Cricket Web All Time World XI

[Jason_M]

3. Bradman
4. Lara

 

[Zinzan]

^ You have both already voted.

I think C_C thinks he's important enough to have 2 votes

 

[C_C]

I think C_C thinks he's important enough to have 2 votes

I was changing my vote

 

[grecian]

bradman
dravid

 

[Blaze]

Bradman secures number 3 with 28 votes.

Tendulkar takes the number four spot with 12 votes.

Other votes for 4 were- Pollock 2, Lara 4, Richards 7, Headley 1, Hammond 2 and Dravid 1

J Hobbs
S Gavaskar
D Bradman
S Tendulkar
?
?
?
?
?
?
?

Number 5 is up next. Voting closes this time tomorrow.

 

[Blaze]

My vote goes to Lara again. I am determined to get him in the side. Other contenders for me were G Chappell, Richards and Martin Crowe (only because he is my favourite cricketer of all time)

 

[SJS]

Hammond.

I feel sad to leave out Headley but Hammond scores due to his longer career, very good bowling and being one of the gratest slip fielders in the history of the game.

Considered by many as having suffered due to being born in the age of Bradman. Still his record is HUGE.

 

[33/3from3.3]

The big LARA-tastic

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Greg Chappell for me. Excelled in an age of great fast bowlers, and managed to be entertaining and elegant as well as incredibly effective against all kinds of bowling in all conditions. His statistical record speaks for itself, as well as the plaudits from players of his own time.

He just shades Richards for me, purely because I'd rather Chappell batted at 5. Sobers would be my pick as a batsman, but I'll likely vote for him at 6.

 

[C_C]

Viv RIchards for me.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I think it turned into professional cricket from the 60s onwards - the late 50s were a transitional period.

But even then players couldn't make a living from cricket, so how can you question their commitment? Players from Sutcliffe's era made far greater sacrifices on tour.

And Sutcliffe was a professional, as recognised by the "Gentleman and Players" distinction. He played professional cricket for Yorkshire.

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.

Bloated as it may be, it was still intense cricket. I'm struggling to find a modern day equivalent. Bodyline shows that cricket was taken seriously back then, not only because of the furore and controversy it created, or the fervour with which it was written about, but because cricketers were clearly thinking about methodologies. The world may have lacked mass communication, but there was no lack of scrutiny. The West Indies knew enough about bodyline to try it at Old Trafford

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.

Sutcliffe played first class cricket for 20 years and barely knew failure. He was a batsman of rare class. In his prime he was so unplayable that they changed the lbw law because of him. Unless you wish to contend that there were no good bowlers in a twenty year span of first class cricket, I don't see how a player whose Test average never dropped below 60 can have his record denigrated on the basis that cricket wasn't egalitarian enough for you.

Based on what you've written, I don't see how you can make a concession for Bradman, whilst making it seem like Sutcliffe & Hobbs played in the 19th century.

It stands to reason that cricket wasn't as athletic in Sutcliffe's era, but that doesn't mean Sutcliffe was the breezy player that Trumper was -- quite the opposite from all accounts. After all, Sutcliffe is renowned for his footwork & using a dead bat on treacherous pitches. Hardly a blazon approach to cricket.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Sure.

Mohinder was the best player of fast bowling of that age. Lloyd and all other West indians considered him the best player of fast bowling in the world. A few days ago there was a programme on ESPN or Starsports and everyone, Greenidge, Richards, Lloyd etc said he was the best player of fast bowling they saw in their careers.

Thanks for your reply.

Personally I find it interesting that when the Windies won 11 in a row in '84, part of their success was the off-spin of Roger Harper.

Roger Harper, 1984:

11 Tests, 31 wickets at 25.48

Games won:

9 Tests, 24 wickets at 24.79

Pretty good for a guy who only played 25 Tests with career figures of 46 wickets at an average of 28.06.

I understand that he wasn't a particularly good off-spinner, however.

 

[Natman20]

Chris Martin. An elegant and brilliant batsman who I enjoy watching every game he bats.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

My pick is Steve Waugh.

 

[Boofra]

5. Lara.

Closely followed by John Crawley.

 

[Slifer]

Lara

 

[Zinzan]

Bcl

 

[archie mac]

Four right handers, so I think it is time for a leftie

Neil Harvey

 

[andyc]

I'm going to go for Wally Hammond as well, a batting average of 58.45 and bowling average of 37.8

 

[Jamee999]

Andrew Flintoff