• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Left v.s. Right hand XI's

Blaze

Banned
Pick your all time best lefthanders XI and your all time best righthanders XI.

After you have picked your sides ask yourself Who do you think would win the game?

(tests or ODI's, up to you)
 

C_C

International Captain
What is the limiting timeperiod (if any) ?
current, post 80s, post 70s, post war, alltime ?
 

Slats4ever

International Vice-Captain
great thread... i think it's current...

i don't know many thuogh co si'm not as cricketing "nerdish" as most of u...
 

Blaze

Banned
Um I don't mind if its current or past. Whatever you want. You could even to a current all time and an all time all time
 

C_C

International Captain
current Leftis XI:

Matthew Hayden
Graeme Smith
Brian Lara
Graham Thorpe
Kumar Sangakkara
Saurav Ganguly(capt)
Adam Gillchrist(wkt)
Chaminda Vaas
Daniel Vettori
Irfan Pathan
Ashley Giles

Current Righties XI:

Virender Sehwag
Herschelle Gibbs
Rahul Dravid
Ricky Ponting(capt)
Sachin Tendulkar
Jacques Kallis
Brendan MacCallum(wkt)
Shaun Pollock/Shane Warne*
Jason Gillespie
Muttiah Muralitharan
Glenn McGrath


* : depends on whether you want a savoury Warne-Murali bowling tandem or Pollock's allround capabilities and worldclass bowling abilities to backup McGrath alongside Dizzy.

Note:
I took into consideration career standings and not just current form...for as they say...form is temporary but class is permanent.
I also think that the righties would cream the lefties..... as while the righties have arguably a moderately superior batting lineup, their bowling lineup blows the lefties outta the water.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
I'll throw this out as a Left-handers all-time XI. The third seamer spot is a bit tough, and it was either a not really world-class seamer like Vaas or Reid, or skip the seamer and go for Verity, so I chose the latter.

Justin Langer
Arthur Morris
Graeme Pollock
Brian Lara
Garfield Sobers
Allan Border (c)
Adam Gilchrist (k)
Alan Davidson
Wasim Akram
Derek Underwood
Hedley Verity

12th Man: Bishen Bedi

Bats very, very deep, and a pretty awesome batting lineup even without the depth. The weakness might be the bowling, but Davidson and Akram is a fair opening bowling pair in my view, and Underwood/Verity would be nasty on a wicket that was taking turn.


For right-handers:

Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
Donald Bradman (c)
Walter Hammond
Greg Chappell
Steve Waugh
Alan Knott (k)
Richard Hadlee
Shane Warne
Sydney Barnes
Glenn McGrath

12th Man: Keith Miller

George Headley and Vivian Richards unlucky to miss out for Waugh, but I like picking players in these XIs where they actually batted, so Waugh made it in.


As far as the result goes, I'd tip the righties, but it would be a fair match to see. ;)
The righties do lack a little bit in terms of real bowling firepower (no outright fast bowlers), but that bowling lineup would be pretty much identical to my normal all-time XI (that would have Sobers though), so I'd back it to get the job done. The batting for both sides is absolutely awesome, so I'd back the righties bowlers to do the job.
 
Last edited:

C_C

International Captain
Alltime lefties XI:

Roy Fredericks
Arthur Morris
Brian Lara
Graeme Pollock
Allan Border (capt)
Gary Sobers
Adam Gillchrist(wkt)
Wasim Akram
Alan Davidson
Bishen Bedi
Bruce Reid


Alltime Righties XI:

Sunil Gavaskar
Graham Gooch
Don Bradman
Viv Richards
Sachin Tendulkar
Imran Khan(capt)
Alan Knott(wkt)
Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Muttiah Muralitharan
Glenn McGrath

PS: again i say that the righties will beat the lefties...though this time, it wont be a straightforward walkover.
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
I'd prefer my batsman to use both hands if possible; their respective techniques seem to turn to sh*t otherwise.
 

C_C

International Captain
Remarkably similar Faaip...i dont mind Langer/Freddo switch to be honest....but i would include bruce reid for the lefties, seeing that Sobers can already furnish one spin option...and i think Bedi was a better bowler than Underwood....though derek was deadly on sticky wickets...

But i definately dont see Warne ahead of Murali, Hammond and Tugga ahead of Viv and Sachin....would drop Chappell too since Braddles is two-in-one batsman and i prefer having 5 genuine bowling options in a test if i can....

would substitute Marshall for Barnes and i guess my extra-bowling option would be Imran Khan......

As per batting-specific positions, i dont really care unless its the openers....all the ones picked here are greats anyways and the middle order ones have shuttled around usually with success.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
But i definately dont see Warne ahead of Murali, Hammond and Tugga ahead of Viv and Sachin....would drop Chappell too since Braddles is two-in-one batsman and i prefer having 5 genuine bowling options in a test if i can.... would substitute Marshall for Barnes and i guess my extra-bowling option would be Imran Khan......
Well the Warne/Murali debate has been done to death - suffice to say my pick is Warne. Hammond beats Viv in my view, although it's very close, as is George Headley. I'm happy enough to accept Tendulkar for Waugh, but like the rest of us I have a bit of a bias towards certain styles of play, and Waugh just appeals to me. I'll take fighting spirit against strong opposition over grace and style, and Waugh's performance in the West Indies is simply the greatest individual batting display I have ever seen, perhaps just ahead of Lara's efforts on a few occasions against Australia and of course Laxman's great innings. And given my bias towards such players, Waugh just beats out Tendulkar for me, but it's a fair case either way.

As far as the fifth bowler is concerned, a case can be made for the inclusion of Imran or Miller (Miller was my 12th man), and that would add some genuine fire to the bowling as well. I prefer a 6-4 split most of the time though, and Gilchrist is the only keeper I would really consider a batsman in his own right. Marshall was a great, but Barnes beats him for me.

In your side, I'd pick Chappell over Tendulkar personally, and I can't see how Gooch comes close to Hobbs, who is one of the automatic selections in an all-time XI with Sobers, Gilchrist and Bradman for me.
 
Last edited:

C_C

International Captain
Hammond beats Viv in my view, although it's very close
its not even close IMO. Viv played a quarter more matches than Hammond i think with an average 5-6 pts below and faced infinitely superior bowling.
Viv IMO is in the top 5 batsmen ever category and i think Wisden agrees with me on this one too.

I'll take fighting spirit against strong opposition over grace and style, and Waugh's performance in the West Indies is simply the greatest individual batting display I have ever seen, perhaps just ahead of Lara's efforts on a few occasions against Australia and of course Laxman's great innings.
meh. i think Waugh has a bit more fire in his belly than Tendy but most days tendy upends waugh.


Well the Warne/Murali debate has been done to death - suffice to say my pick is Warne.
you are entitled to your pick but then again, i hope you wont throw in an argument if someone deciedes to pick Waqar over McGrath as a test bowler or Inzamam over Ponting as a test batsman.

Marshall was a great, but Barnes beats him for me
again, i find that absurd. A player who played when the game was totally different, lacking professionalism and consisted of a mix of pro and amatuer players cannot be held at a higher esteem over someone who is at worst amongst the top 5 pacers since WWII and at best arguably the best pacer since WWII

Gilchrist is the only keeper I would really consider a batsman in his own right.
Andy Flower
Andy Flower
Andy Flower

I prefer a 6-4 split most of the time though
fair enough i suppose
Ideally i prefer the 5 batsmen +1 batting allrounder + 1 keeper + 4 bowlers format but in this case since Sir Don is two batsmen rolled into one, i decieded that two bowling allrounders (mind you one with a very respectable 37+ batting ave which was 50+ for the last 50 tests of his) alongside Marshall(who averaged 20 with the bat in tests IIRC) contribute more.
 

C_C

International Captain
and I can't see how Gooch comes close to Hobbs
goochie: played in a professional era with a FAR superior bowling cast faced and an EXCELLENT average(for an opener) against bowling lineups like that of the WI and PAK.
Pretty good against pace, adept against spin.

Hobbs: massed records (his test record isnt all that great mind you- sutcliffe's is better) in an era with highly inconsistent bowling quality, unprofessionalism and far less tested in different conditions.

I actually rate Boycs ahead of Hobbs as well... and ahead of Goochie...but i would prefer a slightly more aggressive batsman than Boycs at the crease....
 

Swervy

International Captain
C_C said:
goochie: played in a professional era with a FAR superior bowling cast faced and an EXCELLENT average(for an opener) against bowling lineups like that of the WI and PAK.
Pretty good against pace, adept against spin.

Hobbs: massed records (his test record isnt all that great mind you- sutcliffe's is better) in an era with highly inconsistent bowling quality, unprofessionalism and far less tested in different conditions.

I actually rate Boycs ahead of Hobbs as well... and ahead of Goochie...but i would prefer a slightly more aggressive batsman than Boycs at the crease....
hehehe...Hobbs, reputedly the greatest batsman ever on dodgy wickets, possibly the greatest opener of all time, being dissed..crazy talk that CC
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
its not even close IMO. Viv played a quarter more matches than Hammond i think with an average 5-6 pts below and faced infinitely superior bowling.
Viv IMO is in the top 5 batsmen ever category and i think Wisden agrees with me on this one too.
It's worth remembering that Hammond faced some pretty good bowling himself. I am willing to accept however that he had his average inflated somewhat by making mammoth scores against substandard teams from India, New Zealand etc during the period of expansion in test cricket. Still, his performances against some great Australian teams and his vital role in the great English teams of the 30s stand him in good stead, as well as the fact that, like Viv, his average looks worse than it should because of a run of outs very late in his career. Before the final couple of series, it was almost 62. Regardless, Viv is undoubtedly an all-time great and an equally valid choice for that spot in my view.

C_C said:
meh. i think Waugh has a bit more fire in his belly than Tendy but most days tendy upends waugh.
Again, perfectly valid choice and I'm happy to admit that my bias towards certain sorts of players has an impact here.

C_C said:
you are entitled to your pick but then again, i hope you wont throw in an argument if someone deciedes to pick Waqar over McGrath as a test bowler or Inzamam over Ponting as a test batsman.
I am not saying I'm not willing to defend my pick, and I am happy to do so and have done so in the past - in conversations with YOU, among others. Hence, I don't want to spam this perfectly decent thread with another murali v warne argument. If you want to have the debate again with me, I'll do it next time the issue itself comes up.

C_C said:
again, i find that absurd. A player who played when the game was totally different, lacking professionalism and consisted of a mix of pro and amatuer players cannot be held at a higher esteem over someone who is at worst amongst the top 5 pacers since WWII and at best arguably the best pacer since WWII
I wouldn't quite put him in my top 5 since WW2 actually. I'd have McGrath, Hadlee, Davidson, Imran and probably Lillee and Holding ahead of him. Ambrose makes a fair case as well. Anyway, Barnes dominated bowling in his era like few ever have, before or since. He was involved in so many advancements of the game in his time that I cannot see how he can not be considered one of the greatest players of all time. The simple fact that Trumper or Grace might struggle a bit in certain elements of the game during the era of professionalism doesn't mean that they don't deserve recognition as the greats that they were, and Barnes is the same. Certainly including Barnes over Marshall is nowhere near the travesty of including Gooch over Hobbs...

C_C said:
Andy Flower
Andy Flower
Andy Flower
Fair call, but he's rarely a candidate for all-time XIs so I didn't think about him. Sangakkara certainly stands on his own as a batsman as well, although not of the same quality as the other two in my view. Les Ames could make a fair case as well.
 

C_C

International Captain
hehehe...Hobbs, reputedly the greatest batsman ever on dodgy wickets, possibly the greatest opener of all time, being dissed..crazy talk that CC
key word: reputedly. I've also heard in may circles that the greatest batsman ever on dodgy wickets was George Headley.
You will find that i have no time for reputations. Cold hard facts alone.
History can be my witness that reputation can be often misleading. Facts cannot be. I am not easily influenced by the aura of an individual but much easily influenced by cold hard facts.

I have said it often enough and i still say it: the only pre 50s/60s batsman i would readily consider in my lineup is bradman. And the only bowlers i would consider are Lindwall, Miller and possibly O'Reiley.
 

Swervy

International Captain
C_C said:
key word: reputedly. I've also heard in may circles that the greatest batsman ever on dodgy wickets was George Headley.
You will find that i have no time for reputations. Cold hard facts alone.
History can be my witness that reputation can be often misleading. Facts cannot be. I am not easily influenced by the aura of an individual but much easily influenced by cold hard facts.

I have said it often enough and i still say it: the only pre 50s/60s batsman i would readily consider in my lineup is bradman. And the only bowlers i would consider are Lindwall, Miller and possibly O'Reiley.
your choice..but it seems a shame that you dismiss almost 100 years of the game at international standard
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
goochie: played in a professional era with a FAR superior bowling cast faced and an EXCELLENT average(for an opener) against bowling lineups like that of the WI and PAK.
Pretty good against pace, adept against spin.
Yes, he was a top quality batsman, but he's not in the same league as Hobbs. Gavaskar, Hutton and perhaps Sutcliffe are the only openers one could reasonably pick ahead of him.

Hobbs and Sutcliffe played together a bit, but they are basically from different eras. By the time Sutcliffe made his test debut, Hobbs was 42 and 16 years into his test career and declining as a player. Hobbs averaged 56 (not all that great, for an opener?!) over his whole career, but over 60 in the first quarter of the 20th century, an effort which nobody else even came close to. The 30s to the 50s is a time renowned for flat wickets (just as our time is now), and averaging over 50 in that period was not the same feat, just as averaging over 50 now is not the same feat as it was from the 70s to the early 90s. Sutcliffe, while an all-time great, took advantage of that while Hobbs retired in 1930 aged 48. Their records are no more comparable in terms of average alone than Richards and Ponting.

And furthermore, Hobbs thrived in the most difficult conditions in which to bat - situations not even possible today in the time of covered wickets. Even Bradman could not match his prowess on a wet pitch.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
I have said it often enough and i still say it: the only pre 50s/60s batsman i would readily consider in my lineup is bradman. And the only bowlers i would consider are Lindwall, Miller and possibly O'Reiley.
What about Hutton? Hobbs? Headley? Hammond? Sutcliffe? McCabe? Harvey? And for the bowlers, what about Larwood, Voce, Grimmett and Barnes?
 

C_C

International Captain
Still, his performances against some great Australian teams and his vital role in the great English teams of the 30s stand him in good stead,
OZ bowling was no great shakes either before the advent of Miller-O'Reliey and Lindwall..usually one great/good bowler surrounded by some alsorans....
Sort of like Indian bowling minus Harbhajan.
But fact remains : far less tested than Viv, faced far infeior cast of bowlers ( this is not a question of how good one or two bowlers from his time was compard to that of Viv's- this is about how many total # of good/great bowlers each faced) and playing in a far more unprofessional era.

I wouldn't quite put him in my top 5 since WW2 actually. I'd have McGrath, Hadlee, Davidson, Imran and probably Lillee and Holding ahead of him. Ambrose makes a fair case as well.
hah

you are one of the few who doesnt rate Marshall in the top 5- i personally rate him as the best pacer ever but there is no way really that mcGrath sneaks in ahead of Marshall...Marshall is McGrath with superior variety and pace and superior success record. Same goes for Davidson...he was a great bowler...but not the awesome strike force that Marshall was....Imran augurs comparison i grant but again, i think Marshall is better...Lillee...well we had the lillee chat before and i dont think Lillee has any business being compared to that echelon.... Hadlee is a perfectly valid comparison and in my top 5 as well.... Ambrose...yes agreed..another perfectly valid comparison.... but Holding doesnt get in ahead...marshall was simply more successful and more consistent than holding.
Not including Marshall in top 5 post WWII pacers ever category is like not including Imran Khan in the top 5 allrounders ever category.

Anyway, Barnes dominated bowling in his era like few ever have, before or since.
Lohmann, Spofforth, etc. all spring to mind, not to mention Grimmett...... Barnes dominated in an era when he was a hardnosed professional amongst few in cricket.

he simple fact that Trumper or Grace might struggle a bit in certain elements of the game during the era of professionalism doesn't mean that they don't deserve recognition as the greats that they were
Can you give me one good reason why Trumper is considered greater than Ranjitsinhji or FS Jackson apart from 'on reputation' ?
As far as i've read, the whole hulabaloo about Trumper was his highly attractive strokeplay... a bit like Mark Waugh of his days i suppose.

But anyways..like i said, why dont you try competing in the top company in the world and see how much of a 'bigshot' you can become and then try it in a company that is some hardnosed professionals mixed with grad students and new professionals....

Or try playing soccer against the Brazil national team and then try it with 5 players from your local team + 6 from the Brazil team....

same case with Barnes and stats in those eras....the real professional ones have absurdly ridiculous numbers because not everyone in those era were professionals and its like wolves amonst sheep....butcher the kiddos.

Fair call, but he's rarely a candidate for all-time XIs so I didn't think about him
thats what 'reputation' does to you. Mass opinion and logical thinking are two totally different avenues.
While he is a bit worse than Gillchrist with the glovework, he is definately a comparable batsman...yet Gilly's name is bandied around dime a dozen whilst no one mentions Andy...
 

Top