Ranking the Cricinfo All-Time XIs

[bagapath]

No way Mcgrath is significantly
And how is Lillee more capable of running thru a lineup when Garner has a better average, Sr and Econ.??

Lillee averaged 5 wickets per test. and he took 23 five wicket hauls. garner was more of a shock bowler capable of taking 2- 3 quick wickets. read derek pringle's essay on him the "my favorite cricketer" section in cricinfo. lillee was always the spearhead, on the other hand.

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 .

o'reilly bowled in a different era when the SR of all bowlers was higher. for a spinner to get his wickets under 12 overs was a big deal. he took 5 wickets per test and also averaged less than holding despite being a spinner, due to his superior economy rate. it is stupid to compare a spinner and a fast bowler especially from two different eras. but oreilly in my books is a superior test match bowler than holding.

between ambrose and mcgrath i would prefer mcgrath because he bowled well into the batsman friendly era of the new millennium and still managed to maintain his standards, in fact he kept on improving. there is no gap in his resume, as in the case of ambrose viz a viz his record against india, that would weaken his case. ambrose is a top 10 fast bowler of all time. mcgrath is in the top 5.

 

[Slifer]

Lillee averaged 5 wickets per test. and he took 23 five wicket hauls. garner was more of a shock bowler capable of taking 2- 3 quick wickets. read derek pringle's essay on him the "my favorite cricketer" section in cricinfo. lillee was always the spearhead, on the other hand.



o'reilly bowled in a different era when the SR of all bowlers was higher. for a spinner to get his wickets under 12 overs was a big deal. he took 5 wickets per test and also averaged less than holding despite being a spinner due to his superior economy rate. it is stupid to compare a spinner and a fast bowler especially from two different eras. but oreilly in my books is a superior test match bowler than holding.

between ambrose and mcgrath i would prefer mcgrath because he bowled well into the batsman friendly era of the new millennium and still managed to maintain his standards, in fact he kept on improving. there is no gap in his resume, as in the case of ambrose viz a viz his record against india, that would weaken his case. ambrose is a top 10 fast bowler of all time. mcgrath is in the top 5.

Its ez to b a spear head when ur the only class bowler in ur team. U for get who Garner had to compete wih for wickets. And its not "stupid" comparing spinners to fast bowlers, u were the one who chose to compare them side by side last time i check. there both bowlers with similar goals ie to take wickets fast and at a reasonable rate. Also Amby may have a poor record vs India but Amcrgaths record in PAkistan, at home to Nzl and vs RSa is nothing to write home about. His record is far from complete.

Point is with Garner in the WI attack theres nothing to chose between a Wi all time attack and an Oz attack< Oz has balance and is probably more rounded but Wi has far more fire power and intimidation/

 

[aussie]

I disagree with all the cricinfo panel selections TBF. They seem to be placing too much emphasis on each team picking 5 bowlers for example, which i find quite poor (Sri Lanka All-time for eg). Which makes you wonder are they picking these with the notion of them actually playing each other in hypotetical match-ups?. Or has this entire exercise just been a bit of "Hall of Fame XI" selection to put on your wall.

 

[Slifer]

I dont know about some of the other teams but I can safely say that the WI team was chosen cant be a hall of fame ne thing. Nor could they have chosen the best team to face other hypothetical XIs. At the risk of beating a deads horse Lance Gibbs and Hendricks???? Balance in a bowling attack is all good and well if one has that option (Warne, Murali, Underwood, Laker), otherwise i opt for the most effective attack

Jus for kicks sake:

All time XI

Hunte > Haynes
Greenidge > Fredricks
Headley > Kanhai
Viv > = Weekes
Lara > LLoyd
Sobers > Worrell
Hendricks+ << Walcott+
Marshall > Roberts
Holding > Bishop
Ambrose = Garner
Gibbs <<Walsh/Croft/Hall

Would give team B a very good chance of beating our so called all time team and that shouldnt be

 

[Himannv]

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.

Why? Walcott wasn't said to be a particularly good keeper and from most descriptions struggled with keeping and resulted in back injuries. West Indies dont need the extra batsman with the likes of Viv, Headley, Lara and Sobers in their lineup. Sobers comes in as late as 6. Might well have a pure keeper.

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.

Considering that Gibbs is picked in the side, Hendricks is probably a very savvy pick. He's said to be the best pure keeper against spin. Dujon is a fair call but I'd say he would have been a better choice only if Garner was picked ahead of Gibbs.

Deryck Murray is a fair choice as well IMO.

 

[bagapath]

Its ez to b a spear head when ur the only class bowler in ur team. U for get who Garner had to compete wih for wickets. And its not "stupid" comparing spinners to fast bowlers, u were the one who chose to compare them side by side last time i check.

dude... i am calling everyone, including myself, stupid for comparing a spinner with a pacer. am sure you will see the grin on my face if you drop the aggro stand for a second. i am having fun with this discussion. you should, too.

in my west indies all time xi jeff dujon would always be the first choice. kept wickets like a panther for the greatest fast bowlers from the Caribbean; was no slouch with the bat either.

 

[bagapath]

Point is with Garner in the WI attack theres nothing to chose between a Wi all time attack and an Oz attack< Oz has balance and is probably more rounded but Wi has far more fire power and intimidation/

well... garner is not in the team anyways. but an attack consisting of lillee, mcgrath, oreilly, warne and miller can never be bettered, even if you replace gibbs witth garner in the WI lineup. never ever understimate the power of good spin bowling in test cricket. with oreilly and warne bowling in tandem, as you have said so yourself, the aussie bowling lineup is a very well rounded attack. it can take 20 wickets anywhere and against any opponent.

 

[bagapath]

Its ez to b a spear head when ur the only class bowler in ur team. U for get who Garner had to compete wih for wickets.

disagree. marshall was the spearhead of the west indian juggernaut from 82 till 89. then ambrose took over from him and led a different pack of wolves till 95. they always had two other great fast bowlers competing for the spoils; holding and garner with marshall. or walsh and bishop with ambrose. sometimes a good fourth bowler would also join the fun; a patterson or a benjamin or a young walsh before he attained greatness or a gracefully fading malcolm marshall when ambrose became the leader. still marshall and ambrose, with other greats bowling with them, frequently took five fers and ten fers. they clearly were the primus inter pares in teams full of fast bowling geniuses. so it is not a rule that only a lone gun slinger could be the spearhead.

it is a fact that garner played second fiddle throughout his career, first to holding and roberts and then to marshall and holding. he was a great fast bowler but there is no doubt in my mind that he was leagues behind dennis lillee who led his attack from his debut till retirement. lillee did not become the spearhead because there was no one to compete with him. his case is not similar to kapil's. kapil was india's spearhead by default. lillee, on the other hand, was australia's spearhead because he was a world beater and he consistently kept his team on top bowling out oppositions on his own. i am not saying this looking at the stats. i followed a lot of these careers live.

 

[smash84]

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.

Agreed.

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.

You must be forgetting the test matches against Australia where Lara singlehandedly won matches batting with tail-enders. His batting with tail-enders is the stuff of legends. Are you suggesting that Lara was not as good at managing the tail???

 

[Migara]

Cricinfo SL XI was a disgrace. Should have been something like this.

Marvan Atapattu, Sanath Jayasuriya, Kumar Sangakkara, Aravinda de Silva, Mahela Jayawardane*, Mahadevan Sathasivam, Brendon Kuruppu+, Ravindran Rathanayke, Chaminda Vaas, Lasith Malinga, Muralitharan

That will be some long - long batting order, with some fire power from Vaas, Malinga and Murali.

 

[bagapath]

You must be forgetting the test matches against Australia where Lara singlehandedly won matches batting with tail-enders. His batting with tail-enders is the stuff of legends. Are you suggesting that Lara was not as good at managing the tail???

lara was very very good with the tail. miandad was better. but border was the best.

also, border's superior overseas record is not something that can be taken lightly.

 

[Himannv]

Cricinfo SL XI was a disgrace. Should have been something like this.

Marvan Atapattu, Sanath Jayasuriya, Kumar Sangakkara, Aravinda de Silva, Mahela Jayawardane*, Mahadevan Sathasivam, Brendon Kuruppu+, Ravindran Rathanayke, Chaminda Vaas, Lasith Malinga, Muralitharan

That will be some long - long batting order, with some fire power from Vaas, Malinga and Murali.

Personally would have Roy Dias or Samaraweera ahead of Sathasivam though.

 

[Furball]

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.

Border's massively underappreciated.

To score the volume of runs that he did, at the average he did, in the team that he did and against the attacks that he did is the hallmark of a very, very fine batsman. The only weaknesses in his record are against South Africa - whom he faced at the very fag end of his career, and the West Indies at home - however to achieve an average of 53 in the West Indies in the era in question is a feat not to be sniffed at.

He may not have had the grace of Chappel or Lara or the intimidation factor of Sir Viv, but he was a very fine Test batsman who in my opinion deserves to stand on the same podium as the other greats of his era.

 

[subshakerz]

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 .

Would take Ambrose at his best in the early to mid 90s over McGrath at his best. He was accurate like McGrath but had an extra gear of pace that made him more intimidating to face. Overall, though, McGrath wins out by a slight margin.

 

[subshakerz]

All time XI

Hunte > Haynes
Greenidge > Fredricks
Headley > Kanhai
Viv > = Weekes
Lara > LLoyd
Sobers > Worrell
Hendricks+ << Walcott+
Marshall > Roberts
Holding > Bishop
Ambrose = Garner
Gibbs <<Walsh/Croft/Hall

Would give team B a very good chance of beating our so called all time team and that shouldnt be

No, the first team A is still notably superior to the first. The only reason that the second team is competitive is because of the wealth of talent the WI has. I believe team B could comfortably beat the all-time teams of India, NZ and Sri Lanka, and perhaps Pakistan.

By the way, Ambrose is > to Garner, all things considered.

 

[Teja.]

Yeah, completely agree with GF. Border has to be the most under-appreciated Batsman ever. Has a very genuine claim to be the second greatest batsman of all-time.

 

[Slifer]

well... garner is not in the team anyways. but an attack consisting of lillee, mcgrath, oreilly, warne and miller can never be bettered, even if you replace gibbs witth garner in the WI lineup. never ever understimate the power of good spin bowling in test cricket. with oreilly and warne bowling in tandem, as you have said so yourself, the aussie bowling lineup is a very well rounded attack. it can take 20 wickets anywhere and against any opponent.

If I came off as heated Im apologise but everytime i see the name Henricks in our all time Xi and Gibbs it just gets under my skin. Ne ay the all time OZ attack would likely take 20 wkts in most countries except notably the WI and India (for obvious reasons)

 

[vic_orthdox]

Personally don't think there's any issue with Australia's attack taking 20 wickets, it's more whether they'd manage to do it while making more runs than their opposition. Especially in the Windies.

 

[Slifer]

Not in India with two spinners and with only two pacers with ne experience of playing in India. Same applies for the WI, grounds are much smaller and completely unresponsive to spinners, better off taking ur chances with pacers.

 

[aussie]

Yeah, completely agree with GF. Border has to be the most under-appreciated Batsman ever. Has a very genuine claim to be the second greatest batsman of all-time.

No he doesn't. The batsmen who have legitimate claims of being second best after The Don are Sobers, Richards, Tendy mainly.