Cricket Web All Time World XI

[Dasa]

LEG Ames. Batting average over 40 and one of the best 'keepers.

 

[SJS]

Wait a minute, wasn't knott picked because he was a better batsmen than Taylor who many considered the better keeper?

That is true.

Taylor has strong claims to being the greatest wicket keeper of all time but these things are so difficult to decide I think in Knotts favour one could say that though he WAS predffered to Taylor because of his superior batting he still was a very fine wicket keeper and but for Taylor he might have been acclaimed the best keeper in the world for most of his own playing years at least

We need clarity on whether we are looking for a pure wicket keeper or batsman keeper ?
My choices for.....

Pure keeper - Taylor
Batsman keeper - Ames

 

[Benny2k1]

Andy Flower!

Averages above 50 in tests in a weaker team

Also mention for Alec Stewart

 

[33/3from3.3]

btw i picked Gilly as a Bat Titenda Taibu is gonna be keeper

p.s. Blaze well done for 3000 posts

 

[Blaze]

We need clarity on whether we are looking for a pure wicket keeper or batsman keeper ?
My choices for.....

Pure keeper - Taylor
Batsman keeper - Ames

It is up to each individual. I wouldn't want to restrict people on who they believe should make the side.

 

[SJS]

Might as well end this one early as Sobers quite rightfully takes his place at number 6.

J Hobbs
S Gavaskar
D Bradman
S Tendulkar
B Lara
G Sobers
?
?
?
?
?

Voting for number 7 can begin now and run for 24 hours.

(Keep in mind that we still need a keeper)

Just a suggestion. When voting for a wicket keeper, it should be delinked to the batting order. One may selecta keeper but he may not bat at seven. It could be lower or even higher as in Ames' case.

May I suggest voting for keeper without reference to the place in the batting order and then after the keeper is finalised voting for other position since the choice of keeper (and his batting abilities) might influence at least one other bowlers place.

 

[NZTailender]

I'm going to agree with Benny. Andy Flower, definately.

 

[Blaze]

Just a suggestion. When voting for a wicket keeper, it should be delinked to the batting order. One may selecta keeper but he may not bat at seven. It could be lower or even higher as in Ames' case.

May I suggest voting for keeper without reference to the place in the batting order and then after the keeper is finalised voting for other position since the choice of keeper (and his batting abilities) might influence at least one other bowlers place.

I never said that the number 7 had to be a keeper, just reminded people not to forget that we need one.

 

[SJS]

I never said that the number 7 had to be a keeper, just reminded people not to forget that we need one.

I understand that but when voting for number 7, some may vote for , a wicket keeper, and others may vote for, a bowler who can bat.. This is impossible to compare and those who voted for the bowler may have actually voted for the keeper too.

Now this keeper may lose out to another keeper by a single vote which may not have happened if those who bowled for the bowler had voted for keeper.

Too confusing ? Forget it. It was just an opinion. Ignore it

 

[adharcric]

gilly for sure

 

[Beleg]

Andy Flower.

 

[Blaze]

I understand that but when voting for number 7, some may vote for , a wicket keeper, and others may vote for, a bowler who can bat.. This is impossible to compare and those who voted for the bowler may have actually voted for the keeper too.

Now this keeper may lose out to another keeper by a single vote which may not have happened if those who bowled for the bowler had voted for keeper.

Too confusing ? Forget it. It was just an opinion. Ignore it

Yeah I get what you mean. Your way has merit and I must admit I didn't think of it before but I also think that this way is adequate.

 

[Boofra]

Flower was an ordinary wicket keeper. Not much better than Rahul Dravid so he shouldnt even get close to an all-time WXI. Besides, with the likes of Bradman, Lara, Hobbs, Sachin, Sobers and Gavaskar in the line-up, i hardly think its a prioity to have a keeper who must also be a very good batsman.

Gilchrist is good enough with the gloves so id be inclined to pick him on the basis that Warne will be the spinner.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Marsh.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Wouldn't have a clue. I am not a huge historian of the game (always learning) but from what I have heard Knott was a decent keeper.

I think Knott was a superb keeper personally, one of the best I have seen (from footage etc), and definately superior with the gloves to Gilchrist. However, Gilchrist is not poor with the gloves, and has certainly more than justified his place in a very strong Australian team behind the stumps alone, and provided his wicket-keeping is of a good standard, the unbelievable batting of Gilchrist makes him a must-pick for any World XI, imo. Along with Bradman, Hobbs and Sobers.

Adam Gilchrist.

 

[Dissector]

Gilchrist

BTW I agree with SJS that this vote should be for the keeper regardless of which position he bats. Otherwise if some people vote for an all-rounder and others for a keeper it could get confusing.

 

[Blaze]

Gilchrist

BTW I agree with SJS that this vote should be for the keeper regardless of which position he bats. Otherwise if some people vote for an all-rounder and others for a keeper it could get confusing.

It doesn't matter cause Gilchrist is clearly going to win through.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Please - players in the 60s were far more consumate professionals than players in the 20s and 30s. Gentlemen or players is irrelevant, whats relevant is that it was not a profession and neither was there much intensity to the game ( heck man, how serious competition do you think it is when batsmen whine about bowlers bowling a googly as cheating ??)

First class cricket was well established by the 20s and 30s and while there were some aspects that belong to antiquity, (the distinction between amateur and professional; the low weekly wage & no pay during the off-season), professionals like Sutcliffe played a lot more first class cricket, for far longer, than their modern contemporaries. Sutcliffe, whether you like it or not, was a professional, now matter how rudimentary professionalism was back then. If founding and developing a sporting outfitting business is a day job, then Sutcliffe must've done alright from cricket. I don't see how you can question his commitment or sully his professionalism; from all accounts he was a consumate professional, utterly committed to the cause. A "lack of intensity" may explain how he sustained such a lengthy career, but one gets the feeling that he never turned down a game of cricket -- his desire to play the game, at all levels & for as long as possible, is unquestionable. How was his attitude that of an amateur?

And how is controversy over the googly any different from controversy over the doosra?

I would face bodyline - without a helmet- any day of the week over facing the WI four-prong in the 70s, 80s and early 90s.

And face a fructured skull or being hit above the heart?

So tell me, which fast bowler in Sutcliffe's era would you pick before Imran, Holding, Marshall, Lillee, Garner, Thommo, Waqar, Imran, Akram, Donald, Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Hadlee, Pollock, Kapil, Botham, Hall, Davidson, Trueman, Pollock, etc. etc.
Lets hear the names and the reason please.

I'm sure that most of those bowlers were meaner, faster and nastier than those in Sutcliffe's day, but that's no guarantee that the best bowlers weren't fast for their era or difficult to play. Maurice Tate, for example, sounds like a regular McGrath.

You are arguing for the sake of it and that too, flying into face of basic reasoning - everything, from sports, to science to technology- all of them have evolved and become more advanced as time has gone by - obviously its not one steady graph- you will have little ups and downs but the overall curvature is towards up - so how can 80 years old stuff compare to modern stuff is beyond me.

Coming from an arts background I can't relate to this at all. So much from the past endures.

With Bradman, he is so far ahead that with any drop, he'd still come out ahead comfortably.

Isn't Bradman the ultimate bludgeoner of poor bowling and lazy fielders?

Breezy or not, i am sure its easier to score runs if you got people trotting to the ropes and know nothing about diving or attacking the ball than scoring runs against Jonty Rhodes.

Even Rhodes can't stop a perfectly executed shot.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I was going to pick Imran Khan at 6.

I think Healy deserves a crack at keeper. Healy for 7.

 

[Deja moo]

Even Rhodes can't stop a perfectly executed shot.

But you'd have to admit that they didnt stop most of the shots that are routinely considered blockable today.