Cricket Web All Time World XI

[roseboy64]

Warne

 

[33/3from3.3]

warne

 

[C_C]

Actually, can we vote on the XI first and then deciede the batting order ?
This whole Marshall vs Warne could see one ( or both) players cop an unfair deal, as well as players such as Murali - IMO, we should debate a pace bowler and then a spinner and adjust the batting order accordingly.

 

[aussie]

Warne

 

[Fusion]

I wish we would vote for a role, as opposed to a particular slot. A lot of people voting for either Marshal or Warne, even though they may want to vote for both. It would be better if we voted for a fast bowler and then spinner next, IMO. Anyway, my vote goes to Marshal, followed by Warne.

 

[Dasa]

Marshall.

 

[Jono]

Warne.

 

[Right arm fast]

warne

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Warne.

Probably McGrath, Holding or Lillee at 11 for me. Still torn.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Warne.

 

[roseboy64]

Number 11 should be betweem McGrath and Ambrose for me.

 

[andyc]

Warne

 

[Dissector]

10 is a hard choice between Marshall and Warne: both of them magnificent bowlers and useful bats. I think I will go with Marshall primarily because of his amazing consistency. Warne has been dominated quite a few times by good players of spin and you have to assume that the other side will have several great batsmen. I don't think Marshall was ever close to being dominated apart from his first tour to India when he was 20. He was a different kind of fast bowler to both Imran and Hadlee so he would fit in nicely with the team so far.

So it's Marshall.

My No. 11 pick will be Murali: IMO the best bowler the game has seen.

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

Warne.

 

[adharcric]

guys i really don't get how you all can take warne over murali so easily. murali has a better economy rate, strike rate, average, wicket rate than warne. warne only has more wickets because he's played much longer. so the only reasons i can think of is a) you are taking longevity into account too much b) you consider murali a chucker c) you are considering warne's batting ability d) you are seriously biased. btw, i'm not a murali supporter or anything, just wondering why you all are choosing warne.

 

[a massive zebra]

d) you are seriously biased. btw, i'm not a murali supporter or anything, just wondering why you all are choosing warne.

Yes I am astounded by the blatant bias displayed by almost all Australians on this forum, not just on this topic but nearly every other as well. Also, one should not overlook the fact that the media constantly hype Warne up as some sort of invincible champion, and very few people can be bothered to put reputation aside and look at the facts to discover that the reality is somewhat different. For example, looking at it from the other side, if people adopted an objective statistical approach and put bias/hype/reputation aside we all know that Sydney Barnes would be the first bowler selected and Warne would not even be mentioned, yet in this poll I expect Warne to get around 20 times as many votes.

 

[andyc]

Yes I am astounded by the blatant bias displayed by almost all Australians on this forum, not just on this topic but nearly every other as well. Also, one should not overlook the fact that the media constantly hype Warne up as some sort of invincible champion, and very few people can be bothered to put reputation aside and look at the facts to discover that the reality is somewhat different. For example, looking at it from the other side, if people adopted an objective statistical approach and put bias/hype/reputation aside we all know that Sydney Barnes would be the first bowler selected and Warne would not even be mentioned, yet in this poll I expect Warne to get around 20 times as many votes.

If that's the case, then why did you vote for Gavaskar over Sutcliffe when Sutcliffe had the superior average? People are just voting for who they would like to see in the team. When Gavaskar got in over Sutcliffe, or Sachin over Pollock (yes, he had less games admittedly), people weren't declaring it as biased, but when Warne's beating Murali it's suddenly because everyone's a racist.

 

[a massive zebra]

If that's the case, then why did you vote for Gavaskar over Sutcliffe when Sutcliffe had the superior average? People are just voting for who they would like to see in the team. When Gavaskar got in over Sutcliffe, or Sachin over Pollock (yes, he had less games admittedly), people weren't declaring it as biased, but when Warne's beating Murali it's suddenly because everyone's a racist.

Gavaskar played in a lower scoring era, faced a generally much higher standard of fast bowling and was a far more important to his team than Sutcliffe who played under a much more lenient LBW law. Whether Sutcliffe is better than Gavaskar is an interesting issue that can be highly debated, and to which there is no clear answer. Conversely, almost all objective statistical evidence points to Murali over Warne - this is far more clear cut. Likewise, I can understand people voting for Tendulkar over Pollock because most prefer players they have seen over those they have not, and Tendulkar has been allowed to really prove himself at the top level unlike Pollock. Everyone who has seen Warne will have seen Murali and again the Tendulkar vs Pollock issue is again far less clear cut than Murali vs Warne.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

...warne only has more wickets because he's played much longer.

They both made their Test debuts in '92.

Warne has more wickets because Murali was sidelined with a shoulder injury.

I'll take Marshall and Warne.

 

[a massive zebra]

They both made their Test debuts in '92.

Warne has more wickets because Murali was sidelined with a shoulder injury.

I'll take Marshall and Warne.

Warne has more wickets because he has played 30 more matches.