Ranking the Cricinfo All-Time XIs

[G.I.Joe]

Lara>Richards>Chappell>Border imo.

 

[Matt79]

Richards> (just)Chappell > Lara > Border IMO.

 

[Fusion]

Richards> (just)Chappell > Lara > Border IMO.

AWTMatt.

 

[Slifer]

Victor Trumper = Gordon Greenidge
Arthur Morris = Conrad Hunte
Don Bradman > George Headley
Greg Chappell = Viv Richards
Allan Border = Brian Lara
Keith Miller < Garry Sobers in batting; Miller > Sobers in bowling
Adam Gilchrist > Jackie Hendriks
Shane Warne > Lance Gibbs
Bill O'Reilly > = Michael Holding
Dennis Lillee > = Curtly Ambrose
Glenn McGrath = < Malcolm Marshall

bowling: on most of the days lillee, mcgrath and oreilly = marshall, holding and ambrose; warne > gibbs and miller > sobers. advantage australia

wk: australia

batting: trumper, morris, chappell, border = greenidge, hunte, richards, lara. sobers > miller. and bradman + miller = headley + sobers. but gilchrist > hendriks. advantage australia

fielding: aus = wi

Agree somewhat with ur assesment which is why if the selextors had opted for Walcott and Garner the assesment would have been alot closer. Actually Ive chosen to ignore their selections and put in the two players (seriously Jackie Hendricks!!!):

Hunte = Arthur Morris
Greenidge = Trumper
Headley< Bradman
Viv = Chappel
Lara > = Border
Sobers > Miller batting wise; < bowling wise
Walcott+ = Gilchrist
Marshall > Warne
Holding = Oreilley
Garner = Lillee
Ambrose = Mcgrath

Batting Oz: but by a much smaller margin than b4
Bowling: Even if u ask me. Balance be damned
Fielding: Equal

Overall: advantage OZ but by a much smaller gap than b4, in fact on their day Wi could prove the better team

 

[0RI0N]

Lara>Richards = Chappell>Border imo.

GS Chappell(or The Punter), The best since Bradman...he really was that good.
Funny that he never played a Test in India against Chandra and Bedi.

 

[Slifer]

Best batsman since Bradman or best Oz batsman since the Don?

 

[bagapath]

Marshall > Warne

Sure, yes,

Holding = Oreilley

I don't see how. But probably possible.

Garner = Lillee

I would always put lillee ahead of garner. more capable running through a batting line up (equivalent of a double century scoring batsman more devastating on his day than a cameo specialist) than big bird.

Ambrose = Mcgrath

No. I love ambrose. but pigeon was significantly better than him. amby's SR was lower and he had such a bad record against india . mcgrath had a bettter SR in a batsman friendly era and he was a champ against all teams.

 

[bagapath]

Lara>Richards>Chappell>Border imo.

For all practical purposes in an all time XI, Richards = Chappell = Border = Lara

 

[G.I.Joe]

For all practical purposes in an all time XI, Richards = Chappell = Border = Lara

Can't see why you would object to Lara being placed higher if you have Lillee ahead of Garner, considering the principle you have employed in the latter.

 

[subshakerz]

For all practical purposes in an all time XI, Richards = Chappell = Border = Lara

Don't think the difference between great batsmen is really that much, perhaps Border though may be considered not on the level as the other three.

 

[Himannv]

not so easy, mate. whatever case you can build to defend your position please remember that there is as strong a case for chappell, border > richards, lara. better to treat the two pairs as absolute equals. i am not comfortable with any other equation concerning these four champions.

Totally missed this post. I wont bother with stats, just going to base it on what I've seen. For me Viv and Lara were better than Chappell and Border.

Agreed, Pakistan's batting simply is not on the same level, but SA is better for me on every level.

Debatable primarily due to the limited amount of test cricket some of the SA team has played. I think they have a very balanced and underrated side but I wouldn't say they are comfortably ahead of England.

Think when I've ranked them previously, I've had England as high as 3. But that was with my XI, and maybe it was Pietersen and Larwood that put me off. No disrespect to either, both top drawer players, but they make the team weaker than my XI, and I probably punished them for that here.

Agree about Pietersen. For me Compton should have been in his place.

Larwood is a different story. I think he's better than what the numbers indicate if his FC performances are anything to go by. I think he's a top notch strike bowler and him bowling in tandem with Trueman sounds like an intimidating combination. Obviously Barnes is no slouch either.

 

[Matt79]

Agree somewhat with ur assesment which is why if the selextors had opted for Walcott and Garner the assesment would have been alot closer. Actually Ive chosen to ignore their selections and put in the two players (seriously Jackie Hendricks!!!):

Hunte = Arthur Morris
Greenidge = Trumper
Headley< Bradman
Viv = Chappel
Lara > = Border
Sobers > Miller batting wise; < bowling wise
Walcott+ = Gilchrist
Marshall > Warne
Holding = Oreilley
Garner = Lillee
Ambrose = Mcgrath

Batting Oz: but by a much smaller margin than b4
Bowling: Even if u ask me. Balance be damned
Fielding: Equal

Overall: advantage OZ but by a much smaller gap than b4, in fact on their day Wi could prove the better team

Except Walcott with the gloves on was a far inferior player to Walcott without the gloves. If he's keeping, he's not a better batsman than Gilchrist.

 

[smash84]

True that

Viv and Lara > Chappell and Border

Agreed. Viv and Lara IMO are greater match winners than Chappell and Border. Well, to be fair I must say that I have not seen much of Chappel to comment on his skills. Apparently he was very very good. BUT in this inequality Border is the weaker link for Australia.

 

[GotSpin]

Windies may have an edge in batting numbers wise, but I think Bradman easily overcomes any slight advantage that the Windies may hold in the batting

 

[smash84]

Don't think the difference between great batsmen is really that much, perhaps Border though may be considered not on the level as the other three.

I reiterate once again that Border is not in the same class as Lara, Chappel, or Richards.

By the way after Australia who has the best bowling attack? It looks like Pakistan or Windies to me but my opinion might be a bit biased because I have not seen much of the South African attack or the English attack. Any one to shed more light on this???

 

[Slifer]

Except Walcott with the gloves on was a far inferior player to Walcott without the gloves. If he's keeping, he's not a better batsman than Gilchrist.

Oh yes I Know that he averaged in the 40s as a keeper but I'd take that ne day over Hendricks who played 20 tests and averaged 18.

 

[Slifer]

Sure, yes,



I don't see how. But probably possible.



I would always put lillee ahead of garner. more capable running through a batting line up (equivalent of a double century scoring batsman more devastating on his day than a cameo specialist) than big bird.



No. I love ambrose. but pigeon was significantly better than him. amby's SR was lower and he had such a bad record against india . mcgrath had a bettter SR in a batsman friendly era and he was a champ against all teams.

No way Mcgrath is significantly better than Ambrose. Amby has a better average and econ and its not like there is a big diff in their Sr. And so what Amby has a bad record vs India Mcgrath was not universally great (only MM comes close to that.)

And how is Lillee more capable of running thru a lineup when Garner has a better average, Sr and Econ.??

And as for Oreilley vs Holding I hope ur not trying to say that Oreilley > Holding since by ur measure that would be laughable since Oreilleys Sr of 70 is much poorer than holdings .

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'm not convinced that you can have a keeper who did it for only a third of the Tests that he played as your wicketkeeper in an all time side.

 

[Slifer]

Against ne other all time team I might be able to get away with that but vs OZ Im gong with Walcott at the very least Dujon but sure as hell not Hendricks. Walcott kept in neary as many games as hendricks played btw.

 

[bagapath]

I reiterate once again that Border is not in the same class as Lara, Chappel, or Richards.

you can say you prefer the other three to border; me, too, to be honest. and it is simply because i prefer flair to grit.

but saying he doesnt belong in the same class is unfair. have you taken a look at allan border's overseas record? and have you compared that with lara's? border was consistency personified throughout his career. he performed creditably in every country he toured. faced all sorts of bowling with great success. and he was the master of managing the tail. lara belongs more, in comparison with allan, in the all or nothing category. his overseas record is comparatively poorer to his stellar home record. he never did well in india. but i am not going to hold it against brian to denigrate him. similarly richards didnt do well in new zealand and was not too hot against pakistan either. despite these flaws i can point out, i think they all belong in one category. because they were the mainstays of whichever teams they played in and the best bowlers in the opposition regularly lost sleep plotting to get their wickets.

assuming we make a combined team of the aussie and west indian all time XIs we have on hand, nos 3,6 and 7 in the middle order can be chosen without too much discussion. after you do that, how can anyone say a batting line up of bradman, chappell, border, sobers and gilchrist is significanlty inferior (or superior) to a batting line up of bradman, richards, lara, sobers and gilchrist? there is really nothing between these four guys.