ESPNcricinfo World XI

[Matt79]

But Bhogle has only one all-rounder in Sobers. There's place for one more.

And I take that I may have been a little unreasonable in criticizing Harsha's choices. It's good enough, though I may disagree (and might quibble about including as many as 8 from post 70's era)

Nah, not criticizing you, just discussing it . It does smack of a bias towards modernity but lots of people are uncomfortable picking players they didn't see. Not correct, but understandable.

 

[andyc]

Was more than a little confused at Chappell not picking Bradman in his team tbh.

 

[Jono]

He obviously didn't think Bradman was thrill a minute

 

[Spikey]

iirc bradman and vic richardson didn't have a great relationship. but ian should get over it

 

[Himannv]

He obviously didn't think Bradman was thrill a minute

Perhaps the other options he chose were more fitting for a thrill a minute team.

 

[Prince EWS]

?

I just found it typical of Chappell to pick his team based on how much the players dominated the opposition and thrilled the crowds instead of doing it properly.

Once he decided to do a Thrill-a-minute XI there was nothing wrong with his criteria; I just thought it was a bit of a cop out for him to do such a team to begin with, backing out of having to pick players who didn't necessarily fall in line with his stylistic preferences. At least he gave his team a proper label though instead of just calling it a World XI and making my blood boil.

 

[Matt79]

Looking forward to the Cribb Robots XI tbh.

 

[Prince EWS]

Looking forward to the Cribb Robots XI tbh.

Haha yeah exactly. I managed to not do that!

 

[smash84]

It's good but it's little too predictable

Absence of both Imran and Hadlee is my biggest complain (at least one of them should be in).

I do agree with that. His team is short of one quality all rounder.

I thought hard and finally decided on this At XI. I understand it might look a little bizarre.

Jack Hobbs
Herbert Sutcliffe
Donald Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Gary Sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Kieth Miller
Imran Khan
Richard Hadlee
Muttiah Muralitharan
Sydney Barnes

Walter Hammond (12th man)

Apologies to Gavaskar, Border, Headley, S Pollock and Waqar

This team is fantastico.....absolute gem of a team. Although I think Sunny should have been there in place of Sutcliffe. And I would have Richards in for Tendulkar. But an outstanding bowling attack and superb depth in batting.

 

[vcs]

Do all the panelists choose their own XIs? Will be interesting to see how many select Lara.

 

[ankitj]

Do all the panelists choose their own XIs? Will be interesting to see how many select Lara.

For national XI's, they published the XI's chosen by individual selectors. For the world XI, they have asked the selectors to select a first and a second XI. Not sure if they will publish both XI's for each of them. Will be fun if they do.

ESPNcricinfo to pick World XI | All-time XIs | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

 

[Slifer]

I sincerely doubt ne of them will (pick Lara ie)

 

[weldone]

Harsha's XI showed a lack of grip on Cricket's history IMHO.

Absolutely nothing wrong with Harsha's XI. You may disagree, but hardly an unreasonable team

8ankitj's comment showed a lack of grip on cricket's history (pulling your leg )

On a serious note, AWT Jono ...Akram's inclusion is always reasonable given that he adds variety to the bowling attack as a left hended fast bowler. Also, I doubt there was a better exponent of swing bowling in the last few decades than Akram (when you include swings of all types - inswing, outswing and reverse swing).

 

[Himannv]

I sincerely doubt ne of them will (pick Lara ie)

Fair shout to make it IMO.

 

[smash84]

8ankitj's comment showed a lack of grip on cricket's history (pulling your leg )

On a serious note, AWT Jono ...Akram's inclusion is always reasonable given that he adds variety to the bowling attack as a left hended fast bowler. Also, I doubt there was a better exponent of swing bowling in the last few decades than Akram (when you include swings of all types - inswing, outswing and reverse swing).

He can only make the team if they need some variety in the bowling attack.

True he was one of the best exponents of swing bowling but swing bowling does not always necessarily translate into wickets. I mean Wasim in tests was not as penetrative a fast bowler as Imran or Waqar and that is reflected in his Strike Rates and quality of batsmen dismissed. In terms of Pakistan bowlers Imran comes out on top in terms of quality of batsmen dismissed throughout the length of his career followed by Waqar. Wasim has a lot of tailenders in his wickets too. At least more than Imran and Waqar.

Imran to me has been a much under-rated test bowler compared to Wasim and Waqar and that might probably be because he was not as good an exponent of reverse swing as these 2.

 

[Ikki]

I think a good argument can be made for Akram. Simply put, Imran isn't going to do much that a Marshall or a Lillee can't do; and Wasim has him covered as well (although maybe very slightly more costly) but a left armer will bring new dynamic when things are hitting a road block.

 

[smash84]

I think a good argument can be made for Akram. Simply put, Imran isn't going to do much that a Marshall or a Lillee can't do; and Wasim has him covered as well (although maybe very slightly more costly) but a left armer will bring new dynamic when things are hitting a road block.

But bowling wise Imran has pretty much everything that Akram has (maybe the swing was not as controlled as Wasim's but it was still damn good) on the same surfaces and probably with better stats (have not looked their stats home and away). My conjecture is that Imran has better stats at home. Also batting wise and as a strategist Imran brings a lot of value to the team. Something that Wasim cannot hope to match.

Bowling wise Lillee and Marshall cannot bring reverse swing. Something that Imran can.

 

[Slifer]

He can only make the team if they need some variety in the bowling attack.

True he was one of the best exponents of swing bowling but swing bowling does not always necessarily translate into wickets. I mean Wasim in tests was not as penetrative a fast bowler as Imran or Waqar and that is reflected in his Strike Rates and quality of batsmen dismissed. In terms of Pakistan bowlers Imran comes out on top in terms of quality of batsmen dismissed throughout the length of his career followed by Waqar. Wasim has a lot of tailenders in his wickets too. At least more than Imran and Waqar.

Imran to me has been a much under-rated test bowler compared to Wasim and Waqar and that might probably be because he was not as good an exponent of reverse swing as these 2.

Solid argument that. Variety and looking more exciting doesnt necessarily translate into effectiveness. And Akram loses out on effectiveness compared to the likes of MM and Imran.

 

[Slifer]

But bowling wise Imran has pretty much everything that Akram has (maybe the swing was not as controlled as Wasim's but it was still damn good) on the same surfaces and probably with better stats (have not looked their stats home and away). My conjecture is that Imran has better stats at home. Also batting wise and as a strategist Imran brings a lot of value to the team. Something that Wasim cannot hope to match.

Bowling wise Lillee and Marshall cannot bring reverse swing. Something that Imran can.

Think its very well documented that MM could reverse it. In fact MM could do ne thing with the ball tbh. Even if this wasnt the case MM was still the master of in/out swing, leg/off cutters, bouncers, ENg, Aust, NZL, Pak, Ind, etc etc etc The complete fast bowler in every sense.

 

[vcs]

I'm not sure Waqar is clearly a better bowler than Wasim, even though at his peak he was incredible. Reckon Wasim has a more balanced record across the board (esp. Australia) and was much more consistent and steady.