they tour England, which is where you claim they had the racist biased umpiring.

India toured England in 1932 and played a one test series. They again toured England in 1936 and played 3 tests.

Windies toured England in 1928 and played 3 tests.

 

[a massive zebra]

3. Bradman
4. Pollock
5. Hammond

 

[C_C]

3. Bradman
4. Viv
5. Tendulkar

 

[R_D]

Sir Donald Bradman
Tendulkar
Lara

 

[SJS]

If I have to name 3,4 and 5.

Bradman, Headley, Hammond.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

What makes me think it was less intensity ? Simply because it was unprofessional- and nomatter what the arguments are, non-professional sports is simply not as competetive as professional sports- the carrot of money is a big one and that does make you try your best.

When did this amateur era end and the professional era begin? The Packer years? Sutcliffe, by definition, was a professional cricketer.

The books written in those eras show the lack of intensity pretty vividly. You had batsmen who considered it unfair to bowl the googley ! You had fielders walk to the boundary and fetch the ball - once you beat the infield, it is a sure four runs almost.
How can one argue about 'same intensity' with that kinda relaxed mindset ?

What about bodyline?? Wasn't it ranked as the most important event in cricket history?

Yes, Sutcliffe might've had a decent time against Grimmett, but fact remains, due to the amatuerness of the era, you have a very very wide field in terms of quality. A bit like Murali bowling from one end and a club bowler from the other. Too uneven and too inconsistent a field to worth taking those statistics seriously for what they are.

Eh, to quote the Don -- "Figures are not entirely conclusive but it is difficult to avoid their significance if a man produces them year after year against every type of opponent and under all conceivable conditions."

Sutcliffe's record is the type that can't be denigrated.

 

[C_C]

When did this amateur era end and the professional era begin? The Packer years? Sutcliffe, by definition, was a professional cricketer.

I think it turned into professional cricket from the 60s onwards - the late 50s were a transitional period.
And Sutcliffe by definition was an amatuer with an amatuer attitude- prevalent in that era. Only one who can be genuinely said not to have an amatuer attitude from that era is Bradman.

What about bodyline?? Wasn't it ranked as the most important event in cricket history?

Massively overbloated event simply because of the culture-shock to the aussie psyche- it says a lot about the so-called mental toughness and seriousness of the sport when people start complaining that the bowler is 'unfair' to bowl a googly or its 'unfair' to bowl anything but waist high deliveries.

Eh, to quote the Don -- "Figures are not entirely conclusive but it is difficult to avoid their significance if a man produces them year after year against every type of opponent and under all conceivable conditions."

Sutcliffe's record is the type that can't be denigrated.

Stucliffe's record is the type that cannot be held above or equal to the 50+ averaging crew or even the near-50s crew from the profressional era. The opposition Sutcliffe played against, the level the game was played at is nowhere close to the quality and intensity of professional test cricket. Unfit fielders who didnt even run full throttle to the boundary ( you beat the infield and you get a four pretty much garanteed), etc etc.
Unless you wish to contend that the majority of the players, who held day jobs and played cricket in the evenings/seasonal cricketers were somehow magically superior to the players who play cricket 24/7 from an intensely scrutinising perspective in an intensely competitive feild, Sutcliffe has no business hanging around in the top 10 batsmen's list- or even the top 20.

 

[shankar]

Bradman
Sachin
Lara

 

[The Baconator]

Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar

Hammond, Lara and Pollock very close to getting in.